Is there a rule that doesn't allow adjustment during the opponents time? While playing a tournament, I adjusting my pieces several times during my opponent's time. He claimed a win for the same. Can anyone explain how this rule works and why is it there?

I think this FIDE rules section explains that:

  Article 6.2

  d. Only the player whose clock is running is allowed to adjust the
  pieces.

According to Article 4.2, a player should announce "j’adoube" (I adjust) before adjusting pieces on the board, providing only the player having the move may adjust one or more pieces on their squares (i.e. player in turn with clock still running).

In actual games usually the arbiter only issues verbal warning about adjusting pieces only in respective player's turn. But keep in mind you should avoid distracting the opponent, i.e. obstructing their view on the board when it's opponent's turn to make a move, since Article 4.8 applies if a player decides repeating disruptive behavior from his/her opponent, without announcing to adjust the pieces first:

  A player forfeits his right to claim against his opponent’s violation
  of Articles 4.1 – 4.7 once the player touches a piece with the
  intention of moving or capturing it.

Related issue:

Adjusting in ones turn only


ChessBase Tactics Database I was sent a database of over 3000 mate-in-2 puzzles; however, most of them (almost 2200 of them) only have the first move provided as a solution.  I am hoping that I will not have to go back and add the variations for the second move manually.  Is there a way to have ChessBase add the rest of the analysis?  I was hoping the Tactical Analysis would do this, but it just checks the first move and says "yep, it is the best one" without providing the variations.

The Deep Analysis option does this, however, it takes forever, and you have to do each game/problem one at a time. Sorry to say, that it probably is not worth it, but it does add in most, if not all, the subvariations. Sorry, I do not have better news, but I do not think there is an easy way for you.

This is just for reference on how to use ChessBase Tactical Analysis on a large number of games, but here is that.

First, open the database. I am not sure how well this will work with 3000 games, so you may have to break them up by 100's, but you can test that yourself.

Now, once the database is open, click on the first game you want, and hold the Shift key down while selecting the last game you want. That should highlight many games.

Right click on them, and select "Tactical Analysis". Once the box comes up, set the following: Time for 1 second, Coarse, Store Evaluations, and deselect "Erase old annotations" and training. "Replace" should be selected. Replace saves the new analysis.


What book should I refer to to begin learning chess? I'm a highschool student and want to play chess seriously. A friend of mine taught me the basic rules of the game. What book should I refer to to begin learning chess?

I tried Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals but got stuck in the first chapter due to notations, I did not quite understand what 1K-K7 and things like those meant.

I'd love if you could give me an ordered list of books I can read :)

Learn Chess by John Nunn. A highly respected chess author. Do not be put off by the title!

Silman's Complete Endgame Course by Jeremy Silman. A modern classic, improvement in the endgame will improve your whole game, I should recommend studying up to the Part Five then saving the rest for later.

Tactics Time! by Tim Brennan and Anthea Carson. Tactics is an essential part of chess improvement.

How to Reassess Your Chess by Jeremy Silman. A challenging book but a good study of it will leave a permanent mark on you.

I believe that intense study of these four books will yield very good results for you. I recommend studying them in the order

Learn Chess
Tactics Time!
Silman's Endgame Course
How to Reassess Your Chess

The most important thing to do is to keep playing, once you have studied these books and feel that your level of play is better, check out Dan Heisman's Book Recommendations for further reference

Edit: Post RemcoGerlich's comment I have decided to change Build up Your Chess 1: The Fundamentals to How to Reassess your Chess as I realized that the Yusupov book is actually quite challenging and less approachable than Silman's. Although it should still be recommended for when your level of play is higher.


What are the rules of blindfold chess? Forcing players to maintain a mental model of the positions of the pieces by using blindfolds seems interesting, but I've been unable to find any official rules for playing blindfold chess.

What are the rules for playing?

These were the rules for the 2006 Amber blindfold tournament with many super-GMs participating:

  Rules of play

  Rules for the blindfold games

  Play will be governed by the FIDE Laws of Chess, except where they are overridden by the following rules.
  Players are not allowed to record the moves.
  At the start of the game each player has twenty-five minutes on his clock. Before a player makes his move twenty seconds will be added to
  his remaining time.
  The computer clock marks the end of the time-control period.
  The monitor will show the players when the same position has appeared on the board three times or that the "50 moves rule" can be
  applied. In this case either player has the right to claim a draw.
  If a player makes an illegal move, the monitor will display the message: "Illegal move, make another move". In this case there is no
  need for additional action by the player.
  If a player needs the assistance of the arbiter, he may call the arbiter. The arbiter will in this case interrupt the game;
  interrupting of the game takes about 5 seconds. In this situation the
  players may not leave the playing area of the playing hall and may not
  watch the position on the monitors.
  Players, who leave the playing area without permission of the arbiter, will lose the game immediately.

