Do people who handle blindfolded chess play at reasonably the same strength given enough time to think? If time is not a problem, can someone who is playing blindfolded chess play with (at least) the same strength than normal chess?

I have heard some people that mastered blindfolded can even play multiple games at the same time, so this makes me think they can actually get to play at their normal strength. Are there any studies on this?

In my experience and opinion

Having more time is not really an advantage when playing blindfold
You have a clearly higher risk of blundering when playing blindfold

Let me try to expand on this.

Playing blindfold in a single game for more than an hour for the entire game is a huge effort of concentration. Playing blindfold for two or more hours on a single game might be too much to handle, unless you have some special method or extreme stamina. So having more time isn't great from the stamina point of view.
There is a clear risk of losing track of something (e.g. a pawn) on the board or forgetting to register one of the moves and later pay for this mistake. The risk for blundering is clearly higher when you don't see the board and the pieces.

My conclusion is that you will definitely play below your full strength. How much below, depends on how well trained you are in playing blindfold chess. If you play on two or more boards simultaneously, I predict that your strength drops even more. My guess is that you can come up to 80% of your full strength when playing blindfold (after a lot of training and practice). Even then, your risk of blundering will be higher!


SCID vs ChessBase - play, analyse, visualization - ubuntu Please help me or give me the correct terms to find it out.

What I want is:

Play chess against an engine or repeat an existing game
For my current move, I want an analyser to analyse my move, and a visualiation (not only text) to show me (better) alternatives.

What I tried:

I installed SCID, with Stockfish, and loaded some PNG games or, doing: 'serious game' and play against stockfish
I can see some analysis text running at a window. However, that is sort of exhausting.
What I want: having an arrow that shows me what to move where; after I have done my move.
Either by: analysing my move, and showing a better alternative. Or, showing me what the player (whose game I just play) was doing

My questions: how is it called, what I want? Does this exist, especially a visualization?

It is not necessary to use SCID, however, I failed to install SCID vs PC and Lukas Chess.

I suggest that you simply use a browser, and play online at chess.com, lichess.com, or chess24.com. While chess.com and chess24.com have paid versions too, all three have the ability to create an account, and play online, including against computers.

You also have the option to use online engines to analyze your games.


Adjusting in one's turn only There is this touch-move rule which doesn't apply when the player says "Adjust" .
Wikipedia says :

To adjust the position of a piece on its square without being required to move it. A player may only do this on his turn to move , and he must first say "I adjust", or the French equivalent "J'adoube".

Is "only on his turn to move" a very strict and binding rule ?
Since I see that this is done many times during the opponent's turn and no one complains about it .

Is this there so that the opponent doesn't get disturbed while calculating ?

If a scenario comes up where a piece is out of its square and is disturbing me, can I say adjust during his turn? (Maybe he may get irritated once in a blue moon.)

Is this rule required in all OTB events as it hardly gets followed ?

What is the historical background behind the "J'adoube"? Why is French the lingua franca in this case?

If a scenario comes up where a piece is out of its square and is disturbing me , can I say adjust during his turn ? ( maybe he may get irritated once in a blue moon )

If it's your opponent's move, you were the last person to modify the board and had the opportunity to adjust then.

If it's bothering you that much then get up, get a drink of water, look at the other games, and wait until your opponent has moved and you can make the world right again.


Youngest and oldest active player Which currently active player is the youngest and which the oldest ?

Korchnoi is a candidate for the oldest, but I do not know if he is still active.

The answer to your question

Korchnoi is alive. And playing! He played a match against Wolfgang Ulhmann last week (15-16 February 2015) in the Veterans section of the Zürich Chess Challenge. He won two games and lost two.

However, today (22 February 2015) the oldest active GM is the American Arthur B. Bisguier (Elo 2170) born in 1929. Korchnoi was born two years later.

But the most veteran player title is for Lourenço Joao Cordioli (Elo 1928), a Brasilian lawyer born in 1916. And he plays still; he actually got the 100th place in the Floripa Chess Open 2015 on January.

The youngest FIDE rated players are two boys born in 2010, an Indian boy rated 1036 and an Iranian boy rated 1340. I prefer not to give the names to protect their privacy, since they are so young.

The youngest GM is Samuel Sevian (Elo 2531, born in 2000), the youngest USA GM at the age of 13 years, 10 months, 27 days. There are also two WGMs born the same year:
Zhansaya Abdumalik (Elo 2379) from Kazakhstan and Gunay Mammadzada (Elo 2334) from Azerbaijan.

Some details on how I found the information

To answer your question I have used the latest FIDE list of active players of February 12th 2015. But it has been more difficult than expected because of errors and missing data in the list.

For example, there was one player in the list born in 2049?! (maybe 1949?), another one in 205 (2005?), another in 1881 (1981?) and another in 1895 (1985?). Then, quite a lot of players had 0 or 1900 as birth year, which surely means that it is unknown.

And finally, according to the FIDE list there are 1 active player born in 2015 (?!), 3 born in 2014, 5 born in 2013, 3 born in 2012, 19 born in 2011... all of them unrated (of course). I confess I don't know what this means.

Anyway, I started looking for the oldest player. The first serious candidate was Carl Weibrecht (German, born in 1911, no FIDE rating). Although he appears as active in the list, I found a message in the website of Schachkreis Zugspitze dated May 1st 2011 saying

  "Chess Circle Zugspitze mourns chess friend Carl Weibrecht from
  Garmisch" (Google translated).

So he might not be active, after all...

The second candidate to the oldest player title was Dr. Horst Reichel, professor in Computer Science (also German, born in 1912, no FIDE rating). I have found some of his games for the period 2003-2006, but not later. So I am not sure if he is still playing. However, if the birthdate is correct he played till well passed 90 years old.

Then, there are other apparently active players born in 1915 (all without FIDE rating)... And at this point I decided to restrict the search to rated players and GMs.


About possible chess variations Is there a chess variant for a 6x6 board that has  interesting possible game-play just like regular chess obviously has? Maybe one that has real competitions and is not as long an intense chessgame (that is not speed- chess)

6x6 chess exist. See this page from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minichess#6.C3.976_chess.


Why would you want to trade pieces? To preface this, I am very new to chess. I knew the rules for years but I started actually taking the game more seriously and learning strategies just over 2 weeks ago.
One thing I consistently see in high elo games is that they trade same value pieces constantly.
What am I missing? From my point of view, they are getting no value and just wasting a turn...

There are a few classic reasons which tend to make exchanging pieces favourable. None of these are absolute; in any given position, short-term tactical considerations may dominate. But you might like to keep the following themes in mind which can favour exchanges:
(1) You have a material advantage.
(2) Your opponent has a space advantage (your position is cramped).
(3) Your opponent has dangerous prospects of an attack on your king.
(4) The structure of a position (most typically, the pawn structure) favours you in the endgame.
In addition there are many familiar patterns whereby an exchange creates an advantage for you. For example, the opponent has to accept doubled pawns by a pawn recapture; or the opponent has to give up the right to castle by recapturing with the king (this often applies to queen exchanges in the opening). Or a particular exchange favours you, because your piece is passive / badly placed, while theirs is active / well placed.
(And just to complete the answer: as several people pointed out already, exchanging doesn't typically "waste a turn" because the opponent also uses a move to recapture. If for some reason forcing an exchange does involve giving away the initiative, then indeed that will often be a factor against it.)


How could I have extracted an opening advantage in this Owen's defence game? I played as white against Owen's defence from black, which is seen as being quite dubious. After 21 moves, we agreed to a draw.

My question is, how could white have extracted an opening edge here?

[FEN ""]

1. d4 e6 2. e4 {2. c4 is also played in the Horwitz defence, but I wanted to aim for the French, as I used to play it as black} b6 3. Nf3 Bb7 4. Bd3 Nf6 5. Qe2 Bb4+ 6. c3 Be7 7. O-O h6 {This was the first move that surprised me, so I chose 8. Nbd2 and 9. Re2 simply because they were thematic, as I couldn't see a way to punish 7...h6} 8. Nbd2 d6 9. Re1 Nbd7 10. e5 {I'm not too sure about this move, but my plan was to make a few trades to play Nd2-f3 to liberate the dark square bishop. I also thought the open d-file could be useful} dxe5 11. Nxe5 Nxe5 12. dxe5 Nd5 13. Be4 c6 14. Nf3 a5 15. Rd1 Qc7 16. c4 Nb4 17. a3 Na6 18. Be3 c5 19. Bxb7 Qxb7 20. Rd3 O-O 21. Rad1  1/2-1/2

Black's opening play doesn't look good. This is more passive and dubious than a normal Owen's.

The suggestion of 10. Nf1 followed by 11. Ng3 is a good one and should give white a nice advantage.

But I believe black should be punished harder for their passive play. Perhaps 8. e5 Nd5 9. a3!?.

[FEN ""]
[StartPly "17"]

1. d4 e6 2. e4 b6 3. Nf3 Bb7 4. Bd3 Nf6 5. Qe2 Bb4+ 6. c3 Be7 7. O-O h6 8. e5 Nd5 9. a3!?

Black has to worry about the knight on d5 getting trapped. After 9... c5 10. c4 Nc7 11. dxc5 bxc5 12. Nc3, white obtains a better position than they usually get in Owen's.

[FEN ""]
[StartPly "23"]

1. d4 e6 2. e4 b6 3. Nf3 Bb7 4. Bd3 Nf6 5. Qe2 Bb4+ 6. c3 Be7 7. O-O h6 8. e5 Nd5 9. a3!? c5 10. c4 Nc7 11. dxc5 bxc5 12. Nc3

Black's kingside looks really weak.


Scotch opening 5.Nf3 Yesterday Anish Giri played the scotch opening at the Tata Steel Tournament with the strange looking move(to me) 5.Nf3.

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

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Qf6 5.Nf3

What is the idea/plan behind this move after retreating the knight immediately.
From my point of view i would assume the knight is better placed on d4 than on f3.

Can white even hope to have an opening advantage after this move?

After 4....Qf6, both 5.Be3 and 5.Nxc6 are likely to transpose to 4....Bc5: 5.Be3 Bc5 and 5.Nxc6 Bc5. Instead, 5.Nf3 seems to be an interesting alternative, with chances to obtain an advantage. It worked quite well for Giri, as he was pressing the entire game.

After 5.Nf3, black should probably be able to equalize. Andreikin played the precise 5....Bb4+ and the game continued 6.c3 Bc5 7.Be2 d6 8.0-0. Black followed up with the logical 8....Nge7, but ended up in a worse position after 9.b4 Bb6 10.Bg5. Note that 9....Nxb4 or 9....Bxb4 doesn't work because of 10.Bg5. Instead, 8....a6 and 8....Qe7 (to play Nf6) are probably better alternatives, after which black should be able to keep the balance.

Actually, one can also wonder why black would give white the opportunity of 5.Nf3 by playing 4....Qf6 instead of 4....Bc5.
Two possible reasons are:

After 4....Qf6 5.Nxc6, black wants to play 5....dxc6, instead of 5....Bc5. This way, he can still chose between Bb4, Bc5 or Bd6.
Black doesn't like the position after 4....Bc5 5.Nb3 Bb6 6.Nc3 Nf6

      [StartPly "7"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Qf6 (4...Bc5 5.Nb3 (5.Be3 Qf6)(5.Nxc6 Qf6) Bb6 6.Nc3 Nf6) 5.Nf3 (5.Be3 Bc5)(5.Nxc6 dxc6 (5...Bc5)) Bb4+ 6.c3 Bc5 7.Be2 d6 8.O-O Nge7 (8...a6)(8...Qe7) 9.b4 Bb6 (9...Nxb4 10.Bg5)(9...Bxb4 10.Bg5) 10.Bg5


About the 3D chess they play on Star Trek They play a type of 3D chess on Star Trek ( the 60's series) not on a 8x8x8 3D board but on some smaller variation. Yet the game as they have it is supposed to be complicated. Are there real rules and a 3D board set-up for this?

