How many such positions are there? (chess/math checkmate puzzle) I'm interested in this kind of position:

There are only 4 pieces on the board. If Whites goes first, they can checkmate in one move. If Blacks goes first, they can checkmate in one move. For example:

  The question is: How many such positions are there?

I find 3 main positions:

Each of them gives us another 6 positions. We can move the start position of the black Queen to 6 other 6 squares. So we have 21 basic positions.

  Are there other basic positions?

For each basic position we can :

1) switch color x2

2) rotate the board x4

3) mirror position x2

So one basic position generate 2x4x2=16 positions.
 And the final answer is: There are 16x21=336 such positions.

  Is this right?

Your second basic position allows for 4 more variants beyond those you already gave, indicated by the following diagram:

[FEN "1q6/1q6/1q6/1q6/Q7/K7/8/1k6 w - - 0 1"]

That brings the tally for "basic positions" to 25. Whether that addition makes the list exhaustive or not I'm not completely sure (though I think it does).

In any case, whatever the number of basic positions is, your extrapolation of the total number of positions from there (x2 for the color switch and x8 for transformations of the board) is correct since the symmetry group of the chessboard does indeed have order 8, as confirmed on p.334 of this chapter from the Handbook of Constraint Programming, for instance. (One does need to be careful about overcounting here, though; see below.) So at the moment I'd conjecture that the answer is 25 x 16 = 400.

I'm adding this mathematical digression because I see from your profile that you're interested in pursuing a further study of math. I may not be saying anything here that you aren't already aware of, but here goes anyway.

Note that there are some chess positions which will come out identical under different symmetries of the board. For instance, consider the act of reflecting across the a1-h8 diagonal. That symmetry of the board will generally change a given position, e.g.

becomes

But of course some positions (namely those that only have pieces on the a1-h8 diagonal) don't change under that symmetry, e.g. the position

remains unchanged when we reflect across that diagonal.

Because of this sort of behavior, one generally needs to be careful not to overcount in this kind of counting problem. For your problem, that means being sure that none of your basic positions repeats itself under any of the (non-identity) symmetries, so that our "x 16" when obtaining the total number of positions from the number of basic positions isn't overcounting. In the present case, your basic positions are complicated/asymmetric enough that it's intuitively clear none of them will get repeated under these symmetries, so there's nothing to worry about, but in math it's often when things are "intuitively clear" that one needs to be most worried about mistakes. (In fact, there's a saying that if you want to find errors in a mathematical proof, start with anywhere it says, "It is clear that ...")


Meaning of ! and ? in Stockfish output? I've just installed Stockfish 8 and in the engine output, I see it has started to put ! and ? in various places (after certain moves and scores).  Example output:

    mover viewpoint     fewer / Multi-PV setting = 1 / more
exclude: none best +tail
dep score   nodes   time    (not shown:  tbhits knps    seldep)
 24 +7.48   19.8M   0:12.09 Rd8+ Nd2 Nd5 Ne2 Nd7 Bd4 Rac8 Nc3 Nxc3+ Bxc3 Rc7 Ke2 Nb6 Rad1 Nd5 Be5 Rcc8 Ne4 f6 Bh3 Rc6 Bd4 b6 c3 h6 Kf2 Kf7 Rhe1 Ne7 Kf3 Nf5
 23 +7.42   14.4M   0:08.71 Rd8+ Nd2 Nd5 Ne2 b6 Bf2 Nc6 c3 Nce7 Nd4 b5 a3 Rab8 Kc2 a6 Rad1 Rbc8 Rhe1 h6 N2f3 Rd6 Kb1 g6 Kc2 Kg7 Nd2 Rd7 Ne4 Rdd8 Nf3 Nf5
 23 +7.25?  11.2M   0:06.78 Rd8+ Nd2?
 23 +7.16!  10.9M   0:06.62 Rd8+!
 23 +7.27!  10.7M   0:06.51 Rd8+!
 23 +7.34?  9.48M   0:05.73 Rd8+ Nd2?
 22 +7.27   7.93M   0:04.76 Rd8+ Nd2 Nd5 Ne2 b6 Bf2 Nc6 c3 Nce7 Nd4 b5 a3 Rab8 Kc2 a6 Rad1 h5 N2f3 g6 Ne5 Rbc8 Rhe1 h4 Nef3 hxg3 hxg3
 22 +7.30?  6.70M   0:03.99 Rd8+ Nd2?
 22 +7.22?  5.96M   0:03.56 Rd8+ Nd2?
 21 +7.15   5.11M   0:03.04 Rd8+ Nd2 Nd5 Ne2 b6 Bf2 Nd7 c3 N7f6 Bf3 a6 Kc2 b5 a4 Rac8 axb5 axb5 Bd4 Ne8 Rhd1 Nd6 Ra7 Nf5
 20 +7.14   2.80M   0:01.65 Rd8+ Nd2 Nd5 Ne2 b6 Bf2 Nd7 c3 Rac8 Kc2 N7f6 Bf3 a6 a4 b5 axb5 axb5 Bd4 Rd7 Bxf6 Ne3+ Kc1 gxf6 Nd4 b4 Bc6 Rdc7 cxb4