  Regulations in case of computer breakdown

  After a computer breakdown, it is forbidden to speak to anybody except the arbiter.
  The games will be continued on empty boards in the two playing halls and, if three games are in progress, also in a room of the
  hotel.
  The time will be controlled using the Fischer clock; the time will be transferred as accurately as possible from the computer system to
  the Fischer clock. 25 seconds extra will be added for each move
  (instead of 20 seconds).
  Two persons will control the game; the arbiter will write the moves down on a scoresheet, which is hidden from the players, and operate
  the clock. The assistant will play the moves on a pocket set, which is
  hidden from the players. The arbiter will check the intended move for
  legality, and if it is legal he will operate the clock and then write
  the move on the scoresheet. Note: it is possible that it takes a few
  seconds for the arbiter to check the move and press the clock, but in
  any case the time taken is not more than for the player to enter the
  move on the computer.
  The players shall show their moves on the empty board by pointing to the start and destination square of the move they intend to make;
  at the same time, they will speak the move aloud. If the move spoken
  differs from the move indicated on the board, then the arbiter shall
  say, "What do you mean?"
  If a player makes an illegal move, then the arbiter will say "Illegal move" and he will not push the clock. For example, if a
  player says "Rook takes d6" and the move is not a capture, then the
  arbiter will say "Illegal move", or if the player shows d1-d6 on the
  board and says "Queen d6", but the piece on d1 is actually a rook,
  then the arbiter will again say "Illegal move".

SOURCE: ChessBase News, 2006


Why did the (Black) computer play 9. ... Ke7 here? Not having played chess in ~5 years, I started playing against the computer on my phone at ELO~800 (I've since reached ~900). I do not know what engine the app uses (Chess for iPhone by Mastersoft Ltd).

In my most recent game, which I ended up winning, the computer (Black) played what looked to me like an odd move (9. ...Ke7).

I'm wondering if anyone can shed some insight into this particular move. Why play it?

[fen ""]

1. d4 e6 2. h4 Be7 3. Bf4 Bxh4 4. e3 Qf6 5. Bc4 Nc6 6. Nf3 Na5 7. Bb5 Qd8 8. Nxh4 g6 9. Qd3 Ke7

For the curious, the full game is

[fen ""]

1. d4 e6 2. h4 Be7 3. Bf4 Bxh4 4. e3 Qf6 5. Bc4 Nc6 6. Nf3 Na5 7. Bb5 Qd8 8. Nxh4 g6 9. Qd3 Ke7 10. Qa3+ c5 11. Qxc5+ Ke8 12. Bd3 Qb6 13. Qe5 f6 14. Qe4 Qxb2 15. O-O Kf8 16. Nd2 Ke7 17. d5 d6 18. Qa4 e5 19. Qxa5 Kf7 20. Qc7+ Kf8 21. Nc4 Qb4 22. Rad1 exf4 23. exf4 Bg4 24. Rde1 Qb5 25. Qxd6+ Kg7 26. Na3 Qd7 27. Qc5 Rd8 28. Nc4 a6 29. f3 Qc8 30. Qa5 Bd7 31. Nd6 Qb8 32. Nf7 h6 33. Nxh8 Kxh8 34. Nxg6+ Kh7 35. Re7+ Nxe7 36. Nxe7+ Kh8 37. Qc3 Qd6 38. Nf5 Qf8 39. d6 Bxf5 40. Bxf5 Rxd6 41. Qb3 Kg7 42. Qxb7+ Kh8 43. Qh7#

The answer to your question is that there is no good reason to play this move. I plugged the position before Ke7 into StockFish on lichess. At depth 27, StockFish gives the position a +6.3 for white. After Ke7, the analysis jumps to +10.8 for white. Ke7 is a blunder.

StockFish aside, the only thing that this move does do is remove the pin placed by the white Bishop on the f-pawn. A better move to accomplish this goal (and indeed the one that StockFish suggests in this position) is a6.

This computer program is set to play generally poor moves - the 800 rating of the computer indicates that the computer is almost playing randomly - playing any better would increase its rating.

Note: I analyzed the position with SF (and mentally) because I didn't just want to tell the OP that the computer was playing poorly [it is, but that wouldn't make a good stand-alone answer IMO].


Why is it better to capture the f pawn? Yesterday I reached this position:

[fen "rnbqk1nr/ppp3bp/3pp1p1/5p2/2PPP3/2N2N2/PP3PPP/R1BQKB1R w - - 0 1"]

1. Bg5 (1. exf5)

White to play, I played Bg5.
Lichess told me in the analysis that was inaccurate although latter on, it pointed this move out as one of the best moves.
At first, he recommends me to move exf5 in the 6th move and in the next moves for White.
I would like to know why it is convenient to make this capture since I do not see any benefits in capturing this pawn at any time.
The link of the game is: https://lichess.org/PyqeZZnQ/white#10

If the black captures in return (there's not much choice for black), you either get an open vertical e or a nasty attack on the black King by Qh5+ and so on.

But don't worry. Bg5 is also not so bad move =)


How was the Candidate chosen for 1927, and why not sooner? Wikipedia has a tiny article for the 1927 World Chess Championship. For the World Chess Championship article in general, it has very little to say about the 1927 one:

Following the controversies surrounding his 1921 match against Lasker, in 1922 world champion Capablanca proposed the "London Rules": the first player to win six games would win the match; playing sessions would be limited to 5 hours; the time limit would be 40 moves in 2½ hours; the champion must defend his title within one year of receiving a challenge from a recognized master; the champion would decide the date of the match; the champion was not obliged to accept a challenge for a purse of less than US$10,000 (about $140,000 in current terms); 20% of the purse was to be paid to the title holder, and the remainder being divided, 60% going to the winner of the match, and 40% to the loser; the highest purse bid must be accepted. Alekhine, Bogoljubov, Maróczy, Réti, Rubinstein, Tartakower and Vidmar promptly signed them.

The only match played under those rules was Capablanca vs Alekhine in 1927, although there has been speculation that the actual contract might have included a "two-game lead" clause. Alekhine, Rubinstein and Nimzowitsch had all challenged Capablanca in the early 1920s but only Alekhine could raise the US$10,000 Capablanca demanded and only in 1927.