Andrew Bartmess was the first Star Trek fan to reverse-engineer the game of tridimensional chess from the TV series (which never explained the rules). He sells his version of the rules for $9.95: Tri-D Chess Rules.

In the most popular version of Tri-D chess (which Andrew calls the “The Federation Standard 5.0” rules), the game is played on seven boards, three of which are the “main” boards and four of which are “repositionable attack boards”:

Players can reposition one of the four attack boards by repinning them to the static boards at different points, provided that one of their pieces occupies that board (and no other piece occupies it). This is instead of moving a piece in that turn. The boards are, in effect, treated as mobile “attack craft”.

The notation system uses a z-index from 1-7 to indicate which board the piece is moving to:

Unfortunately there’s no free version of Bartmess’ rules available online.

Jens Meder maintains an alternate but free online version of Tournament rules for Three-Dimensional Chess which are inspired by Star Trek and tied more closely to standard FIDE chess rules than Bartmess' version, albeit with the same wonderful board stand and complex notation:


Sicilian dragon classic games I am trying to collect a list of Sicilian Dragon classic games, which every dragon player must be aware. I would really appreciate if you could share some classics and also highlight the most important move/part in the game.

I am okay with either color winning. The two games where the dragon kills the Yugoslav that immediately spring to mind are Kasparov's dragon vs Viswananthan Anand in 1995 WC

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018626

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018628

Fischer - Larsen, Portoroz 1958 also known as "Slaying the Dragon" in his book, 60 Memorable games is recommended required reading.

The opening moves for the dragon, accelerated and hyperaccelerated dragon may be found in Parimarjan Negi's e4 vs. the Sicilian: Vol 2.


Photographic memory in chess? I heard that some of the best players in the world like Alekhine have the best photographic chess memory and they can play blindfolded?

How to develop such memory? What are the ways to learn it?

I am just a beginner, and i struggle to recognise notations like Bxh8, CxD4 and takes me long time.

Finally, if you are born with a photographic memory, does that mean it will help you to WIN in chess?

Photographic memory is closely related to board vision in Chess, where in you instinctively and instantly know something is wrong with the position ( yours or your opponent's) or it clicks to you that you've seen this or a similar position before.

Though memory capacity might seem like an "in-born" talent, I would argue it can be developed to some degree with practice. Play as many professional games as possible. By professional, I mean tournament games with real humans face-to-face. Tournament games build the seriousness that is necessary for forming long term memories. I've seen in my experience that when I am playing a lot of serious chess, I can easily detect board patterns and tricky positions than when I am out of touch with chess.

One more technique to improve board vision and memory is to try NOT to write down the moves while playing but replay the whole game from memory after the game. I've seen that over a period of time, you are better at remembering your own games. Even though you will not be able to remember every game you play, it will improve your memory in general.

Regarding the notations, start speaking in terms of them whenever you describe a game to a friend or whenever you self-analyze a game. It is tricky. Especially the 4th and 5th ranks. I always say Bg4 from White when its supposed to be Bg5 and vice versa.

Keep practising and I am sure you will get good at both board vision and notations.

EDIT
To answer your edited question,

  Finally, if you are born with a photographic memory, does that mean it
  will help you to WIN in chess?

Winning in chess has to do with many more things than just photographic memory. Tactics, Strategies, Staying calm under time pressure are just a few things that are vital to success but hardly have anything to do with memory. Having a good memory helps in chess but there are still a lot of other aspects to master to become a master!


What happened in the game Draskovic - Sutovsky (EICC 2015)? In the European Individual Championship, the game Draskovic-Sutovsky is exhibited as
 a win for white although the end position is totally drawn.

It is also hard to imagine that black lost on time in such an easy position getting
 30 seconds at each move.

So what happened in this game? Is the result correct or should it be a draw?

[Event "16th European Individual Championship"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2015.03.08"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Draskovic, Luka"]
[Black "Sutovsky, Emil"]
[Result "*"]
[WhiteElo "2432"]
[BlackElo "2626"]
[ECO "B17"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Bc4 Ngf6 6.Ng5 e6 7.Qe2 Nb6 8.Bd3
h6 9.N5f3 c5 10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.Ne5 Nbd7 12.Ngf3 Qc7 13.Bf4 Bb4+ 14.Kf1 Bd6
15.Ng6 Bxf4 16.Nxh8 Nc5 17.Bb5+ Kf8 18.g3 Bd6 19.Kg2 b6 20.Rhe1 Bb7 21.a4
Nce4 22.Ba6 Rc8 23.Bxb7 Qxb7 24.Rad1 Bc5 25.Nxf7 Kxf7 26.Ne5+ Kg8 27.f3
Nf2 28.Rd2 Re8 29.Qc4 Nd5 30.Rxf2 Bxf2 31.Kxf2 Rc8 32.Qe4 b5 33.a5 Qc7 34.
Nd3 Re8 35.c3 Qxa5 36.Qd4 Rd8 37.Rxe6 Nf6 38.Rd6 Re8 39.g4 Qa1 40.Rd8 Rxd8
41.Qxd8+ Kh7 42.Qd4 a5 43.h4 Qd1 44.g5 Qd2+ 45.Kf1 hxg5 46.hxg5 Qxg5 47.
Nf4 Kh6 48.Qd2 a4 49.Qe3 Kh7 50.Kf2 Qh4+ 51.Kg2 Qg5+ 52.Kf2 Kh8 53.Qd4 Qf5
54.Qd8+ Ng8 55.Qh4+ Nh6 56.Qd8+ Kh7 57.Qd3 g5 58.Qxf5+ Nxf5 59.Ne6 Kg6 60.
Nf8+ Kh5 61.Ne6 Kh4 62.Ke2 Nd6 63.Nd4 Kg3 64.Ne6 Kh4 65.Nd4 Nc4 66.Nxb5
Kg3 67.Na3 Ne5 68.c4 Nxf3 69.c5 g4 70.Nb5 Ne5 71.Na7 Ng6 72.c6 Nf4+ 73.Kd2
Nd5 74.Nb5 Kh2 75.c7 Nxc7 76.Nxc7 g3 77.Ne6 g2 78.Nd4 Kg3 79.Ne2+ Kf3 80.
Kd3 Kf2 81.Nf4 g1=N 82.Kc3 Ke3 83.Nd5+ Ke4 84.Nb6 Nf3 85.Nxa4 Kd5

chess-results.com says the result was a draw. I wonder if it was one of those DGT errors where an incorrect result is reported due to the position of the kings.


Board for lectures, with arrows, highlights, not checking rules Is there good free software for creating video lessons, that allows you to make board as big as desired, highlight squares, show arrows and not checking rules, allowing to move pieces in any way, playing without king etc? I mean just board software, not software for capturing video.

You can use a setup board function is programs like scid and chessbase.  These boards aren't full screen. In setup mode, they don't allow for arrows and highlights.
It might be better to just program the software yourself.  This would make all the features just as you like.

http://scid.sourceforge.net/

http://en.chessbase.com/post/new-and-blindingly-fast-chebase-light-2009

Chessity.com has a new e-tool for teachers.

Allows illegal moves, coins and flags on any square, and four colored arrows and squares.  Large enough for students in back to see clearly.


Why is KID considered more sound than Pirc? I have an impression that at the high level, the Pirc defense is considered to be much more off-beat than the King's Indian defense; at least the latter has been a main weapon for many top players, starting from Bronstein and Geller and through Fischer and Kasparov to Nakamura, while the Pirc is mostly seen when Black is in a desperate must-win situation.
However, I struggle to discern the reasons for that. The main difference seems to be that in the Pirc, White plays Nc3 with a pawn on c2 rather than c4, but isn't it a concession on their part? Doesn't having a pawn of c4 just give White more control over the center?

The c4 square is a natural development square for White's light-squared bishop, which targets the f7-square. Having a pawn on c4 takes away that opportunity.
In semi-open defences against 1. e4 the f7-square is shielded by a pawn on e6. But this creates dark-square weaknesses in Black's position when they have a fianchettoed kingside bishop on g7. So Black has to be careful of liquidating pawns in the centre in the Pirc, so as not to expose the f7-square to the White bishop.
Liquidation of pawns in the centre is less of a problem in the King's Indian Defence, because White is then left with a pawn on c4 which hems in his light-squared bishop (denying it the c4-square). So White doesn't gain a natural advantage by liquidating the centre in the King's Indian, but it's a viable proposition in the Pirc.
These two key strategic reasons are why the Pirc is "less sound", or more difficult to play, than the King's Indian Defence.


Which late starters have been able to become grandmasters? Decades ago, there was a young man who joined the Rochester chess club where he had the frequent opportunity to play against USCF Life Master Dr. Eric W. Marchand if my memory is correct.

Who was that late starter?  He became a GM in a relatively short time.

Many chess players who go on to become GM's have started out in the first few years of their lives.

Which late starters have been able to become grandmasters?

Please note that this question is the opposite of the more general "how young..." category of questions.

edit:
Dr. Marchand was not a GM, my error, he was a USCF Life Master.
My point is having strong competition can help one's chess development.

Also, it's fair to consider a late starter as someone who is perhaps age 20 and up.
end edit.

Oscar Shapiro was the oldest player to become a master. He did it at the age of 74.
Wilhelm Steinitz was the oldest world chess champion. He won the title from Zuckertort in 1886 at the age of 50 and held it until he was defeated by Lasker in 1894 at the age of 58 years and 10 days.

Source


What's wrong with Long castle in accelerated Dragon being white? What's wrong if white move to Castle long(0-0-0) in Accelerated dragon?

In the normal Dragon, the most dangerous system is the Yugoslav attack.  Current theory shows that Black can resist the attack with a pawn sacrifice and maintain the balance.  In the Accelerated Dragon, Black saves a move by moving the d pawn to d5 in one move.  This allows Black to gain a dangerous initiative.  With a Rook on the c file and the Bishops on g7 and f5, White must defend carefully.


Nice efforts, you've made a working chess engine, your journey has started. But you have more works to do:

(respond to your comment) 3...e4 must be a bug because your engine just gave up a pawn for nothing in the next move. Searching for d=3 should be able to see it. Also see the next comment.
Your engine seems to like attacking the most valuable piece (queen), your 3...e4 may have been caused by this blindness. I'm guessing (you'll need to check it yourself) you put too much weight in attack threats.
The engine moves the queen out too early. You will need to check your PST table and make sure your PST evaluation beats the temptation of moving the queen out. A common mistake in early chess engines is that they put too much weight into the number of squares that the queen can control in the opening.
Please check your PST again why your engine would prefer moving 1.e3. You must instruct the engine to move into the centre.
Don't use the default position for testing. It's still too early for your engine to handle it. Set yourself some simple positions where there is a direct way to win, for example: back-rank mate in two, pushing the pawn for promotion etc. Your engine blunders too much, even at depth 3 and no understanding of tactical threats. Make sure you can play those easy positions.
I'm guessing you set yourself at d=3 because it's too slow for you to go further. Consider to implement the easy extensions, such as null move and hashing. In particular, your engine won't go anywhere without hashing.