It did not do this previously.  What do these mean?

OK I just realized that I upgraded Winboard at the same time and it's actually Winboard that is now adding the ! and ?.  The meaning seems to be given on this page:

  A question mark as the last character in the pv field should be used to indicate the reported score is from a fail low, and thus represents an upper bound only. Similarly, an exclamation point should be used to indicate a fail high / lower bound.


Unit Testing a chess board representation So this is a bit of outlier question.

I am writing a chess library, essentially from scratch. You can find much of the code here, with the intention of using it for a GUI and/or an engine. (The game is Grand Chess but for the purposes of this question it doesn't really matter.)

I am currently writing unit tests to verify that my functions work as expected. And I was wondering if there was some sort of library or database of suggested positions to test I can use and work from, categorized by whether they're Checkmate, Stalemate, Check, Legal, Illegal, etc.

tl;dr I am looking for a list of positions to unit test my code against.

You can find my current tests here, I add to them every few days. However, I want to make sure the tests are exhaustive before I go debugging the code. (Half of them fail currently).

Edit : to clarify : I am not looking for engine ("best move") tests. I am looking for board representation ("is this position checkmate") tests. I already have a few puzzles lined up for engine testing.

When reading your question, my gut reaction is that your scope is too complicated for unit testing.  I recommend a quick read through the free e-book Unit Testing Succinctly.  However, I have no experience writing chess code (maybe your paradigms are different) - although I do software for a living.

A unit test should be very simple and test a function that does 1 single thing.  Then you can combine the functions with some reasonable expectation that they will work.  For example, I would expect a unit test for each piece to determine if a particular move is legal.  A unit test for each piece to determine if it is putting the king in check.  A test for each piece to determine where it is attacking, etc.

Testing a position seems like a very complicated unit test and would be much harder to do thoroughly.  Instead write smaller tests against smaller functions and then know that those individually work - evaluating a position is just a matter of iterating over the simple functions.

If you want to test a position for a good (not forced) move, I think unit test's will artificially limit the long term development and strength of your chess engine... a binary result of a unit test will force your engine to make the same move every time.

I'd also look at adding unit tests for 'most direct' path to a mate with known endgames.  I'd look to add unit tests for traversing through known openings as well.  Mid game unit tests will be much harder - maybe plugging in a position and evaluating that the engine produces a usable result (which is a binary response).

For the question of evaluating a set of positions for your engine, you may do far better putting this question on https://stackoverflow.com/ with the "chess" tag.


Does elo rating have a limit? The highest Elo rating to date is 2882, which belongs to Carlsen, while the last Elo rating of Kasparov is 2851. Could I have an Elo rating of 2950 or maybe 3000? Does the Elo rating have a limit?