I bolded the main relevant points, but I still don't understand how the 1927 WCC worked.
First of all, it lists Alekhine, Bogoljubov, Maróczy, Réti, Rubinstein, Tartakower and Vidmar, but it doesn't say how the candidates tourney was organized or how it went. How was the candidate chosen? And when? Was it some round robin format?
Second of all, I still don't understand why this was delayed until 1927. Capablanca became champ in 1921. It says only Alekhine could raise the money but that leaves out some information, to say the least. Weren't the other candidates involved somehow for the candidates tourney and surely must have been able to raise something?
I realize ofc this is the Pre-FIDE era, but surely there are better records than this for the WCC?
I did find a little more info on a chessentials article.

During the London Tournament, Capablanca and Rubinstein agreed their potential match would take place only in 1923. However, it was precisely due to the „Golden Wall“ rule that their match never took place; Rubinstein was simply unable to collect this enormous sum of money.

Neither were Capablanca’s next challengers – Marshall in 1923 and Nimzowitsch in 1926 able to do so. Alekhine was also unable to find financial backers until 1926 when Argentine Chess Federation offered to sponsor the match. Capablanca agreed to the match, but only if Nimzowitsch, whose challenge was pending at a time, would be unable to raise the funds until January 1, 1927. Nimzowitsch was unable to do so, and Alekhine – Capablanca 1927 match was finally agreed.

So apparently Rubenstein was the first candidate, then Marshall, then Nimzowitsch. However, it's still not explaining how those were chosen, or how the Candidates Tourney was played out.
...Was there no Candidates Tourney at all back then?

How was the candidate chosen?

Very simple. Money. The first to raise the $10,000 stake.

And when?

As soon as possible.

Was it some round robin format?

No. First to put $10,000 on the table gets to play the match.

Was there no Candidates Tourney at all back then?

Correct
This is explicitly stated in the Wikipedia article you reference:

From 1886 to 1946, the champion set the terms, requiring any challenger to raise a sizable stake and defeat the champion in a match in order to become the new world champion


How to avoid an overly cluttered board in the opening? As a beginner playing against other beginners, I find that around moves 8-10 the centre of the board gets quite cluttered. I have a hard time finding good places to put my pieces and improve my position, they get in one another's way, and I often find my opponent threatening my pieces with mere pawns, forcing me into awkward moves I don't want to make.

I realise that part of this comes down to choice of opening, and perhaps I haven't read enough and played enough to get a better sense for which openings/defences lead to more open or closed games.  I know there are literally hundreds of questions about openings for beginners (e.g. here, here, here, or here), however I'm still not sure which general features of openings tend to lead to more or less cluttered boards.

That said, what I'd really like to know is this: is a cluttered board, or a feeling of being cramped also a sign I am trying to develop too many pieces too quickly, or that I am being too hesitant to exchange pawns and pieces in the opening, or even just of a lack of imagination on my part, or anything else along these lines?

This happens both when I play with white and black.  Typically with white I play e4, with black I'm less settled, though I favour ...e5.

Thanks in advance for any answers.

edit: Here is a sample opening.  It's perhaps not wholly representative that there are no exchanges, but it's not surprising either.  Beware: beginners playing here

[FEN ""]
1. e4 e6 2. Nf3 c5 3. Nc3 a6 4. b3 Nc6 5. Bc4 Nf6 6. d3 d6 7. O-O Bd7 8. Be3 Be7

I find that around moves 8-10 the centre of the board gets quite cluttered.

Typically (exceptions occur) around moves 8-10 you should have completed your development: you should have moved all or most minor pieces (i.e. ca 4-6 moves), should have moved a few pawns to occupy the center and to make space for developing the bishops (ca. 3-5 moves) and have castled (one move).

Yes, pieces and pawns tend to "clutter" in the center because it is an important part of the board and if you control the center you often have an advantage. This cluttering is not a bad thing and should affect both players equally.

  I have a hard time finding good places to put my pieces and improve my position, they get in one another's way, and I often find my opponent threatening my pieces with mere pawns, forcing me into awkward moves I don't want to make.

Because there is so much going on in the center, there are often tactics available, particularly in more open positions. So studying tactics is highly recommended for a beginner (and also advanced) player. Closed positions tend to be quieter and are better if you like slow, maneuvering kind of games.

In either case, if you have completed development, (which you should around move 8-10), it is time for the middlegame and you should come up with a plan on how to proceed and also consider the plans of your opponent and if necessary prevent them. Finding plans is not something easy to learn and requires time and experience. I would recommend to start with analyzing the position and to check:

Are any pieces (mine or opponent) attacked?
Are there obvious tactics available?
Which pieces are well placed (lots of space to move around and attack something) and which not (little space to move and don't attack anything)?
Is the king safe? Typically with many pieces on the board you want it behind pawns on either side after castling.
Are there any weaknesses in the position such as isolated pawns?
Who owns the center?
Are there open or half-open files which are occupied or can be occupied by rooks?
Is the position open or rather closed? Who would benefit from changing it?

Check all of these items for both sides (you and your opponent). Based on the outcome of this evaluation you should come up with a plan. I ordered the questions in order of importance (exceptions occur), e.g. usually you want to deal with attacked pieces (if you lose/win material) first, before thinking of anything else.

  I realise that part of this comes down to choice of opening, and perhaps I haven't read enough and played enough to get a better sense for which openings/defences lead to more open or closed games
   is a cluttered board, or a feeling of being cramped also a sign I am trying to develop too many pieces too quickly, or that I am being too hesitant to exchange pawns and pieces in the opening, or even just of a lack of imagination on my part, or anything else along these lines?