Simplest plan to stop my queen from getting trapped It's reasonably common for my opponents in blitz to fall into the following trap in the opening.
[FEN ""]
1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 e5 3. d5 Nce7 4. f4 Ng6 5.f5 Qh4+ 6. g3 Qxe4+ 7. Qe2 Qxh1 8. Nf3

This position should be an easy win, but I find myself often getting in trouble with my queen getting trapped after white develops and castles queenside.  Is there a simple plan to safely extract the queen?  I don't mind giving back a minor piece to simplify the position.

I don't think that this is an easy win at all. In fact it is not clear who is the trapper and who is the "trappee". To close the trap, White has no need even to develop. He can simply play Kd2!! followed by Bg2. This refutes, for example, N6e7.
The only defence that I can see starts with 8..e4! 9.Qxe4+ Kd8! 10.fxg6 hxg6. Without analysing further White has a lot of compensation. However, this is all moot. Instead of the adventurous 7..Qxh1, Black has simply 7..Qxf5 with two extra Pawns and no real problems.


Fathom syzygy browsing tool I'm trying to make syzygy browsing tool fathom.exe work. If you have experience with this, please let me know. I tried million of combinations of tokens to format the position command and the program always returns empty string.

When I run this command

FILE* pipe = _popen("c:\\fathom.exe --help", "r");

program returns this info string:

usage: c:\fathom.exe [--help] [--path=PATH] [--test] FEN

WHERE:
FEN
    The position (as a FEN string) to be probed.
--help
    Print this helpful message.
--path=PATH
    Set the tablebase PATH string.
--test
    Print the result only.  Useful for scripts.

DESCRIPTION:
This program is a stand-alone Syzygy tablebase probe tool.  The
program takes as input a FEN string representation of a chess
position and outputs a PGN representation of the probe result.

In addition to the standard fields, the output PGN represents the
following information:
- Result: "1-0" (white wins), "1/2-1/2" (draw), or "0-1" (black wins)
- The Win-Draw-Loss (WDL) value for the next move: "Win", "Draw",
  "Loss", "CursedWin" (win but 50-move draw) or "BlessedLoss" (loss
  but 50-move draw)
- The Distance-To-Zero (DTZ) value (in plys) for the next move
- WinningMoves: The list of all winning moves
- DrawingMoves: The list of all drawing moves
- LosingMoves: The list of all losing moves

The PGN contains a pseudo "principle variation" of Syzygy vs. Syzygy
for the input position.  Each PV move is rational with respect to
preserving the WDL value.  The PV does not represent the shortest
mate nor the most natural human moves.

Can you write me please an exact string command to analyse for example

4k3/4n3/8/8/4K3/8/1B2B3/8 w - - 0 1

My wdl folder is C:/Tablebases/Syzygy/wdl

My dtz folder is C:/Tablebases/Syzygy/dtz

I have experience working with Fathom in one of my iOS apps. Look at my recent post:

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=62378

My command was: fathom --path=YOUR_PATH --test "FEN_STRING"

Substitute YOUR_PATH with your path. You must have both WDL and DTZ files in the same directory.
Substitute FEN_STRING with your FEN string. You will need the quotation mark.

My console session posted in the link:


How to interpret lines of play computed by Stockfish during annotations I am learning how to use Stockfish to analyze my games, and I had a question on how to understand Stockfish's output.
Consider the screenshot when I request stockfish 12 to annotate my games inside SCID.
As the number in the square brackets refers approximately to the "advantage" (however that may be defined) I would have if I followed the moves in the suggested lines. This is why lines that have the same initial set of moves, have a different score when they diverge e.g. lines 9 and 10 in the output which have scores of 1.12 and 1.25 respectively.
But what I want to know is in what order does Stockfish suggest the various lines of output. Notice that the various lines list advantages not necessarily in increasing order. Here are my questions.

Is the program, brute force checking through all possible lines of play (up to a prescribed depth) by both players and then suggesting the best lines of play found till now?

Does it suggest what the advantage would be for the strongest lines of play i.e. "perfect" play for both black and white would be N number of moves down the line given a particular move by White?

Basically, the fact I am asking these two questions suggests, that I  approximately (but not completely) understand what Stockfish is outputting. Sure, SCID annotates via arrows the best move at each position. But what EXACTLY are assumptions for each line of play that Stockfish is outputting? Clearly, it is not outputting disastrous lines of play, so it is not listing the advantages for ALL possible lines of play up to a certain depth.
Also, the lines are numbered from 1 to 21 in the output above, but why is line 2 missing?! The image has not been edited!

The above output from Stockfish is what's called the Primary Variation (PV), what it considers the best line of play for both sides. But the output is the PV at each search depth: 1 ply from the start position, 3 ply, all the way up to 21 plies.
So at a search depth of 21 plies (moves by both sides), it still considers 12. Bxc7 to be the best move in the current position, with an evaluation of the position resulting after those 21 plies to be +1.33 in White's favour.
If you want to see the evaluation of other moves, then hit the +V button in the toolbar. Click it once, and when Stockfish analyses the position again, it should show the two best variations at each search depth.
I tend to have Stockfish show either 4 or 6 variations, so I can see the relative scores between the moves -- to see if one move is significantly stronger than another.
Stockfish -- as with most "brute force" chess engines -- uses a min-max approach, which ensures that it's considering the best move for both sides. There's various algorithms for pruning and reducing the size of the tree as the search-depth grows, which could have the effect of ignoring what in the longer-term proves to be a stronger move.
If you are interested in the algorithms and patterns that make up Stockfish, try Stockfish on Chess Programming Wiki:  which gives a breakdown of the board representation, the searching algorithms and the evaluation algorithms that Stockfish, as well as other engines, use.


Jesus De La Villa's 100 Endgames book: Ambiguity Here we have two scenarios where the stronger side has one passed pawn in a KPP vs. KP ending. The other pawns block each other.

In Ending 83, the author states that rook's pawns, if they're not blocked, should be advanced as far as possible. But in Ending 85, he concludes that the stronger side always wins with a passed bishop's pawn (on the same wing) if the rook pawn has remained on the second rank (i.e. not advanced).

Should the rook's pawn be advanced or not?

Those endgames are fundamentally different - one has rook pawns and a distant passed pawn (83); the second has rook pawns and a passed bishop pawn on the same wing (85).

The reason in the second case (85) is you may need a tempo move with the rook pawn on its original square. It's explained very clearly in the book.


Guessing who has to play next Assume an observer sees a chessboard in the middle of a game. At which point in a game does it become impossible to determine who has to play next between White and Black?

As soon as triangulation becomes possible, which occurs as soon as anyone makes a move that allows a piece besides a knight to advance to the third rank, you cannot determine with certainty who has the move.
For example, with a pawn on e3, it could be Black to move because White just played their first move, or it could be White to move with a sequence like this:
[FEN ""]
1. e3 Nf6 2. Bc4 Ng8 3. Be2 Nf6 4. Bf1 Ng8 *

If any piece or pawn is captured (except the queens!) that also means you cannot determine who is to move:
[FEN ""]
1. Nc3 (1. Na3 Nc6 2. Nc4 Rb8 3. Nb6 Nb4 4. Na8 Rxa8 5. Nf3 Na6 6. Ng1 Nb8) 1...Nc6 2. Nd5 Nb8 3. Nb4 Nc6 4. Na6 Nb4 5. Nb8 Rxb8 6. Nf3 Ra8 7. Ng1 Na6 8. Nf3 Nb8 9. Ng1 *

But if no pawn has moved (or if the only pawn moves are a3/a6/h3/h6) and nothing has been captured (with the exception of the queens) then you can tell from the board position who has the move. The knights can never lose a tempo, and the rooks cannot triangulate if they don't have enough room to move more than one square at a time. The king also cannot triangulate if the only square available is the queen's square.


Tricks to force stalemate? When playing against a novice player, how can you attempt to force stalemate (please don't ask how you would get there against a novice player)

I assume you are asking how to force your opponent to stalemate you, rather than vice versa.

Get rid of almost all of your pieces, except for your queen or rooks, or pieces that are pinned against your king.
Make sure all your pawns are blocked and can't move.
Make sure your king has no legal moves.
Check his king relentlessly with whatever pieces remain, feeling free to place the pieces where they can be taken, such as adjacent to his king.
Ideally, you are now in a situation where either he will be subject to perpetual check or he will take all your remaining pieces and you will be stalemated.

Keep in mind that this is not an actual strategy that ever works except 1) against novices, 2) in blitz games, or 3) in very rare circumstances in serious games. But those circumstances do exist. Generally you find that two of the first three steps in this process have already happened and start looking for ways to engineer the rest. Evans-Reshevsky is the most famous example of a stalemate swindle in top-level play.


How would Chess have been played in England in 1450-1600? I'm trying to reconstruct how Chess would have been played at various points in history in England, specifically at three points: around 1450, 1530, and 1610.

What rules would have been used at these dates? What kinds of boards and pieces might have been used? Who would have played and in what kinds of settings?

I have read the confused Wikipedia articles and most of the first several pages of hits from Google, but can extract little of use from them and am hoping there's an expert here who can help.

I see that you already have a lot of information in the Wikipedia page and in the answer you got to the similar question in the history forum. Maybe your problem is that this is too much information for you, so I hope to be helpful in telling you just one thing, which is the most important thing.

There is a turning point in the European history of chess. This is something that happened sometime between 1475 and 1500 (the exact year is not known) in the south of Europe (probably in Spain, but there is no consensus). This event is a change in the rules of movement of the Queen and the Bishop.

Until 1475 people everywhere in Europe played a version of chess (let's call it Middle-Age Chess) where the Queen (then called fers or visir) could move only one step diagonally, and the Bishop (then called Elephant) could move two steps diagonally. The other pieces moved as today (except for little details such as castling rules). This game was very slow because the two armies needed many moves to make contact, since the only long range piece was the Rook.

Starting from 1500 people everywhere in Europe started to play a new version of the game where the Queen and the Bishop have their modern movement (let's call this game Modern Chess, because, except for some little detail, it was basically the same game we play today). This new game was much faster, and, for this reason more fun and incredibly successful. The new rules quickly spread everywhere in Europe, and the old game was soon forgotten.

The change happened sometime between 1475 and 1500, more or less the same time when many other important events gave Europe its modern form (invention of the press, the discovery of America, unification of Spain, and more).

From this you can see that in 1450, in England people played Middle-Age Chess, while in 1530 they played Modern Chess, a very different game. In 1530, Modern Chess was a novelty, instead in 1610 the game was very well established, and by this time, many "scientific" books of analysis of the game and its strategy were already written.