No, Elo ratings have no theoretical limit. If Alice scored 76% against Carlsen (rating 2853) consistently, she would stabilize at a rating of 3053*, and if Bob scored 76% against Alice, he would stabilize at a rating of 3253**, etc. There is no theoretical end to this sequence. However, consensus seems to be that in practice a perfect player would have a rating somewhere in the 3000s.

*Assuming Carlsen performed well enough against other people that his rating stayed at 2853

**Assuming Alice performed well enough against other people that her rating stayed at 3053


Is the queens gambit declined getting more popular than the slav? Back when I used to study chess, like 10 years ago or so, all the text books and all the super GMs recommended either the slav or the semi slav against queens gambit, they said it's better than the queens gambit declined.

Moreover all recommended to avoid the queens gambit all together because it doesn't give white any advantage, and so many GMs just stopped playing d4.

Fast forward to now, I stopped studying chess, and I see everyone (by everyone I mean super GMs) playing d4 and black replying by playing  queens gambit declined.

It's pretty much automatic for Caruana to play the declined and everyone is playing queens gambit, see the last FIDE championship and more.

What has changed? I feel like there's a big change in the text books nowadays, I don't know for sure, I haven't studied theory in ages.

It seems to be that the QGD is regaining some popularity at the top level due to theory advancing. I don't think that says anything about the overall popularity of the two openings though (i.e., including all players).

The increase in engines' powers have made playing the semi-slav a very treacherous choice. There's a lot more that super GMs need to know now in order to stay in the game. Meanwhile, the slav can result in Black getting squeezed, and in general super GMs avoid openings like this. The QGD can be thought of as a safe "middle-ground", in which Black can gain equality with a bit of precise play. This is the kind of Black opening that many super GMs tend to like nowadays.

Overall though, none of these openings have lost any validity at the non-top level.


Do top chess grandmasters have significant drawing chances against top engines? the likes of stockfish and komodo are much stronger than humans. The 3300 plus ratings of these engines suggests that even the top humans would find it impossible to draw even 1 game, but is this really true? Also, are these high ratings meaningful?

Today's engines running on suitably powerful computers will most likely beat any top grandmaster.

Ratings are essentially numbers assigned to players such that a player is expected to beat some other player (a draw being counted as a half-win) some fraction of the time, based on their difference in rating. An important point is that the absolute ratings are irrelevant: if every player in the world got a 1000-point boost to their rating, nothing fundamental would change.

The mathematical details imply that according to the rating model, no matter how big the difference in rating, the weaker player will still win some fraction of the time. In the case of Elo, we assume that even the lowest-rated player in the world has a 9% chance of beating Magnus Carlsen. This is clearly a flawed assumption, but it's the kind that almost every rating system makes; and it's not too bad anyway, it works well for the most part (i.e. when rating differences aren't too big), and even at the extreme ends, the best human players can still blunder.

However, today's engines beat humans 100% of the time in a fair game (I wouldn't say there's explicit proof, but the fact that they don't even bother to hold such matches anymore says a lot, so let's just say this is true); thus it's completely meaningless to assign a FIDE rating to these silicon monsters: there is absolutely no difference whether a 2800 player meets a 3300-rated engine or a 4300-rated engine, as far as the Elo rating system is concerned. Even for an engine running on a desktop, if we assume that a top grandmaster could score some 5%, we'd still be looking at what statisticians call a tail event; rating systems (and statistics in general) are really bad at these.

So top computer engines have their own rating lists, no humans involved. But they still run on the Elo system, albeit apparently with a different 'base'. You can meaningfully compare engines here; a 100-point rating difference will probably correspond to a sensible winning percentage.

On the other hand, the difference between the FIDE rating list and computer chess rating lists (CCRLs) are completely meaningless. While CCRL base ratings were probably chosen to be higher because most computers are simply better than the best humans, this base rating is just arbitrary (at least as far as I know); we could subtract 2000 points from every rating in the CCRL and add 2000 to every rating in FIDE, and both lists will continue to function the way they have.

It seems that the modern way to compare humans to computers today is to look at scores from matches where players are given a handicap. If I recall correctly, this is reminiscent of the pre-Elo days, when players' strengths were gauged by how they fared against the best players under a handicap!