I don't think your problem is really related to open/closed  positions but rather to a lack of experience of what is possible and knowledge of tactical motives.

For a beginner I would not recommend to worry to much about concrete openings and to study these. Instead I would play openings from general opening principles (occupy the center, develop pieces, ...) and focus on tactics and learning other themes like good bishop/bad bishop, open files (and what to do with them), undermining a closed center, etc.


Is 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 b6 a QID even though White hasn't played d4 yet? What would you recommend me against it? I first thought that starting with 1. Nf3 would avoid the QID. But after thinking about it, this is only true if White plays 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3

The move 3. Nc3 seems really cool since this would probably get out of book most people who play the Nimzo/QID complex (at least at the club level).

Though 3. g3 is also very interesting. But after 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 Black has 3... b6

And then we have a position that is very close to a QID, but there is one difference: White didn't play d4 yet.

Does this make a real important difference? Or is this position also considered as a QID? Will White need to play d4 later anyway, and thus transposing to a normal QID?

After 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 b6 4. Bg2 Bb7 5. O-O what would you recommend me to play?

After 5...Be7 there are three possible moves:

6.Nc3
6.d4
6.b3

What are all the differences between these three moves?

And finally, what do you think about Wojo's 6. Nc3 O-O 7. Re1 ?

Does this make a real important difference? Or is this position also considered as a QID?

This is definitely not QID, as White hasn't played d4 yet. This is a major difference, that is good for White. Black needs to prevent e4 in the QID and he succeeds in it, but here White has an extra "warrior" for fight for the e4, the d-pawn. If White could get e4 then Black position could become difficult.

  Will White need to play d4 later anyway, and thus transposing to a normal QID?

No, You have a choice: you can "forgive" him for being too hasty ( play d4 and enter standard QID ) or you can try and punish him ( by fighting for e4 ).

  After 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 b6 4. Bg2 Bb7 5. O-O what would you recommend me to play?

I would follow the line Kramnik gave in book Khalifman-Opening for White According to Kramnik 1.Nf3 ( 2nd book, 2001 ) and go for Nc3 so I could fight for e4.

  What are all the differences between these three moves?

With d4 you go for the QID ( not bad ), with b3 you go for Reti-like-position and with Nc3 you try to refute Black's play.

  And finally, what do you think about Wojo's 6. Nc3 O-O 7. Re1 ?

This is the plan I would choose in the game ( Kramnik suggested it as well! ). It tries to refute Black's opening play by claiming e4 -> it is the strongest plan in my opinion.


Isn't the Bogo-Indian just busted with this line? I know openings often tend not to be busted, and I'm obviously not really suggesting that the Bogo is busted. But I recently played a Bogo-Indian where I just couldn't find any follow up quite early in the game and my moves just looked natural...

I also just don't understand that white's 9.e4 move in the diagram has never been played in the database but shows +1 advantage...

Maybe some help on how black should approach those lines? (By the way, I'm new to that opening)

[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 a5 5. a3 Bxd2+ 6. Qxd2 d6 7. Nc3 Nbd7!?
(7... O-O) 8. Rd1 b6 9. e4! {I can't understand why this move hasn't been played
before, but engine already gives quite the advantage to white...} 9... Bb7 10.
Qc2 Qe7 {Getting away from the d1 rook but not sure how solid it is} 11. Be2 O-O
12. O-O {ok now what? Already a bit lost on what to do,  played the following
move to claim myself some space but it just gave white a big hole to look for on
b5 and weak b6} 12... c5?! (12... h6 {engine, but can't see what this does})
(12... Rfe8 {also engine}) 13. d5 exd5 14. cxd5! Rfe8 15. Nd2! *

Well, the Bogo-Indian as an opening is hardly busted, but the way black played that opening, there is no doubt that white has a huge advantage in the final position.

The main reasons that black gives up the dark-squared bishop are not to lose time, but then, and this is more important, because he can regain some dark-square control by placing the pawns on d6 and e5, and pressure e4. Often the Nd7 can also find a very nice home on c5 since a5 has been played.

The way it was played in that game, black never did that, and black did not even attempt to contest the center. It was a recipe for disaster. The final straw was exposing the huge hole that was created on b5.

 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 a5 5. a3 Bxd2+ 6. Qxd2 d6 7. Nc3 Nbd7 (7... O-O {The most common move here.} 8. g3 Nbd7 9. Bg2 e5 $14 {Is a main line. } 10. O-O exd4 11. Nxd4 a4 {Securing c5 for the Nd7.}) 8. Rd1 (8. e4 {Why not this immediately? This is the main move.}) 8... b6?! {This is not necessary here, and we are not even sure that the bishop will go on b7, which I tend to doubt...it may come to g4 and trade for a Nf3 even. It also ruled out a later c6, which would have been desirable later after e5.} (8... Qe7 {This is more natural here, aiming again for e5, and removing the Qd8 from the same line as the Rd1 and Qd2 battery.}) 9. e4 Bb7 10. Qc2 (10. Bd3 {Finish development is more natural here, and later if the black king castles short, then the Bd3 will be aimed at right it.}) 10... Qe7 11. Be2 O-O 12. O-O c5? {This just looks wrong. You still want e5, and if d5, then you have Nc5 and a4 solidifying the Nc5's position. Also, this shows how dead the bishop is on b7} 13. d5 exd5 $2 {This natural move really secures white's advantage because the hole at b5 becomes palpable.} 14. cxd5 Rfe8 15. Nd2 $16 {White almost has a significant, and almost winning, advantage.}


Doubling pawns on the c file in King's Indian Usually King's Indian players don't seem to be afraid to double the pawns on the c file if that means trading a knight for the dark-squared bishop. I was just wondering what are the plans that Black has in mind when doubling those pawns? For instance, if White castles queenside, how can Black use that pawn structure to its advantage?