Is this the correct way to analyze games before checking with engine? [FEN ""]
1. e4 {0} c6 {0} 2. d4 {19} d5 {0} 3. e5 {1} Bf5 {0} 4. Nf3 {1} e6 {0} 5. Be2 {
20} Nd7 {0} 6. O-O {4} Bg6 {0} 7. Nbd2 {53} Nh6 {0} 8. c3 {4} Nf5 {0} 9. Bd3 {
24} Ne3 {0} 10. fxe3 {7} Bxd3 {0} 11. Rf2 {7} Nb6 {0} 12. Ne1 {3 Should'nt
have bothered to take his bad bishop maybe Nd2-f1-g3 was better} Bg6 {0} 13. b3
{7 did'nt wanted his knight to come at c4} Be7 {0} 14. Qf3 {6 i thought maybe
threatening mate} f6 {0} 15. Nf1 {13} Qd7 {0} 16. Ng3 {1} Rf8 {0} 17. Qe2 {8}
fxe5 {0} 18. Rxf8+ {2} Bxf8 {0} 19. Bd2 {6} e4 {0} 20. Nc2 {3} Be7 {0} 21. Rf1
{1} a5 {0} 22. Nh5 {15} O-O-O {0} 23. Nxg7 {2} Kb8 {0} 24. Nh5 {39} Rh8 {0} 25.
Nf4 {2} Bg5 {0} 26. Nxg6 {2 should've not taken his bad bishop,maybe Bd2-e1-g3
was better} hxg6 {0} 27. c4 {3} Qd6 {0} 28. g3 {6} e5 {0} 29. Bxa5 {3} Nc8 {0}
30. Rf7 {19 rook on 7th,maybe Qf2-f7 was even better} b6 {0} 31. Nb4 {19} exd4
{0} 32. Na6+ {8} Ka8 {0} 33. Bxb6 {21} Bxe3+ {0} 34. Kh1 {4} Nxb6 {0} 35. Qg4 {
4} (35. Nc7+ Kb8 36. Na6+ Ka8) 35... Qa3 {0} 36. Nc7+ {11} Kb8 {0} 37. c5 {13}
Qc1+ {0} 38. Kg2 {2} Qg1# {0} 0-1

I am new to analyzing games,is this the right way before checking on engine or am I missing something?(I am playing white)

Works for me. Review that game with a person, someone who'll tell you why you should do or not do things, for whom one-millionth of a pawn isn't an issue. For instance, getting the bishop to d3 in one step instead of two.  4. Nf3 and 5. Be2 are grandmasterly, not as simple.


Chess games similar to Morphy versus the Duke of Brunswick and Count Isouard In college I memorized a few chess games, and the only one that has stayed in my memory is  Morphy vs. the Duke.

[fen ""]
[Event "Paris"]
[Site "Paris"]
[Date "1858"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Paul Morphy"]
[Black "Duke Karl / Count Isouard"]
[ECO "C41"]
[PlyCount "33"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Bg4 4.dxe5 Bxf3 5.Qxf3 dxe5 6.Bc4 Nf6 7.Qb3 Qe7
8.Nc3 c6 9.Bg5 b5 10.Nxb5 cxb5 11.Bxb5+ Nbd7 12.O-O-O Rd8
13.Rxd7 Rxd7 14.Rd1 Qe6 15.Bxd7+ Nxd7 16.Qb8+ Nxb8 17.Rd8# 1-0

Are there games similar to this one - short and with dramatic finishes - that you would recommend reviewing / memorizing after a decade spent not reading chess games?

Morphy is great! I also am fond of the 1956 game Donald Byrne vs Robert James Fischer (when Fischer was 13 years old!) known as "The Game of the Century". Link

But of course there are many games that are great. Chessbase has an app for the Android or iPhone with a database of many of the great games to look at - just $5.


What are some helpful chess tactics training websites? I like Chesstempo and chess.emrald.net[1].
Are there any others?
Edit (25.12.2020): Since at least 2018, chess.emrald.net has often not been responsive.

Chesstempo.com is the one I use. It's pretty excellent. I'd like to hear if there's a better one, though.


How should I have decided which side to attack on? I played black and was a pawn up. My plan was to castle on the opposite side from white's king, then use my majority on that side to pawn storm him. So on the turn shown below, I was about to castle long.

After we drew, I analysed the game with an engine, which preferred castling short and pushing the a-pawn, so it seems I should have done the exact opposite of my plan.

My question is, how should I have decided on which side to attack in this position? Why was my choice wrong?

Thanks in advance.

[FEN "r3k2r/1bp2ppp/pp2p3/8/8/2qPBP1P/P1P1Q1P1/R4RK1 b kq - 1 16"]

1. e4 e6
2. e5 d5
3. exd6 Bxd6
4. Nf3 Nf6
5. Bd3 b6
6. Bb5+ Nbd7
7. Nc3 Bb7
8. d3 a6
9. Bxd7+ Qxd7
10. O-O Ng4
11. h3 Ne5
12. Nxe5 Bxe5
13. Qe2 Qc6
14. f3 Bxc3
15. bxc3 Qxc3
16. Be3 O-O-O
17. Bd2 Qb4
18. Be3 Qc3
19. Qd2 Qxd2
20. Bxd2 Bc6
21. Bc3 f6
22. Rad1 Ba4
23. Rd2 e5
24. Rc1 g5
25. d4 exd4
26. Rxd4 Rxd4
27. Bxd4 Rf8
28. c3 c5
29. Bf2 Re8
30. Re1 Kc7
31. Bg3+ Kb7
32. Rxe8 Bxe8
33. Bd6 f5
34. g4 fxg4
35. hxg4 h5
36. Be7 hxg4
37. fxg4 Bd7
38. Bxg5 Bxg4
39. Kf2 Kc6
40. Ke1 Be6
41. a3 Kb5
42. Bd8 Ka5
43. Kd2 Ka4
44. Bxb6 c4
45. Bc5

You should castle "short" (on the king side). because you want to attack on the queen side without exposing your king.

1) White is short a pawn because of his missing b pawn. If you castle "long" and put your king on that side, White's open b file (and the black diagonal to b6) become compensation. If you don't, he's just a pawn down.

2) Your queen is powerfully placed on the queen side. You want to move up your pawns to support your queen, without exposing your king, or allowing your queen to be "pinned" by a rook. White has his queen on the king side and you don't, so it doesn't make sense to attack there.

3) Your best chances of getting an "outside" passed pawn are on the a and b files, so you want to advance those pawns, with your c pawn in support.


Touching a captured queen -- must I promote to it? Playing a friendly game against my son (but with Touch-and-Move in force), I was going to promote a pawn to a queen, so I fished out my queen from among the captured pieces, and placed it on the eighth rank. But before removing my pawn to complete the move, I realised that this would lose me the game.

My question is: Am I required to complete the move, and promote to a queen? The law says that if I touch any piece on the board I must move or capture it. Does this situation count?

Yes, you should promote to a Queen forcibly. FIDE rules say that (emphasis mine):

4.4 If a player having the move:
[...]
4.4.4 promotes a pawn, the choice of the piece is finalised, when the piece has touched the square of promotion.

You placed the Queen in the promotion square, so you should promote to it.

However, I would suggest not to promote this way. Instead, you can move your pawn to the promotion square, then put the piece you want there.


How much do you actually learn from the book Modern Chess Openings by Nick de Firmian? How much theory does the book actually cover and how far in terms of opening knowledge and building my opening repertoire will memorising every line of the book get me?

The best uses for out of date opening books are -

Doorstop
Decoration
Emergency toilet paper supply when Covid means the supermarket has sold out

how far in terms of opening knowledge and building my opening
repertoire will memorising every line of the book get me?

You will be an expert in historical opening lines, but you will understand nothing.
MCO, latest edition 2008 as far as I know, is mostly composed of chess lines with minimal notation. Each line usually finishes with an evaluation like "=", "+=", "-+", etc.
I have the 11th edition from somewhere round about 1970. The last time I looked up a line in it was sometime in the 1970's. The main reason I still have it is that it is where I keep my signed scoresheet of my 1972 draw with Victor Kortchnoi - in a simul, obviously.
According to Amazon:

Best Sellers Rank: 874,393 in Books


Is there a chess program that can detect if someone has left the game? I was playing a game with someone and they left because they knew they were going to lose. This is a really annoying thing that has happened to me. I would like to know if there is a chess program that knows if someone has switched to another screen.

Lichess (http://lichess.org) has some ability to detect when your opponent has left the game. When that happens, it gives your opponent a brief chance to rejoin, then allows you to claim a victory or a draw if they do not rejoin. If Lichess detects that your opponent has left, it will show a counter counting down the seconds until you can claim victory. The amount of time on the counter seems to depend on the time control and other factors. If Lichess does not detect that your opponent has left, but they decide to run out the clock, Lichess will not allow you to claim a victory, but will still automatically penalize your opponent with a ban after repeated offenses.
Note that none of this happens in correspondence chess, as temporarily leaving the game is normal in that time control.


Is there a text editor with syntax highlighting for PGN files? In Notepad++ or similar editors, one can get syntax highlighting for multiple file formats/languages. I'd like to have something usable on Windows that would let me do this with pgn files (see header tags, and annotations in different colors from main line moves).

There is an extension for Vim (a great editor) that provides syntax highlighting for PGN. You can download Vim here. You can find the extension here.


Are a pair of bishops of the same colour usually worth less than a pair of bishops of different colours? People have been discussing about the value of a pair of two bishops. I am wondering if two bishops are of the same colour, are they generally worth less than a pair of bishops of different colours?

Here are some thoughts:

A pair of two bishops of the same colour cannot checkmate the king.
A pair of two bishops of the same colour can stand in some same diagonal protecting each other. Is it a solid way to defend in some endgames?
In some cases, both bishops can be "bad" and worth less.

Two same-colored bishops can, as you note, protect each other. And unlike two knights, they can keep protecting each other indefinitely, even if one has to move. But that doesn't overcome their drawbacks.

The power of the two bishops is often because one can reach the squares the other cannot. With a mostly empty board, one of the two bishops can often control any square on the chessboard in one move. But if the two bishops are the same color, they lose this property. The two same-colored bishops can't do much that one bishop couldn't do, and really can't do much that a bishop plus another minor piece couldn't do.

As you noted, the two same-colored bishops cannot checkmate the opponent's king. There are other situations which also become draws if one side has two bishops of the same color instead of two different bishops. Bare king vs. two same colored-bishops and a rook pawn where the queening square is the wrong color is a draw. Two same-colored bishops and a pawn vs an opposite colored bishop is also an easy draw (there's no way to prevent the bishop from simply exchanging itself for the pawn.)

If you have a situation where you have two bishops vs bishop and knight (with some pawns on the board), then if you can arrange for a particular bishop to exchange itself for the knight, you can control whether or not the endgame will be a drawish opposite-colored bishops endgame. But if the two bishops are the same color, that option is not available; the bishops either are or aren't the same color as the opponent's.


Is a DGT Bluetooth Wireless e-Board stable enough to use regularly? I am considering purchasing a DGT Bluetooth Wireless E-Board for my school's chess club for exhibition games to be broadcast to a room without having everyone hovering over the board.

Are these boards sufficiently stable and reliable that, once configured, they can be used weekly without requiring any expert attention? I'm thinking both of the ability to detect what pieces have been moved and also the reliability of the Bluetooth connection.

Bluetooth supports distance of less than 30 feet, or 10 meters, and 802.11b is roughly up to 200 feet, though both distances depend on a number of factors; mention WiFi since it's possible that might be a better solution for your needs. Here's the DGT manual for "Connecting your Bluetooth board to your Computer", which might provide additional information of value to you.

Also, it appears that the DGT boards do have problems, here's an example; note the pawn falls, and the screen does not report the pawn is not where it is suppose to be; note that the board is not the Bluetooth model, though in this case, I don't believe it matters; also, it's possible this is not a hardware issue, but related to the software used in the demo I've linked to just now.