Long story short: the high ratings are meaningful when compared with other engines in the same list. On the other hand, they are absolutely worthless for comparison against humans.


Expert vs. Candidate Master? What is the difference?

I mildly understand that Candidate Master is a 2000-2100 FIDE Title, but I've seen several USCF players with that under their "Norms" section, in conjunction with 1st Category, 2nd Category, etc.

The USCF has two independent systems for naming players' levels:

1) Rating-based: Senior Master (2400+), National Master (2200-2399), Expert (2000-2199), Class A (1800-1999), Class B (1600-1799), etc. This describes your current rating; you can be Class A today and Class B next week. The one exception is that once your rating gets to 2200, you are a master forever. These names and rules have been around for decades and are what most players are familiar with.

2) Norm-based: Life Senior Master (2400+), Life Master (2200+), Candidate Master (2000+), 1st Category (1800+), 2nd Category (1600+), etc. You are granted one of these titles by achieving five norms of that level and getting to the minimum required rating (at least once). Generally speaking, a title norm is a tournament performance that would be impressive for someone who had the minimum rating for that tile. These norms are what you see when you look at a USCF player's rating page. The full rules for norm-based titles are available online. One intent of norm-based titles is to provide an incentive for people to play in which they can't "lose ground", like they can with their rating. These have been introduced more recently and many players are not even aware of them.


Studying Lost Positions I like to study my games after I've played them. Often, I find myself identifying mistakes and moving on to play another game or study something else. I was wondering if it is worthwhile to continue studying your games beyond the point where the position becomes lost. I'm not talking about extremely lost positions where checkmate is imminent and inevitable, but rather about positions where you are down a minor piece or two and might have a chance at throwing a wrench in your opponents plans and inducing a mistake. It feels like this is a particularly difficult part of the game to study because often times complicating things for your opponent might involve an unsound, but threatening move, something like a bluff in poker. I was hoping some people might have some insights on whether or not it is worth it to study lost positions and how to do so if so. For reference, I am an amateur player who has been playing casually for a few years now.

Yes, these positions can be very rewarding. Sometimes, in endgames, there are stalemate possibilities. In middlegames and even endgames there can be tactical possibilities.

If you are far enough behind in material that a standard approach by your opponent of just swapping pieces is going to yield a straightforward win you need to be inventive to make him work for the victory. You can do this by playing actively and aggressively rather than defensively covering up. Make threats. That way you can sometimes create tactical opportunities to get back in the game.

In endgames there are also positions where the player with the material advantage can not win. Queen against rook and pawn can sometimes not win if the weaker side can set up the correct fortress. Sometimes a queen is not enough against a 7th rank pawn if it is on a rook or bishop file with the king next to it. Learn your endgames and look out for these opportunities in your games both when you are losing the endgame and also when you are winning to make sure you don't let your opponent escape.

Even when you appear completely lost there may be chances to trick an opponent who is playing on autopilot. Make him keep thinking and working for the win!


Are USCF regular ratings more accurate than quick or blitz ratings in regards to quick or blitz games? I recently went to a USCF tournament. Although it was quick/blitz rated, regular ratings were used for the purposes of pairings and prizes.

This led me to wonder: are regular ratings actually better predictors of results in quick/blitz games than the quick/blitz ratings themselves are?

Probably not technically if everyone played a lot of rapid games, however, I have seen organizers do this before since the regular ratings usually have a more established basis. In other words, because people have usually played a lot more standard rated games, in that respect, they are more accurate. It helps prevent sandbagging.

In reality, in rapid and blitz, a better predictor is probably age. Kids often perform better than their standard rating the faster the game. I once won an under-1800 blitz tournament when I was an under-rated 1100-player (I went up to 1254 after the main tournament). I was about 18, and the mind was very quick back then (there also were not a lot of kids like there are today).


Very Confusing Openings What are some openings that normally a player with less or no understanding of opening theory would suffer agonizingly? Or perhaps, openings that are extremely confusing to play against?