      [FEN ""]
      [StartPly "11"]

      1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Be2 O-O 6. Bg5 Na6 { E73 King's Indian Defense: Averbakh Variation, Modern Defense } 7. Qd2 e5 8. Nf3 Qe8 9. d5 Nc5 10. Qc2 h6 11. Be3 Ng4 12. Bxc5 dxc5 13. h3 Nf6 14. O-O-O

In that line you posted I'd imagine black would ideally try to blockade d6 with a piece, say via Ne8-Nd6, then begin pawn storming the queenside with a6-b5, or Rb8-b5, or something along those lines. The actual attack itself would be complex, whether to push c4 or b4 first for example, and may need additional piece development to prepare it, as well as accurate calculation to prevent white from being able to blockade the pawn storm.

As far as white attacking on the kingside, it's not so easy to attack into a fianchetto and would likely require a piece sac to break through.

I don't know the variation in question but that's how I'd play it.


Moving king into check Can a player move their king into check if the opponents piece that is able to take king, is putting opponents king in check?

It is never, ever legal to move into check. Period. No ifs, no buts. No exceptions whatsoever.

That's the best way to think about it, since it gives the least scope for confusion. If you want to think of it in terms of capturing the king ending the game, look at it this way: if you move into check, your opponent can capture your king, which immediately ends the game. It's irrelevant if your opponent's capture caused him to move into check too: you can't retaliate by capturing his king because the game already ended.


What is the history of the FICS mutual game history command> On FICS, I remember there was a command to see your mutual game history with a given user. But I can't find it now. Can you name it?

hstat /o <opponent>

Please see this page for detailed explanation


Are there innate limits in chess performance? Are they tied to IQ and amount of deliberate practice, and if so, does that mean if you know the player's IQ you're able to estimate the time of deliberate practice spent learning?

'IQ' is a notoriously flawed way of measuring intelligence.

A high rating (NM and higher) is a sign of intelligence, talent, and hard work.

Talent is missing from your equation.  It's why some people who play once a decade can mop up on normal club players.


In what cases is it good to play the Maroczy Bind in the Symmetrical English? I'm thinking about playing the Maroczy Bind with White in the Symmetrical English (1. Nf3 c5 2. c4 - notice that I start with 1. Nf3).

But I don't know exactly in what cases I should play it.

So I would like to know if these four sentences are true or not:

The Maroczy Bind is good for White if White places his King's Bishop
on e2.
The Maroczy Bind is not good for White if White fianchettoes his King's Bishop on g2.
The Maroczy Bind is not good for White if Black places his King's Bishop on e7.
The Maroczy Bind is good for White if Black fianchettoes his King's Bishop on g7.

I have only ever played the Maroczy Bind against the sicilian and in the light of this limited knowledge all your propositions make some sense.

1./2. Be2 is where you normally place your bishop in the sicilian binds and it makes sense to refrain from e4 (at least for a time) if you fianchettoed the bishop. I have also read that after the fianchetto the square e4 is kept free for some possible piece maneuvers (Only Ne4 after d6 and e6 have been played comes to my mind).

3./4. The Maroczy is the main line against the acc. dragon, but not against the Paulsen/Kan. So one could deduce that the black bishop is better off on e7. But it is very playable against both and there is also the matter of move orders and the strength of alternative lines, so this probably doesn't make much of a difference.

In the end this is very much a question of concrete lines. There probably isn't an easy recipe for when to whip out the Maroczy Bind.


Ambiguity in notation resolved by + In the board position both knights can move to e4. To distinguish which knight moved one would normally write Nce4 or Nfe4. However in this special situation only Nce4 is check.

Would it be sufficient here to write Ne4+ (meaning Nce4) only (i.e. without the "c" but with "+"), as Nfe4 would not be check?

By sufficient I mean whether there are any (FIDE or other organization) laws regarding such issue.

8/8/5N2/8/3k4/2N5/8/B3K3 w - - 1 1

Would it be sufficient here to write Ne4+ (meaning Nce4) only (i.e.
  without the "c" but with "+"), as Nfe4 would not be check?

It depends on exactly what you mean by "sufficient". By "normal" definitions of "sufficient" the answer is obviously "yes". "Ne4+" disambiguates and leaves the human reader in no doubt which knight was moved.

However it doesn't work in FEN diagrams. You need to specify Nce4 to get it to work. So, then the answer would be "No".

The FIDE Laws of Chess describe how you should annotate your games in Appendix C and that does not allow for using check as a way of disambiguating between two different pieces of the same type moving to the same square. However there is no penalty specified for mistakes. It is up to the arbiter to decide and that will only happen if it is noticed.

In real life the most that might happen is that if the games are transcribed for sending to FIDE or for publishing the player might get a scolding from the arbiter tasked with this chore, but this is extremely unlikely in this case and would happen long after the game is completed.

Mistakes far worse than this happen all the time and the only comeback from the arbiters is when the scoresheet is completely illegible or grossly incomplete. Vigilant arbiters will notice these misdemeanors during the game and warn the player concerned to mend their ways.