Given that the board appears to be $1000+, it's unlikely you're going to find enough reviews to judge if it's a good fit for your needs. My suggestion would be to make sure that you're 100% sure it's possible to return it at near to no cost given the price of the board.

While not a review of the Bluetooth model, here's a review of a DGT board that appears to use the same technology, minus the Bluetooth.


What to choose to play as black if you play King's Indian Attack as white? I am around 1700 - 1800 player on chess.com, mainly playing 3+2 and 5+5 games and as white I always play KIA, but what I have noticed recently is that with white my score is much better that as black - with white I have 40 victories more than losses, but with black I have only 8 victories more than losses.

So, I was wondering what opening one should play with black if he plays KIA as white?

I have tried French, Sicilian Kan and Pirc, and maybe I had the most success with Kan, but again it is nowhere near as good as my performance with white.

The King's Indian Attack isn't called the King's Indian Attack for nothing; it's White's version of the King's Indian Defense which is an opening for Black, characterized by the moves 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6, and Black intends to follow up with Bg7, d6, castling kingside and either c5 or e5. So you should get a structure you're familiar with, although the precise moves may be different.

You can't really play the KID against 1. e4, so you'd have to opt for the Modern Defense, or the Pirc you already mentioned. If you're attracted to the setup with g6 and Bg7, the Sicilian Dragon would also be an option.

  but what I have noticed recently is that with white my score is much better that as black - with white I have 40 victories more than loses, but with black I have only 8 victories more than losses.

Depending on the strength of your opponents and the number of games you play, this can be quite normal. By moving first, White has a slight advantage and (at all levels of play) this implies players score better with White than with Black. I wouldn't really worry about it for now.


How to win it in less moves From this point I tried to win this match but it took a very long chase. I know there is some shorter way to win it as my mobile chess-free app asked to resign after moving my white knight, but couldn't figured out how to win it in lesser moves.
[fen "1nb2rk1/q3pp2/2p1n1pQ/1p1pP2p/rP1P4/2PB1N1P/P4PP1/R1B2RK1 w Q - 0 1"]

1.Nh4 is best, preparing to decisively take on g6. Black can't do much to brace for this move. For example, 1...Rd8 2.Nxg6 fxg6? 3.Qxg6+ Ng7 (3...Kf8 4.Bh6+ leads to mate) 4.Bh6 e6 5.Qh7+ Kf8 6.Qh8+ Ke7 7.Qxg7+ Ke8 8.Bg6+ Qf7 9.Qxf7#.
It would be better if Black played ...f5 either on the first or second move, but this clearly isn't challenging since then your knight just takes on g6 for free, and White's attack is crashing through.


Can someone still get the title of "Club Master?" In the 90's I was reading British Chess Magazine. I remember an article about the new title of "Club Master": a title given for strong chess performance at a club level. I have no idea what FIDE rating, if any, was required. I think that the British Chess Federation [BCF] gave the title rather than FIDE. Can someone still get this title?

Yes. According to the ECF website it costs £10 and a number of different titles are available for ECF members:

  (a) Chess Maestro
  A player must achieve a grade of at least 95
  on any ECF official grading list.
  (b) Team Master
  A player must achieve a grade of at least 120 on any ECF official grading list.
  (c) Club Master
  A player must achieve a standard play A or B grade of at least 145 on an ECF official grading list.
  (d) County Master
  A player must achieve a standard play A grade of at least 170 on an ECF official grading list.
  (e) Regional Master
  A player must achieve a standard play A grade of at least 185 in two successive seasons on ECF official grading lists (note – grades must be 12 months apart e.g. July 2012, July 2013).
  (f) National Master
  A player must achieve a standard play A grade of at least 200 in two successive seasons on ECF official grading lists (note – grades must be 12 months apart e.g. July 2012, July 2013).


Is a queen vs rook endgame always winning? Other than specific scenarios where the side with the rook can draw, is it always possible to win as the side with the queen in rook and queen endgames?

The best resource I know for endgame statistics remains the ICGA endgame stats. The spreadsheet posted there contains pretty much all endgames up to 6 men. So for example KQKR is found in row 27 (assuming White has KQ), with the following percentages:

       wtm    btm
W win 99.01 65.51
 draw  0.80  5.83
B win  0.19 28.65

So as long as White has the move, KQ is almost certain to win. Black victories with Black to move are likely due to be immediate capture or skewer. (Pin or fork of the queen leads at best to a draw, of course.)

Interesting to compare with KRBKR, row 107:

       wtm    btm
W win 41.25  5.09
 draw 58.70 94.06
B win  0.05  0.85

With White to move, Black does much better than in KQKR, which is curious since all that has happened is that the queen has been "unpacked" into its "constituent rook and bishop". With Black to move, the position is an almost certain draw: Black has lost the quick steals, but equally can protect himself from most of the situations where he might end up losing.

Note: (1) This is a tablebase based on computer analysis of all possible positions with up to 6 pieces. It does not refer to actual games played over the board. (2) The spreadsheet refers to "non-broken positions" which approximates to "legal positions".


Quality of inputs in chess game databases? [Event "FIDE Women's World Chess Championship"]
[Site "Sochi RUS"]
[Date "2015.03.17"]
[EventDate "2015.03.17"]
[Round "1.1"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Tatiana Kosintseva"]
[Black "Mary Ann Gomes"]
[ECO "B47"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "159"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Be2 a6
7. O-O Nf6 8. Be3 Be7 9. f4 d6 10. Qe1 Nxd4 11. Bxd4 O-O
12. Qg3 b5 13. a3 Bb7 14. Bd3 Rad8 15. Kh1 Nh5 16. Qh3 Nxf4
17. Rxf4 e5 18. Nd5 Bxd5 19. exd5 g6 20. Raf1 f5 21. Bxf5 gxf5
22. Rxf5 Rxf5 23. Rxf5 Rf8 24. Qg4+ Kh8 25. Bc3 Qc8 26. Rxf8+
Qxf8 27. Qf3 Qh6 28. h3 Qc1+ 29. Kh2 h6 30. Bb4 Bg5 31. Bxd6
Bf4+ 32. g3 Qxc2+ 33. Qg2 Bxg3+ 34. Kxg3 Qg6+ 35. Kf2 Qxd6
36. Ke2 Qc5 37. Qe4 Qc7 38. Kd2 Qd6 39. h4 Kg7 40. h5 Qf6
41. Qg4+ Kf8 42. Ke3 Ke7 43. Ke4 a5 44. Qg3 Kd7 45. Qxe5 Qh4+
46. Kd3 Qg4 47. Kc2 Qc4+ 48. Kd2 Qg4 49. Kc2 Qc4+ 50. Kd2 Qg4
51. d6 Qg2+ 52. Ke3 Qg1+ 53. Ke4 Qg2+ 54. Kd3 Qf1+ 55. Kd4
Qc4+ 56. Ke3 Qc1+ 57. Kd3 Qd1+ 58. Ke3 Qe1+ 59. Kd4 Qg1+
60. Ke4 Qg2+ 61. Kd3 Qf1+ 62. Kc2 Qc4+ 63. Kd2 Kc6 64. Qe8+
Kxd6 65. Qf8+ Ke5 66. Qxh6 Qd5+ 67. Kc1 Qc4+ 68. Kd1 Qf1+
69. Kd2 Qg2+ 70. Kd3 Qf1+ 71. Kc2 Qf5+ 72. Kc1 Qf1+ 73. Kc2
Qf5+ 74. Kc1 Qf1+ 75. Kd2 Qc4 76. Kd1 Qf1+ 77. Kd2 Qg2+
78. Kd3 Qf1+ 79. Kc2 Qc1+ 80. Kxc1 1/2-1/2

First of all, how can I avoid the automatical numbering installed here,
which is not useful for the purpose of entering games ?

I wonder about the quality of entering chess games in databases. The
most recent entry I found in chessgames.com was the one above, but not the only one.
In a game of the reykjavic open there was also a game where the last
move was absurd. It was a rook end game and the last move shown was
Rh8, which would simply give away the rook ( I do not remember the game).

Why do regularly appear such errors ? Are the games entered manually or
is there an electronic devise which produces such annyoing errors ?

I guess the answer is "both".

Usually (in lower leagues and opens) games are entered manually, which obviously can lead to all kind of errors. But top level games are recorded by electronic boards, which can lead to trouble if the players are moving too fast or are positioning the pieces imprecisely. And there is the constant annoyance of arbiters placing the king on the central squares to input the result, which is quite often interpreted as an actual game move by the electronic board.


Free online analysis board between two players (both players can move the board) Other than F.I.C.S., where can a friend and I analyse our games online together free where both of us can move the pieces on the board.

Lichess.org has a feature called studies. You can add your game as a chapter in a study, invite your friends as contributors and make that study public or private. You have a (rather weak) engine analysis, a small database of chess games, and a chat. You can annotate your game, add alternative lines and so on.
The multi-chapter option makes that very useful for much more than game analysis. I'm using it primarily for opening studies.

Here is a screenshot from my Caro-Kann study:

Not free, but also worth a mention: Chess24.com has an analysis board for premium members. Very similar features, but there is only one game per analysis, not multiple chapters. The database is better (larger and properly cleaned up names, lichess is sometimes a bit annoying in that regard). You have to start a broadcast (see screenshot), and then you can invite your friend who doesn't need a premium membership for that. The downside is that the chat vanishes once you stop the broadcast.

In both cases you can move pieces on the board, and all other participants can see and annotate these moves.


Is FIDE president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov a good chess player? What's his Elo rating? On this page it says he is not rated: http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=34123811

I could only find one game featuring Ilyumzhinov, in which he played a 2300 Elo player and lost: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1600034

That's not very impressive for someone who owns FIDE and who boasts of having played a few games with aliens...

According to the source provided by @Lynob, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov had a rating of 2300 and was local champion of Kalmykia at the age of 14 (see also here). The game you mention against Alexander Zakharov took place in 1978, when Ilyumzhinov was about 16 years old.

However, and as you say, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov is unrated at the moment according to FIDE. But according to the same source he has played 9 rated games (not enough to get a rating). Making some research I found he played these games in the Members Appreciation Blitz Tournament in Skokie (USA) in 2012 with a result of +4 =1 -4.

Appart from that, I think he mostly plays friendly games. If you search "Kirsan Ilyumzhinov plays chess" in Google you'll find some images of him playing with different people, such as Gaddafi, Steven Seagal, the Minister of Sports Affairs of Oman or a Paraguayan student.


Can a win be claimed on the second illegal move if the first wasn't raised? First of all, I don't think this is a duplicate of what happens on the first illegal move in a game. This is what happens after the second if the first is unclaimed.

The setting is a tournament under FIDE rules (2018).

Can a win be claimed after the second completed illegal move completed by one side, if neither player nor the arbiter intervened upon the completion of the first?

Assume the arbiter was summoned by the claiming player, and sees the game and its score for the first time. Assume that both players recorded the moves faithfully, illegalities included, such that they agree on the history of events and that there is no doubt that more than one illegal move was completed. (See below for an example.)

The relevant articles of the FIDE Laws of Chess seem to be:

  7.5.1     An illegal move is completed once the player has pressed his clock. If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. Articles 4.3 and 4.7 apply to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position.

And

  7.5.5     After the action taken under Article 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 or 7.5.4 for the first completed illegal move by a player, the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent; for the second completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

As a concrete example, look at the following game and assume the arbiter was summoned after the move 24. 0-0-0. Both players recorded the game and agree the game score is correct.