To me, the Latvian Gambit/French Defense is one of the most confusing openings.

Depends if you have the white pieces or the black pieces;

white: 1. Nf3 - Versatile, deceptive, unassuming. Typically, blacks first move dictates the style and nature of the game. However, with 1. Nf3, white has countless systems at his disposal depending on how black responds.

b3 (Nimzovich-Larsen attack)

g3 (King's Indian attack)

c4 (English opening)

black:
against e4: 1... Nf6 - Alekhine's defense. From move number one, black is directly attacking white's center. Many novice players will over-extend themselves and start pushing their pieces hastily. Alekhine's defense is a tricky, formidable response to 1. e4, as Bobby Fischer showed us in 1972 against Boris Spassky.

against d4: 1...f5 - Dutch defense. The Dutch defense, whose famous practitioners include  Aleksander Alekhine, Mikhail Botvinnik, and Hikaru Nakamura, is a dangerous response to 1. d4. Black is taking dead aim at white's kingside and, specifically, the e4 square.


Need help to solve a puzzle I have been trying to solve the below chess puzzle for more than 2 days. Can someone help me to solve it?

White to play and mate in two moves

[FEN "n1N1Kn/2p/P1k/2p1Q/P/2P/7B/6Nq w - - 0 1"]

I have tried to do it, but my tries take more than two moves.

[FEN "n1N1Kn/2p/P1k/2p1Q/P/2P/7B/6Nq w - - 0 1"]

1. c4 Qf3 2.  Nxf3 Nb6 3. Ne7#


What are some good attacking games from the black side of the Queen's Gambit Declined (Exchange variation)? I read both of the answers to this question, and although one answer hints that black can launch a kingside attack in the Exchange variation, it offers no games demonstrating such a kingside attack.

What are some games demonstrating a kingside attack from the black side of the Queen's Gambit Declined (Exchange variation)?

A suggestion :

Boensch-Vaganian, 1983

Bring the Bishop to d6, move the kingside pawns forward, try to dominate square e4.


If the king is in check, and the piece that is holding it in check is directly adjacent from the king can the king take it? If the king is in check, and the piece that is holding it in check is directly adjacent from the king, can the king take it?

So long as capturing the checking piece would not also cause the King to be in check, yes!

In the position below, the White Queen is giving check. After ...Kxf7, the Black King is no longer in check, so it is indeed a legal move.

[FEN "rnbqkb1r/pppp1Qpp/5n2/4p3/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNB1KBNR b KQkq - 0 0"]

1...Kxf7

However, it is illegal to make any move that places your own King in check. If you did, the opponent would be able to capture your King immediately. Since you can never actually capture a King in a game of Chess, making a move that would allow it is illegal.

So, if White's Queen is "protected" by another piece (such as a Bishop, below), the Black's King cannot capture it, as doing so would leave his King still in check. In fact, in the position below (the "scholar's mate"), Black is checkmated because he has no moves that would not result in his still being in check.

[FEN "r1bqkb1r/pppp1Qpp/2n2n2/4p3/2B1P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNB1K1NR b KQkq - 0 0"]

1...Kxf7 2.Bxf7

Remember that in the position above, 1...Kxf7 2.Bxf7 are given as examples: neither move is actually legal, as Black is already checkmated in the starting position!


Modified move-order in the KID 4. ..0-0. What is the point and how to react? A main line in the King's Indian Defense is this 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6. However,  black could castle instead of d6:

[FEN " "]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 O-O

Is this a more-or-less inconsequential move order inversion or does white need to be careful to avoid some pitfall?

Specifically, in the usual mainline I would play the Sämisch Variation (5. f3) and it does not feel quite right to play f3 there right away, but maybe it is? If not, what should one do as a Sämisch player, Be3 right away?

Or, is this 4. ... O-O an error that white can try to exploit? If so, I assume the refutation ought to be 5. e5. But is this is good idea?

I am most interested in answers geared towards Class A or B players, but will be grateful for any input.