Good books to learn the Ruy Lopez with I have a very poor repertoire; with White I only play d4, and though I'm quite familiarized with the possibilities on this opening move, I'm lost regarding 1. e4.

Trying to gain flexibility, I want to start to play 1. e4 and, why not, learn the Ruy Lopez. Does anybody know a good resource or book to use to learn this opening? My rating is relatively high and my opponents are most likely going to know the book, so I can not enter this unprepared!

It's quite surprising how few opening books for playing the Ruy Lopez as white there are, given that it's one of those lines that have a claim of being "the main line of chess".

Greet's Play the Ruy Lopez is from 2006. Shaw's Starting Out: the Ruy Lopez from 2003. Khalifman had the Ruy Lopez in his Opening for White according to Anand series but it was very detailed, very high level and is also getting old.

Doknjas' Opening Repertoire: The Ruy Lopez was published last year, so it is easily the most recent white report in the Ruy. The writer is an FM, I have no idea how good of a writer he is. Here is a review at the BCF site.

But my vote goes to McDonald's Ruy Lopez: Move By Move for a first book on the Ruy.

Because it is very focused on the ideas of the opening, and it has a plan for how you should start playing the opening: first you play safe lines based on an early d2-d3, which are fine and played by the world top, and then later when you want to you can expand into more and more complex lines by playing d3 later in the game, or never. So it contains two repertoires in the closed Ruy, one with d2-d3 and one aiming for d2-d4.

Only if you are substantially stronger than 2000 OTB, already understand the structures and want ambitious concrete up to date theory, then I would get Doknjas as it is very recent.

And if Parimarjan Negi ever finishes the Ruy Lopez repertoire for Quality Chess he is writing, then that probably becomes THE book for strong players immediately.


Probability of making a game-losing move as a function of Elo? BlindKungFuMaster and I are having a debate (http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/34484/discussion-between-blindkungfumaster-and-jeff-y) and it got me wondering: Given any position that can be agreed as "about equal", what is the probability that a given player would make a game-losing move on any single move, as a function of his or her rating? I am asking independent of the opponent's strength, i.e. whether or not the opponent actually exploits the mistake to win the game.

Clearly, games are lost, even by Grandmasters, even by the very best. So (presuming Chess is a theoretical draw from the start position) even they make game-losing moves on occasion. So the probability in question is clearly not zero even at Elo 2800. How high would that probability be at, say, 2000, 1800, 1500, 1200 ratings, approximately? At what rating would said probability be approximately 50%? Is this something that can be definitively calculated in some fashion based on the definition of Elo and the average number of moves per game? Or would any answer be pure guesswork?

Update:

I've extracted all games from ChessBase's BIG99 database of 1,114,429 games where one player's Elo is 2500 or more and the other player's Elo is 2100 or less. There are 945 such games. After filtering out the upsets (surprisingly there are 79 win upsets and 102 draw upsets), below is the chart of ply-count vs. Elo. The darker series is where the loser played black, the lighter series is where the loser played white. Seems to be a horn-of-plenty type of shape.

Coincidentally I already answered exactly this question in response to a similar question.

Edit: This similar question was about frequencies of blunders in games, which made the analysis somewhat misleading when directly applied to this question. Originally I looked for blunders from equal positions per game move, which made the results a bit confusing because there was the unknown variable of how many equal positions you actually get per game move. So I redid the analysis for blunders per equal position which is a lot more appropriate in this context.

I happen to have a dataset with 25000 games with stockfish evaluations after every move. This allows to actually look for blunders in equal positions, which is what I did.

Blunders from an equal position (-1.00 < eval < 1.00) are relatively rare, even among weaker players. That is not particularly surprising, because we tend to leave the equality region in little steps during the opening and the blunders come when we are under real pressure and low on time.

I ran the analysis dependent on the strength of the opponent as well, to show that stronger opponents actually lead to more blunders even in equal positions. The stronger opponents in the analysis are more than 100 Elo points higher rated, the weaker 100 points lower rated. Players of all strength blunder more often against stronger opponents from equal positions than against weaker opponents.

Elo: 1500: 100cp Blunder every 26.4655172414 equal positions.
Elo: 1500: 100cp Blunder every 26.1266149871 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 1500: 100cp Blunder every 33.3684210526 equal positions against weaker players.

Elo: 1600: 100cp Blunder every 28.8888888889 equal positions.
Elo: 1600: 100cp Blunder every 28.3083832335 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 1600: 100cp Blunder every 37.12 equal positions against weaker players.

Elo: 1700: 100cp Blunder every 34.7788649706 equal positions.
Elo: 1700: 100cp Blunder every 34.0448933782 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 1700: 100cp Blunder every 39.7709923664 equal positions against weaker players.

Elo: 1800: 100cp Blunder every 34.9866156788 equal positions.
Elo: 1800: 100cp Blunder every 33.1406015038 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 1800: 100cp Blunder every 45.3865546218 equal positions against weaker players.

Elo: 1900: 100cp Blunder every 40.1570101725 equal positions.
Elo: 1900: 100cp Blunder every 38.315761729 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 1900: 100cp Blunder every 49.9418282548 equal positions against weaker players.

Elo: 2000: 100cp Blunder every 44.4308207705 equal positions.
Elo: 2000: 100cp Blunder every 41.5676238036 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 2000: 100cp Blunder every 56.3524305556 equal positions against weaker players.