[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1 "]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. Bxc6 bxc6 6. d4 exd4 7. Nxd4 Ba6 8. O-O d5 9. exd5 cxd5 10. Re1+ Ne4 11. Qg4 Qf6 12. Bg5 Qg6 13. Qf4 O-O-O 14. Bxd8 Rxd8 15. f3 Nxc3 16. bxc3 Bxc3 17. Reb1 Bxa1 18. Rxa1 Kd7 19. Qf5+ Ke8 20. Qxg6 hxg6 21. Nc6 Ra8 22. Kf2 O-O-O 23. Ke1 Re8+ 24. O-O-O

(Aside: this is probably a plausible game between weak players, so the question has maybe more than academic value.)

The illegal moves are 8.0-0, 13...0-0-0, 22...0-0-0 and 24.0-0-0. (Relevant articles of the Laws: 3.8.2.2.1 for the first three, 3.9.1 for the last.)

Black attempts to claim a win under 7.5.5. Does this stand?
Could white have claimed a win had she summoned the arbiter after 22...0-0-0?
Extension: if the claimed win(s) does (do) not stand, under 7.5.1, from which position does the game resume?

Black attempts to claim a win under 7.5.5. Does this stand?

No. According to 7.5.5 -

  After the action taken under Article 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 or 7.5.4
  for the first completed illegal move by a player, the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent; for the second
  completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare
  the game lost by this player.

After the first illegal move the arbiter gives the opponent an extra 2 minutes. He will also explain his decision to the two players and warn the player that a second illegal move will lose the game. Punishment for a second illegal move can only occur if the punishment for the first illegal move has been made.

There are recent judgements (for which I don't have reference to hand, but I suspect came from one of the FIDE Arbiters Magazines) saying that only one illegal move can be punished at a time. For instance, if a player promotes illegally by not replacing the pawn while still in check, he can not be punished for two illegal moves.

Therefore after the first reported illegal move only the punishment for a first illegal move can be applied. Another illegal move must occur for the punishment for a second illegal move to be imposed.

  Could white have claimed a win had he summoned the arbiter after
  22...0-0-0?

No, the same arguments apply.

  Extension: if the claimed win(s) does (do) not stand, under 7.5.1,
  from which position does the game resume?

From the position before the first illegal move. The punishment and reinstatement of the position are unrelated. Article 7.2.1 is relevant here -

  7.2.1 If during a game it is found that the initial position of the pieces was incorrect, the game shall be cancelled and a new game shall
  be played.

Regardless of fault or punishment the entire game should be played according to the FIDE Laws of chess.

Note, I had a very similar problem arbiting a tournament in 2014 when a player came to me to report a third illegal move by his opponent and claim the game. Since it was the first illegal move he reported I treated it as the first illegal move. Since the previous illegal moves had involved his opponent not getting out of check and the position corrected by the players at the time there was no need to go back beyond the current move.

PS Before tieing oneself into gender-anguished knots it is worth noting this line in the introduction to the FIDE Laws of Chess -

  In these Laws the words ‘he’, ‘him’, and ‘his’ shall be considered to
  include ‘she’ and ‘her’.


Where can I start to learn? I have been pretty interested in chess for about 8 months now. I know the rules and basic moves.

I'm looking right now for a place where I can start learning chess strategies, tactics etc. When doing a web search, I only get an unordered list of articles, books or videos out of order, which don't really help me to get an organized start.

What learning resources would you recommend?

I believe it helps to focus more on enjoying the game rather than learning. If you enjoy the game, you learn a lot in the process.

So, my advice would be to enjoy your chess. Find players that are roughly your skill level and play many games. Once you've played a few dozen games, you will gain some experience and then you will be ready to start learning chess in a formal way - reading books, articles, listening to video lectures, etc.

As of today, I am about as strong as a Candidate Master. I will tell you how I learned the game. At first, as a kid, me and my dad would just play for fun. My dad would often let me win and I would enjoy it. Then, when I was about 9 or 10, my dad took me to a few tournaments (no age group) and I was surprised that I could beat a few players who were older than me. Up until this point, I had no formal training (my dad was just an amateur player), but then one of the arbiters of the tournament offered to help me learn and then I would go to his place quite often and play a few games with him. After each game, he would show me the mistakes I made and what I needed to learn from that game. He told me about general opening principles, but his main focus was the endgame. He told me that it's very important to know the endgame. After that, I also learned a few openings, mostly by going over the games of stronger players and observing the types of moves they made. I didn't simply copy their openings, but I tried to play like them and incorporate their ideas into my game, as I understood them.

Then, I continued playing in tournaments and gradually my playing strength improved because my tactics improved, my endgame knowledge improved, my knowledge of chess strategy improved and so on. I also began to analyze my own games with the help of a computer. Before I had a computer, I would analyze them by myself (believe me, this helps you become a better player even if your analysis is actually wrong!). Overall, I enjoyed the game and in the process I learned quite a bit and now I'm aspiring to be a FIDE Master in the near future.

Here are a few books I recommend that you get hold of (this is after you have first played a lot of games and gained some experience)-

Understanding Chess Endgames by John Nunn

Winning Chess Openings by Bill Robertie

The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played by Irving Chernev

Good luck to you!


Static exchange Evaluation (SEE) optimization Implementing SEE extensively in my chess AI but can't seem to speed it up. Just using depth and MaxDepth. I'd like to add heuristics similar to negascout, quiescence, lazy eval. Maybe something like alpha beta. Trade off minimal accuracy for performance.

Another question is what to return "in check"

function _see(sq, fen, depth, maxDepth, color, chess) {
    "use strict";
    if (chess.fen() !== fen) {
        console.error("s fen/chess sync error");
        chess.load(fen);
    }

    if (chess.in_checkmate() || chess.game_over()) {
        return MATE;
    } else if (chess.in_check()) {
        return 0; // ????
    }

    var value = 0, moves, index, move_score, tfen, foo, bar;

    if (depth < maxDepth) {
        moves = chess.moves({
            square: sq,
            verbose: true
        });
        if (moves.length > 0) {
            counter.seeNodes = counter.seeNodes + 1;
            moves = _.chain(moves)
                //only captures
                .reject(function (e) {
                    return !e.hasOwnProperty('captured');
                })
                //material MVV
                .sortBy(function (s) {
                    return evalPiece(s.piece);
                })
                //captures LVA
                .sortBy(function (s) {
                    return -evalPiece(s.captured);
                })
                .value();
            //counter.sDepth = Math.max(depth, counter.sDepth);
            //counter.maxSDepth = Math.max(maxDepth, counter.maxSDepth);        console.error(JSON.stringify(moves));

            for (index = 0; index < moves.length; index += 1) {
                foo = chess.move(moves[index]);
                if (foo === null) {
                    console.error("see move generated error, aborting loop");
                    break;
                }
                tfen = chess.fen();
                value = Math.max(0, evalPiece(foo.captured) - _see(sq, tfen, depth + 1, maxDepth, -color, chess));
                bar = chess.undo();
                if (bar === null) {
                    console.error("see: bar=null");
                }
            }

        }

    }
    return value;
}

Your algorithm seems very wrong to me for SEE. It appears much closer to Quiescence Search instead.

SEE is an unary tree. After finding a legal move, the SEE function returns. It doesn't need to check all possible moves for the best one; just one.
You sort your moves in MVV/LVA order. Your ordering should just be on the least valuable attacking piece.
You search all possible moves. SEE only searches captures on a square.

To answer your question of:

  what to return "in check"

SEE doesn't actually care about check. If you capture with your king and the opponent can capture with anything, then the value of the king should be large enough that Math.max(0, evalPiece(foo.captured) - _see(sq, tfen, depth + 1, maxDepth, -color, chess)) has a greater score for not capturing with your king than capturing the king.


Does Stockfish(and other chess engines) learn after an analysis? (is there a machine learning algorithm implemented in it?) I was watching the Sinquefield Cup right now, in particular the game Svidler-Caruana. I analyzed once the position they got with Stockfish 7 64bit and it suggested the move Rf3. Svidler played instead Kg3, so i played it on Arena chess, and then i went back and re analyzed the same position, but this time the engine was suggesting Kg3. Is there some kind of machine learning algorithm implemented in the engines such that, when you go deeper in the game,they improve the analysis of previous positions?

No, there is no machine learning implemented
Due to hashing, next time when you run the same analysis you might not get the same results
Some other much weaker engines do have machine learning implemented, but not Stockfish
See My question is about inconsistencies in Stockfish 7 outputs


Are there women only tournaments for lower rated players? Are there women only tournaments for lower rated players? There are many for top women, but not for me.

I can't seem to find any, but it would be fun. Can anyone help?

It may depend on your location, but such tournaments do exist.

For example, the 2019 Texas Women's Chess Championship had some low-rated players. The 2019 Wisconsin Junior Open had a females-only section, with any female juniors from Wisconsin eligible to play in it, regardless of rating.

Upcoming, the U.S. Women’s Open will be in June in Las Vegas, and seeing as how there are U1400 prizes, it clearly isn't just for elite players.


The chess.com vs computer games celebrity category I came upon chess.com playing against computer mode. I found a resemblance of two professional chess players over there. Do they really resemble their gameplay, though? Does the AI mimic their past plays?

I have spent some time playing the lower-rated bots, and can confirm they tend to have different "personalities". I'm not a strong enough player to explain exactly how they are different. However I have observed that some are more aggressive, and tend to gravitate towards particular openings depending on the color.
I know that Hikaru recently did a series of videos on youtube where he played against bots. When I saw the new bots, I had a feeling that it was for the purpose you describe.


Does anyone know what happened to nowinchess.com? I used to go to the http://www.nowinchess.com/ website to see what are the new tournaments, and grab PGN files of past tournaments. It was simple, and excellent. Suddenly, two weeks ago another content appeared, not in English... Does anyone have any idea what happened?

They are rebuildin the site. You could find the tournaments in nowinchess.com/wp/live.

Probably you should write a comment to ask them to translate the site.
If you need help I can do it for you.


Engine Evaluation Confused The Muzio Gambit is -0.8 by Stockfish depth 22. However, if the f7-pawn is moved to the g-file, the evaluation falls to -3.5. How is that so? Both positions seem  fine for White.
[FEN ""]
[Title "Muzio Gambit"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. O-O!

As for "both positions seem fine for White": well, Black has a significant material advantage after 5...gxf3, so White has to find some compensation. If you don't have a concrete continuation which demonstrates that compensation, I don't think there's any reason to think the engine evaluation is confused.
In both positions, a sensible continuation is 5... gxf3; 6 Qxf3 Qf6; 7 d3. Now in the original position Black has doubled f-pawns and a bad pawn structure; in particular the pawn on f4 can't be supported effectively; when it falls Black will have two isolated pawns. Black stands better but has some weakness that White can try to exploit. In the position with the pawn moved from f7 to g7, Black could play 7... g5 immediately, or alternatively 7... Bc5+ and then 8... g5. Now Black's structure is more solid and White doesn't have anything like enough to justify the material disadvantage.


Is there any game where AlphaZero wins against Stockfish thanks to a knight pair? I have seen some of the games that were published in the match between AlphaZero and Stockfish.

In many games, as when it beats Stockfish as black playing the Berlin Defense, AlphaZero appears to obtain some extra advantage of preserving the pair of bishops.

Is there, conversely, any game where AlphaZero beats Stockfish using the power of the knight pair?

I found a game in which AlphaZero wins the game mostly due to the major activity of the knights in the middlegame.

Jeremy, from ChessNetwork, made a great anaylsis on the game.

[Title "AlphaZero-Stockfish, London England, 2017"]
[FEN ""]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 Bxd2+ 7. Qxd2 d5 8. O-O O-O 9. cxd5 exd5 10. Nc3 Nbd7  11. b4 c6 12. Qb2 a5 13. b5 c5 14. Rac1 Qe7 15. Na4 Rab8 16. Rfd1 c4 17. Ne5 Qe6 18. f4 Rfd8 19. Qd2 Nf8 20. Nc3 Ng6 21. Rf1 Qd6 22. a4 Rbc8 23. e3 Ne7 24. g4 Ne8 25. f5 f6 26. Nf3 Qd7 27. Qf2 Nd6 28. Nd2 Rf8 29. Qg3 Rcd8 30. Rf4 Nf7 31. Rf2 Rfe8 32. h3 Qd6 33. Nf1 Qa3 34. Rcc2 h5 35. Qc7 Qd6 36. Qxd6 Rxd6 37. Ng3 h4 38. Nh5 Ng5 39. Rf1 Kh7 40. Nf4 Rdd8 41. Kh2 Rd7 42. Bh1 Rd6 43. Ng2 g6 44. Nxh4 gxf5 45. gxf5 Rh8 46. Nf3 Kg7 47. Nxg5 fxg5 48. Rg2 Kf6 49. Rg3 Re8 50. Bf3 Rdd8 51. Be2 Rf8 52. Bg4 Nc8 53. Bf3 Rfe8 54. h4 Rh8 55. h5 Rhe8 56. Bg2 Ne7 57. h6 Rh8 58. Rh3 Rh7 59. Kg1 Ba8 60. Nd1 g4 61. Rh5 g3 62. Nc3 Ng8 63. Ne2 Rxh6 64. Nxg3 Rxh5 65. Nxh5+ Kf7 66. Kf2 Nf6 67. Nxf6 Kxf6 68. Rh1 c3 69. Rc1 Rh8 70. Rxc3 Kxf5 71. Rc7 Kf6 72. Bf3 Rg8 73. Rh7 Rg6 74. Bd1 Rg8 75. Rh6+ Ke7 76. Rxb6 Kd7 77. Rf6 Ke7 78. Rh6 Rg7 79. Rh8 Bb7 80. Rh5 Kd6 81. Rh3 Rf7+ 82. Ke1 Bc8 83. Rh6+ Kc7 84. Rc6+ Kb8 85. Rd6 Bb7 86. b6 Ba6 87. Rxd5 Rf6 88. Rxa5 Rxb6 89. Kd2 Bb7 90. Rb5 Rf6 91. Bb3 Kc7 92. Re5 Ba6 93. Kc3 Rf1 94. Bc2 Rh1 95. a5 Kd6 96. e4 Bf1 97. Rf5 Bg2 98. Rf4 Rc1 99. Kb2 Rh1 100. a6


Why did this game end with a draw? This game starts with

f4  e5
g4

IMO, black has a winning position here. How did it end with a draw?

Either the game score is incorrectly recorded or this was a pre-arranged draw, because in that final position everyone beyond basic club level would realize that Black wins with Qh4# (a basic Fool's mate pattern).


What's the best continuation for white here? Here's what I do when someone tries to copy my moves:

[Date "????.??.??"]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4 4.Qe2 Qe7 5.Qxe4 d6
*

But then my opponent plays d6, and I don't know what should I do. What's the best continuation for white after d6?

You're not down material, so just develop.

6.d4 allows both your bishops to get in the game while keeping strength in the center. After that, you can develop your minor pieces and castle very efficiently. You're going to have a swell game.

I wouldn't worry too much about 7... f6. That move weakens his Kingside. And since you're up a pawn, the best he can do is retake on e5 and give himself an isolated pawn. 8. Bf4 develops a piece and puts an eye on the under-defended c7 square.

Furthermore, after Bf4, you can plan for Nc3 followed by O-O-O (castling on the queenside) where your rook will thunder on the d file.


Is there any bughouse android app? I want to play bughouse with my friend against other players, is there any android app that lets me team up with my friend and play bughouse?

preferably at our own pace, not the the fast bughouse that is played in tournaments, because we live in different timezones, he lives in australia, me in +3 GMT, and we have work so the probability of the two of us being online at the same time is so low

There exists "Yafi", which use FICS chess server, where you can play bughouse :
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=pl.mg6.yafi


Looking for a historic chess game I'm looking for an historic chess game, and I don't remember if Capablanca or Kasparov played it. In it, both queens are face to face and neither let pass the other one, for almost 7 or 10 movements, in the middle of the board. I remember saw it on chessgames.com in 2005.
The queens moved horizontally, 1 or 2 spots. One was in the above row and the second one in the bottom, for e.g. the black queen in the 5th row and the white queen in the 4th row. So neither can't go forward, as they are blocking each other. I'm not sure if it was Capablanca or Kasparov, only about 70% sure.

You could use Python and code it to sift through Capablanca or Kasparov games. When there is a position where the queens oppose in the center, make the program put it to the side. Then, you can look through the games until you find the one you want.
If you don't know how to use Python, you could get someone else to help you, or to get a program with the same function from online.


Dealing with Sénéchaud Countergambit in King’s Gambit How would you try to refute the Sénéchaud Countergambit in King's Gambit?

[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nf3 g5

Full disclosure: I don't play the King's Gambit.  My first thought (and note that I am NOT a master-level player) was 4. Nxg5 exf4 5. Nf3 (which, in and of itself, isn't sufficient to be an answer).

I decided to just do some Googling to try to learn more about this, and stumbled across analysis.cpuchess.com, which allowed a position to be analysed by various chess engines.

Here's what they gave me:

Houdini

  Nxg5 h6 5. Qh5 Qf6 6. Nf3 Qxf4 7. Qxe5+ Qxe5 8. Nxe5 d6 9. Nf3 Nc6 10. b3 Nge7 11. Bb2 Rg8 12. d4 Bb4+ 13. c3 Ba5 14. Nbd2 b5 15. g4 Bxg4 16. Bxb5 O-O-O

GarboChess JS

  Nxg5 Qe7 5. Bc4 exf4 6. Qh5 Nf6 7. Qxf7+ Qxf7 8. Bxf7+ Ke7 9. e5 Ng4

Fruit

Seemed to be locking up mid-analysis.

Stockfish

  Nxg5 Nc6 5. Qh5 Qf6 6. Bc4 Nh6 7. Nc3 Qg6 8. Qxg6 hxg6 9. Nd5 Bb6 10. Bb3 d6 11. d3 f5 12. Rf1 Bd7 13. fxe5 dxe5 14. exf5 Nxf5

Toga2

  Nxg5 Qe7 5. Nc3 exf4 6. Nf3 Bb4 7. e5 Bxc3 8. dxc3 d6 9. Qd5 Nc6 10. Bxf4 Nf6

Critter

  Nxg5 exf4 5. Qh5 Qe7 6. Bc4 Nf6 7. Qxf7+ Qxf7 8. Bxf7+ Ke7 9. Bb3 h6 10. Nf3 Nxe4 11. d4 Bd6 12. O-O Re8 13. Ne5 Nc6 14. Rxf4 Ng5 15. h4 Nxe5 16. hxg5

Observation

What I found most amusing about this was that all of them (except Fruit, of course) suggested 4. Nxg5 as the best move... but that most went different directions afterwards; 4. ... Qe7 on GarboChess JS and Toga2 being the only commonality, and even they diverged almost immediately.

... which leads me to conclude that the answer to "how would you try to refute" is 4. Nxg5 followed by "tactics."


Why does White play Qxd4? This puzzle on chesstempo caught my eye. We play as Black:
[FEN "r2qk2r/1p1bppbp/p1np2p/4P2n/Q8/2N2N1P/PPP2PPB/R3KB1R w - - 0 1"]

1. exd6

My solution is: if we play 1... Nb..., a discovered attack by the bishop on a White queen takes place. Therefore, we shall use this knight wisely. The interesting thing we may do is threatening a fork on the king and on the rook (2... Nc2+) playing Nbd4. It is the right move:
[FEN "r2qk2r/1p1bppbp/p1np2p/4P2n/Q8/2N2N1P/PPP2PPB/R3KB1R w - - 0 1"]

1. exd6 Nbd4

I wanted to make the White queen move so it would be no longer defending the c2, making the fork possible (that would something like 2. Qc4):
[FEN "r2qk2r/1p1bppbp/p1np2p/4P2n/Q8/2N2N1P/PPP2PPB/R3KB1R w - - 0 1"]

1. exd6 Nbd4
2. Qc4 Nc2+
3. Kd2 Na1

And yet, the White plays 2. Qxd4 and gives Black the queen. Then White captures the bishop:
[FEN "r2qk2r/1p1bppbp/p1np2p/4P2n/Q8/2N2N1P/PPP2PPB/R3KB1R w - - 0 1"]

1. exd6 Nbd4
2. Qxd4 Bxd4
3. Nxd4

The only reason as to why White would answer this way I found afterwards is White not losing a piece (they get to capture the knight, which couldn't have been captured after the fork) and losing the same material (-Queen + Bishop = -8 + 3 = -5 = -Rook). Yet this seems a bit weak. If I were White, I would have played the other way. Yet, I am no old hand in chess, so there is no good reason to trust my gut. What is more important here: not to lose the queen, or not to lose the pieces? Anyway, why does White play 2. Qxd4?

1. exd6 is bad because it opens up the bishop on g7. This would happen anyways, but it just made Black's job easier. It also completely opens the centre, which is not a good thing to do, especially when the king hasn't castled. Finally, it ignored the bishop that is indirectly threatening the Queen.
The correct response is 1... Nd4 which enables the Bishop to (directly threaten the queen) and places the knight in a central square, threatening at the same time the c2 pawn.
Now white has two options:

Qc4, which is a move that beginners would prefer as they cannot live without their queen. Black would reply with Nc2+ and after some moves here's how the position would look like:
[Variant "From Position"]
[FEN "r2qk2r/1p1bppbp/p1np2p1/4P2n/Q7/2N2N1P/PPP2PPB/R3KB1R w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. exd6 Nd4 2. Qc4 Nxc2+ 3. Kd1 Nxa1

Now White's position has multiple disadvantages:

The centre is open and the white king can't castle!
Material difference
The rook and the bishops aren't fully activated compared to the respective Black pieces.

Qxd4, a move that more experienced players would prefer. Here's how the position would look like after Nc2+, etc:
[Variant "From Position"]
[FEN "r2qk2r/1p1bppbp/p1np2p1/4P2n/Q7/2N2N1P/PPP2PPB/R3KB1R w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. exd6 Nd4 2. Qxd4 Bxd4 3. Nxd4 O-O 4. O-O-O

Now White is much better as:

They have castled.
Knights and the black-coloured bishop are active.
The white-coloured bishop will be developed probably in the next move, connecting the rooks at the same time.
They can attack the Black king (opposite castles)!
The dangerous black bishop on g7 is gone!
Bishop on d7 is inactive.

I believe you should try the move that will make your play easy later in the game and not Qxd4 just because the engine says so.


Online Sites For Earning Money Through Chess Does anyone know if there are any sites by which I could play chess professionally and earn money similar to gambling sites or online poker sites ??