Elo: 2100: 100cp Blunder every 52.5946657886 equal positions.
Elo: 2100: 100cp Blunder every 49.5823737821 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 2100: 100cp Blunder every 61.1668806162 equal positions against weaker players.

Elo: 2200: 100cp Blunder every 61.3163636364 equal positions.
Elo: 2200: 100cp Blunder every 56.0916284881 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 2200: 100cp Blunder every 75.2474916388 equal positions against weaker players.

Elo: 2300: 100cp Blunder every 69.6490486258 equal positions.
Elo: 2300: 100cp Blunder every 60.9148185484 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 2300: 100cp Blunder every 90.0941176471 equal positions against weaker players.

Elo: 2400: 100cp Blunder every 78.8800318852 equal positions.
Elo: 2400: 100cp Blunder every 67.7366828087 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 2400: 100cp Blunder every 100.431924883 equal positions against weaker players.

Elo: 2500: 100cp Blunder every 97.320568252 equal positions.
Elo: 2500: 100cp Blunder every 84.8542336549 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 2500: 100cp Blunder every 114.45814978 equal positions against weaker players.

Elo: 2600: 100cp Blunder every 110.2421875 equal positions.
Elo: 2600: 100cp Blunder every 97.9315068493 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 2600: 100cp Blunder every 127.470948012 equal positions against weaker players.

Elo: 2700: 100cp Blunder every 95.7817109145 equal positions.
Elo: 2700: 100cp Blunder every 78.6981818182 equal positions against stronger players.
Elo: 2700: 100cp Blunder every 167.296875 equal positions against weaker players.

So for a table of estimated probability of blunder on any given single move:

Elo 1500-1599:  0.0378
Elo 1600-1699:  0.0346
Elo 1700-1799:  0.0288
Elo 1800-1899:  0.0286
Elo 1900-1999:  0.0249
Elo 2000-2099:  0.0225
Elo 2100-2199:  0.0190
Elo 2200-2299:  0.0163
Elo 2300-2399:  0.0144
Elo 2400-2499:  0.0127
Elo 2500-2599:  0.0103
Elo 2600-2699:  0.0091
Elo 2700-2799:  0.0104

An approximation formula: p = (0.323 - 0.0850 * Elo / 1000) ^ 2


Website for playing Cylinder Chess Does anybody know a website where I can play Cylinder Chess? I'm looking for something similar to Chess.com but for Cylinder.

I am not familiar with this variant, but as most variants, pathguy has it. You can also play in http://brainking.com/ correspondence and using http://home.hccnet.nl/h.g.muller/CVfairy.html to play against an engine.

Also I cannot confirm it, but ICC has lots of chess variants. You might want to check it out.


Games where a pawn checkmates the king Could you please refer some examples of game where, on the last move, a pawn checkmates the king (preferably from grandmaster's games)?

One amazing game I know that ends in a pawn mate in one called The Polish Immortal in which Black sacrifices all four minor pieces to win the game! The pawn does a double-step to give the mate.
[Title "Glucksberg-Miguel Najdorf, Warsaw Poland, 1929, The Polish Immortal"]
[FEN ""]

1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3 d5 5.e3 c6 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.O-O O-O 8.Ne2 Nbd7 9.Ng5 Bxh2+ 10.Kh1 Ng4 11.f4 Qe8 12.g3 Qh5 13.Kg2 Bg1 14.Nxg1 Qh2+ 15.Kf3 e5 16.dxe5 Ndxe5+ 17.fxe5 Nxe5+ 18.Kf4 Ng6+ 19.Kf3 f4 20.exf4 Bg4+ 21.Kxg4 Ne5+ 22.fxe5 h5#

Although it was a blitz game, this game ends in a nice discovered checkmate by a pawn.
[Title "Ely Sollano-Fedrick Rhine, Chicago USA, 1977"]
 [FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. Bg5 c5 4. Bxf6 exf6 5. dxc5 d4 6. Ne4 Bf5 7. Ng3 Bxc5 8. Nxf5 Qa5+ 9. c3 dxc3 10. b4 Bxb4 11. Qc2 Qxf5 12. Qxf5 c2#

Another pawn move that results in checkmate is promotion. While there are many such games that end with it, this game has a unique perk in that the mating move was done by the pawn that made the first move.
[Title "Bojan Kurajica-Michael Franklin, Hastings England, 1972"]
[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.g3 a6 7.Bg2 Nf6 8.O-O Nxd4 9.Qxd4 Bc5 10.Bf4 d6 11.Qd2 h6 12.Rad1 e5 13.Be3 Bg4 14.Bxc5 dxc5 15.f3 Be6 16.f4 Rd8 17.Nd5 Bxd5 18.exd5 e4 19.c4 O-O 20.Rfe1 Rfe8 21.Qc2 Re7 22.Bxe4 Ne8 23.Bd3 Nd6 24.Re5 Rde8 25.Rde1 f6 26.R5e2 Kf8 27.Re6 Rxe6 28.dxe6 Ke7 29.Bf1 Kd8 30.Bg2 Qa5 31.Qf2 Ke7 32.b3 Nf5 33.Bxb7 Nd4 34.Bd5 Rd8 35.Rd1 Qb6 36.Qe3 a5 37.Qe4 a4 38.Qg6 axb3 39.Qf7+ Kd6 40.e7 Rd7 41.e8=N#