I highly doubt that there exist one. If it would exist, it would be full of sandbaggers or engine players. There is no way to verify who exactly plays the game. You, or your Stockfish/Houdini/Rybka/.

So even if you are GM, you most probably will lose money.


Is there an origin or story of where the pieces that make a chess game got their name from? I understand why there would be a king and queen but I would love to know where the idea to call pieces what they are - such as the Rook, Knight, Bishop and Pawn - came from. Is there any background information on the reasons they were called this, and why they were assigned their specific move set?

I believe that the chess pieces are supposed to constitute an army - I'll try to give a breakdown of how each individual name evolved.

Xianqi, or Chinese Chess, originally developed in India before spreading across the world. Xianqi is the Chinese interpretation of the ancient game, and the pieces do really sound like those that would be in an army - General, Advisor, Cannon, Elephant, Horses, Soldiers, and Chariots.

When the game moved to Persia, as referenced by user Akavall in the comments, the Persian word for chariot is "rokh" and is naturally what the piece is called today.

The modern interpretation of chess holds its roots in Spain where one of the final transformations occurred. The General piece became the King and the Advisor became the Queen, as these positions were more familiar in the Western environment. The horses became knights and the elephant became a bishop (I suppose this was influenced by the Church's power during this era). The Soldiers became known as pawns (from Anglo-French poun, or Old French peon).

If you want to read more about this, this link might do a better job explaining it than I did: How Did Chess Pieces Get Their Names?


What are some of the most instructive positional games covered in Agadmator's YouTube channel? I am on a path to improve my chess and as of now I have phased it out to

tactics
endgames

Tactics I can say with confidence I had good improvement in the last 8 months or so. About endgame, I kind of crammed the "100 endgames you must know" by Jesús de la Villa.
but still, a lot to go to understand all the intricacies.

Now I am onto the thought that I should look into improving my positional play as well. Dealing with positions that have no direct threat
and at the same time don't have any straightforward target is very difficult for me.

Not considering going through books of annotated games over board, because of time constraints I thought I will watch chess videos and maybe even watch the same video more than once to study them deeply.

So that's why I have this question: what are some of the most instructive positional games covered in Agadmator's YouTube channel that I should be studying?

I'm very fond of agadmator, but you must understand that his channel aims at entertainment, not education, and you will hardly learn as much as you would with other type of contents. I strongly recommend that you check out the lessons on the Saint Louis Chess Club Youtube channel, it has incredibly lessons and many of them on positional play.

For example, you can check good analysis on some of Karpov's best games by Yasser Seirawan.

This video, for example, is an excellent lesson on positional play. Another excelent choice is this one.

Take a look at all the content on this channel and you will not regret it. Of course, it is not as "fun" and the videos are longer than agadmator's, but on an educational level you will enjoy them a lot.


Identifying corresponding squares 6k1/p7/3K2p1/1P5p/7P/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

White to move.

Dvoretsky notes that the correspondence between the 'f7, e5' squares is less evident. Originally, I thought that g7 and e6 were corresponding (and I don't see why not).

Clearly, e5 and f7 are corresponding: the first person to move on these squares loses. Did he just serendipitously discover this pair?

How do I discover that e5, f7 are corresponding?
Is my original claim, 'g7, e6 are corresponding', incorrect?

f7/e5

  Clearly, e5 and f7 are corresponding: the first person to move on these squares loses

I don't think your definition of corresponding squares is quite correct. If the black king goes to f7, black does not necessarily lose.

In this position the fight is about the square f6. If black manages to get the king to f6 (with the white king not on f4) he can play g5 and create a passed pawn on the h file.

In this sense, e5 and f7 are corresponding because:

If the white king goes to e5 first, black will play Kf7 putting white in zugzwang. White has to retreat with the king (or play b6 which is equally bad). Assuming white retreats the king from e5, you note another theme of corresponding squares: f6 and f4: if the black king goes to f6, white - in order to keep equality - has to reply with Kf4. Conversely, if white plays Kf4 himself first, black can reply with Kf6 putting white in Zugzwang. However you can easily see that black will always get to f6 favourably. For example 1. Ke5 Kf7 2. Ke4 (staying close to the square f4) Ke6! and white has to play Kf4 (which is answered with Kf6) or retreat further to the third rank, letting the black king to the fifth rank. In this case black is winning.
If the black king goes to  f7 first, white has to prevent Kf6 by playing Ke5. The position is still a draw in this case.

g7/e6

You can confirm for yourself that white is too slow to win on the queenside, i.e. capturing the pawn on a7 with the king and promoting the b pawn will take longer than black getting a queen on h1 (after playing g5...).

This means that white always has to keep an eye on the kingside pawns, because black is threatening to create a passed pawn with g5, hxg5 h4. Particularly this means, that the white king has to be able to reach the square ("pawn promotion square rule" for black pawn on h4): d4-d1-h1-h4. Particularly this means that the white king may never move to the sixth rank. So e6 is never going to be a corresponding square for the white king.


Is there a way (or tool) to convert games in PGN to notations like the one in the description? Example:

White: Kd6, Rh6

Black: Kd8

1.?

Background story: I'm thinking of creating material for developing the visualization skills of my students. If I can convert easy problems to text notations and ask people to solve them without a chess board, I'm thinking it would be a good exercise for visualization in chess.

PGN is for game notation, i.e. the whole game. You can use the FEN notation by creating the position on chessvideos.tv FEN generator site and then use the code to input this into Fritz or your preferred software. Code is on the top right. 3k4/8/3K3R/8/8/8/8/8 is the code for the position you gave.


What to do with no stronger players around? I hear that a good way to improve is by playing against much stronger opponents. The problem here is that there are hardly any stronger opponents where I live and that makes it not only not as challenging but with no one to really personal help me improve. I thought of playing chess on the internet to resolve this problem but something about it just doesn't sit well with me, in other words I really dislike online chess. Maybe its the fact it doesn't feel like you are playing a real person or you're just staring at a screen instead of playing with a real board.

If there are no stronger players convenient to you, and you don't want to use the technology available to play with stronger players further away, then you must go to where the stronger players are.

Organizations exist to do just this.  For instance the US Chess Federation has tournaments around the US throughout the year that allow players to meet and play together.

Check out the organizations that serve you and see what opportunities they offer.  Some will require extensive travel, but with time and patience you will find chess clubs and tournaments that are within driving distance.

Once you establish a relationship with such a club or organization, and specific players within it, you may find playing online more comfortable once you know the people you are playing against.  Sometimes the issue isn't the mechanism, but the distance and relative anonymity.


King's Gambit - Falkbeer Countergambit I like to play blitz games online (mostly 3, occasionally 5 minutes per player). When I play those, it is usually for enjoyment and getting into wild games - romantic chess, if you will.

This naturally means I play many, often questionable/unsound, gambits. (Un?)surprisingly, I fare quite well with this style, even against higher ranked players. I'm a decent player myself - around 2000 ELO when I was active (not anymore, though).

One of the gambits I particularly enjoy is the King's Gambit. I have a good understanding of how to play both the accepted and declined variations of it; however, the Falkbeer Countergambit always perplexed me.

[Title "Falkbeer Countergambit"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5

I tend to play 3. exd5 (main line). Now, after 3. .. c6 or 3. .. exf4 I tend to get at very least playable positions. After 3. .. e4, however, I tend to run into problems. Usually, black is able to castle faster than I, thus creating some nasty pressure on the e-file for my exposed king in the center and also later on on the now somewhat misplaced f4 pawn and exposed g1-a7 diagonal.

So, I guess the questions for the 3. exd5 e4 variation are:

What are some playable continuations for white here?
What are white's long term plans?
Some notable/instructive games would be nice.

Please note, that this question is mostly applicable to blitz games. I probably would not play King's Gambit in a game with longer time controls anyway.

4…e4 should actually be the least attractive option for black. But you should probably know a bit about it:

[Title "Falkbeer Countergambit"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 e4 4. d3 Nf6 5. dxe4 Nxe4 6. Nf3 Bc5 7.Qe2! Bf2
8. Kd1 Qxd5 9.Nfd2!

The checks 7…Bf2 and 8…Qd5 look threatening, but now white is going to win material because of the threat Nc3.

[Title "Falkbeer Countergambit"]
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 e4 4. d3 Nf6 5. dxe4 Nxe4 6. Nf3 Bc5 7.Qe2! O-O
8. Qxe4 Re8 9.Ne5 f6 10.d6

10.d6 is actually not the strongest continuation, but the threat to pick up the bishop with Qc4+ or to play Bc4+ is quite tricky to meet in a blitz game. Lots of ways to win quickly with white (for example 10…cd is already losing).

The general idea of 7.Qe2 is to neutralise the Bc5 with Be3 (i.e. 7…Bf5 8.Nc3 Qe7 9.Be3 or 7…Qe7 8.Be3), which usually leads to a better endgame for white.

And if you play somebody who knows his theory: The offbeat way to play against the Falkbeer would be 6.Be3 with a nice exchange sac as mainline: 6.Be3 Qh4 7.g3 Nxg3 8.Nf3 Qh5 9.hxg3 Qxh1


In the Caro-Kann Panov-Botvinnik Attack which move tends to lead to the most solid, positional, slow, closed, and quiet positions: 5... e6, Nc6 or g6? In the Caro-Kann Panov-Botvinnik Attack, after 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3, which move tends to lead (on average) to the most solid, positional, slow, closed, quiet and strategic positions (the less sharp positions, the positions which contain the less tactics) : 5...e6 or 5...Nc6 or 5...g6 ?

What are all the differences between these three moves? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each of them?

Let me quote very strong GM ( taken from Lars Schandorff-Grandmaster Repertoire 7 The Caro-Kann ) :

  The famous Panov variation has always attracted aggressive players with White, and it is easy to understand why. With an active pawn move, White immediately creates tension in the centre and shows that he values the initiative more highly than mere positional matters, such as pawn structure. The Panov often leads to double-edged positions where White has isolated queen's pawn in exchange for fluid piece-play and general activity.

Please note the The Panov often leads to double-edged positions... part. I told you this before, and sadly here is the same case : White chooses here whether the struggle will be sharp tactical encounter or quiet strategical "debate".

That being said, let us examine all 3 moves and let us start from 5...g6 :

This is not entirely correct, but may be playable. Black struggles to draw by regaining the sacrificed d-pawn. So far White has pleasant advantage in the main lines, but maybe somebody will invent some novelty that will make Black's play fully equal ( I still have my doubts but who knows... ).

As for 5...Nc6 :

This move gives White lots of options to sharpen the game. He can go into Endgame variation where he has small initiative and better piece placement, or he can go into sharp lines with 6.Bg5. Here lines are very sharp. You can transpose to more solid lines with 6...e6 which may be what you want but be warned that Schandorff still believes White is slightly better there. Playing similar positions as Black, I must agree with him -> these are very tough to play as Black, at least they were for me. He prefers 6...dxc4 instead.

As for 5...e6, it might be exactly what you look for, but you really need latest theory here. Schandorff says that in the moment of him writing the book ( 2010 ) the Nimzo-Indian plan Karpov invented that starts with 5...e6 lost its appeal. Still, if I were you, I would look thoroughly for these positions as they were solid before. I doubt White can improve the game, so all you will probably need are good opening moves and you will be ready to go! 90% of the time you should be battling against Isolated Queen's pawn which is easier to play as Black... Just "do your homework" first!

I wish I was able to offer you some sample lines with 5...e6 but I have no up-to-date books on that :(

Good luck!