Another mating move that has actually happened is checkmate by en passant! Here is that earliest known and most beautiful known example of it.
[Title "Gunner Gundersen-A. H. Faul, Pietzcker Christmas Tournament, Melbourne Australia, 1928"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 cxd4 5. cxd4 Bb4+ 6. Nc3 Nc6 7. Nf3 Nge7 8. Bd3 O-O 9. Bxh7+ Kxh7 10. Ng5+ Kg6 11. h4 Nxd4 12. Qg4 f5 13. h5+ Kh6 14. Nxe6+ g5 15. hxg6#

Lastly, although it is not from a game, here is a very pretty chess problem in which White sacrifices all eight pieces and and two pawns to give mate with a pawn!
[Title "Julio César Infantozzi, Mate In 16 Moves"]
[FEN "R1n2N2/4pk1B/2Q1r2B/2K2b2/Rr1n2P1/1q1P1PP1/4N2b/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qe8+ Kxe8 2. Rxc8+ Kf7 3. Bg8+ Kxg8 4. Ng6+ Kh7 5. Rh8+ Kxg6 6. Nf4+ Kf6 7. Rf8+ Ke5 8. Bg7+ Rf6 9. Bxf6+ exf6 10. Re8+ Ne6+ 11. Rxe6+ Qxe6 12. Ng6+ Bxg6  13. f4+ Rxf4 14. gxf4+ Bxf4 15. Re4+ Bxe4 16. d4


Is there a record for threefold repetition for when the claimed positions are the farthest apart, in terms of moves? That’s one long question, so let’s break it down. Threefold repetition, as many know, is when a draw occurs, after the same position, with all piece types on the same square, all possible moves and rights are the same, happens three times in a game of chess. The draw can be claimed whether or not the positions are consecutive or not.

My question is based on the non-consecutive part. Is there any sort of or record for when a draw was claimed for threefold repetition, when the three congruent positions, are the farthest apart by number of moves?

Essentially, the “number of moves” means this: Somtime in the game, position one occurs. So and so many moves later, position two happens. Then the third and final position is reached at last.

One could view this in two ways: What is the greatest number of moves between positions one and three, OR,  What is the greatest number of moves from position one to position two, and then from position two to position three?

The game must have ended on the basis of a threefold-repetition claim.

I would say 50 moves (possibly 49).

Three-fold repetition requires the game to return same position 3 times.  This obviously can't happen if there are any captures or pawn moves, so therefore as long as the 3-fold repetition is possible so is the 50-move rule - which provides a hard upper limit.


What plan should black have followed in this game? I played as black in the following game, and with the help of StockFish I've discovered a few mistakes, one of which was a very serious tactical blunder. However, I'm having trouble figuring out where I went wrong strategically.

[FEN ""]
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2014.03.04"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Stockfish DD (50.0%)"]
[Black "Ralph"]
[Result "1-0"]
[StartPly "16"]
[StartFlipped "1"]

1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 O-O 7.e3 Nbd7 8.Bd3
c5 9.Bb2 dxc4 10.Bxc4 Nb6 11.Be2 Nbd7 12.c4 a6 13.a4 Ne4 14.O-O b6 15.Qc2
Ndf6 16.Ne5 Bb7 17.Rfd1 Qc7 18.Bd3 Nd6 19.a5 cxd4 20.axb6 Qc5 21.Bxd4 Qc8
22.c5 Nd7 23.Bxh7+ Kh8 24.cxd6 Qxc2 25.Bxc2 Nxe5 26.Bxe5 f6 27.Bg3 Kg8 28.
Bb3 a5 29.d7 Ra6 30.Bc7 1-0

Here are some of the specific mistakes that I've spotted, which you might like to add to or elaborate on.

From what I can tell, 12...a6 was a mistake because of 13.a4, leaving me with a weak b pawn and a cramped Q-side.
StockFish pointed out that 15...Ndf6 was a mistake. I'm guessing this is because it allows white to place a knight on e5?
StockFish showed me that 19...cxd4 was a massive blunder resulting in the loss of two pawns and two passed pawns for white.

My original plan, rudimentary as it was, was to aim Queen and bishop at white's K-side down the a8-h1 diagonal, then double my rooks on the semi-open D-file, and finally launch an attack on the king using my knights. As it turned out, I failed to coordinate my pieces properly and was unable to even begin implementing this plan due to white's threats. I just wonder:

Was this the correct plan to begin with, and if so, how could I have implemented it better?
If not, what would a good plan have looked like?
Based on my play in this game, do you feel I need to "go back to school" to learn anything, and if so, what specifically?

Your advice is very much appreciated!

Plans are not usually so long range and specific. Your opponent will be trying to do things that you cannot ignore. Plans are often a collection of piece improvement ideas that work together to control important squares and put pressure on your opponents position.

Part of your plan could be developing your light square bishop on b7. This looks to help control the central light squares, and might long term put pressure on white's kingside.

If you want to put your bishop on b7, then b7-b6 is a priority. a7-a6 does not go with this idea, as you point out.

White's bishop on c4 does not have a lot to do and does not need to be driven off with 10...Nb6. This also gets in the way of developing your bishop to b7.

On move 10, white's bishop on b2 is not very good. You should look to controlling the d5-square to prevent white d4-d5. You should support your pawn on c5. It brings pressure on white's center, and if white takes d4xc5 his pawn structure will be weakened. Qc7, Rfd8, Rac8 look like good places for the heavy pieces to help control the central squares, and the possibility of white ending up with weak pawns on the c or d files. Qc7 and Nd7 help control e5, and might provide a chance for an e6-e5 break.

A knight posted on e4 goes well with a bishop on b7.

This plan on move 10 would need to be continually adjusted based on what white does.