In the vast majority of the cases, 4....d6 and 4....0-0 transpose into each other.

However, with 4....0-0 black keeps the option of playing c6 and d5. Recently, this idea has been played by GM Jobava, known for his original approach in the opening: Lupulescu-Jobava, So-Jobava and Vitiugov-Jobava.

About the last game, chess.com comments "Just giving away the g6-pawn. This reporter is at a loss". The engines do not approve Jobava's opening, but somehow he was able to create enough counterplay and to draw the game.

As you play the Sämisch, it makes sense to start with 5.Be3, as Ng4 is not possible. Clearly, 5....d6 6.f3 would transpose to your repertoire. After 5....c6, white has two popular ways to seize the initiative and to obtain an advantage: 6.e5 Ne8 7.f4 d6 8.Nf3 (e.g. Parligras-Fier) and 6.f3 d5 7.cxd5 cxd5 8.e5 Ne8 9.h4 (as in Vitiugov-Jobava). The former should result in a slight but stable advantage for white, while the latter leads to sharper play.

      [StartPly "7"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 O-O (4...d6) 5.Be3 (5.f3) c6 (5...d6 6.f3) 6.f3 (6.e5 Ne8 7.f4 d6 8.Nf3) d5 7.cxd5 cxd5 8.e5 Ne8 9.h4


Can an engine ever play a novelty? Is there any instance in which, oe a possibility of,  that an engine can play a novelty in a game?

Yes, once it is out of its opening book, it will just start looking for good moves. That will usually happen later than a human is out of his/her book, but still, it is not impossible that a human will (unintentionally) follow a certain existing game, where the computer will make the first deviation. And in a computer vs. computer match, they're bound to either replay an entire existing game, or one of them will play a novelty at some point in the game.

However, if you mean 'an opening novelty with any significance for actual play', the answer is probably no. Unless specifically configured that way, it will follow its book and not play a spontaneous novelty on move 12, like a human would be able to do.


Why doesn't my transposition table improve my move calculation time? I have an alpha-beta pruning chess AI that I have implemented using chessjs and chessboardjs. Below is my AI algorithm - it includes move ordering on the first two depths, using the boardScore value at that position as the heuristic, and a hash table of past minimizing and maximizing values for FEN strings at different depths, as a transposition table:

var minAI = function(depth, alpha, beta) {
  if (minimaxDict[game.fen() + ' [ ' + depth + ' minimizing ]'])
    return minimaxDict[game.fen() + ' [ ' + depth + ' minimizing ]'];
  var options = game.ugly_moves();
  if (depth <= 0 || options.length === 0)
    return boardScore('b', game, depth);
  if (maxDepth - 1 === depth) //only perform move ordering on "shallow" iteration
    orderMoves(options, depth, false);
  var bestMin = 99999;
  for (var i = 0; i < options.length; i ++)
  {
    game.ugly_move(options[i]);
    if (game.in_threefold_repetition())
    {
      game.undo();
      continue;
    }
    bestMin = Math.min(bestMin, maxAI(depth - 1, alpha, beta));
    beta = Math.min(beta, bestMin);
    game.undo();
    if (beta <= alpha)
      break;
  }
  minimaxDict[game.fen() + ' [ ' + depth + ' minimizing ]'] = bestMin;
  return bestMin;
}

var maxAI = function(depth, alpha, beta) {
  if (minimaxDict[game.fen() + ' [ ' + depth + ' maximizing ]'])
    return minimaxDict[game.fen() + ' [ ' + depth + ' maximizing ]'];
  var options = game.ugly_moves();
  if (depth <= 0 || options.length === 0)
    return boardScore('b', game, depth);
  var bestMax = -99999;
  for (var i = 0; i < options.length; i ++)
  {
    game.ugly_move(options[i]);
    if (game.in_threefold_repetition())
    {
      game.undo();
      continue;
    }
    bestMax = Math.max(bestMax, minAI(depth - 1, alpha, beta));
    alpha = Math.max(alpha, bestMax);
    game.undo();
    if (beta <= alpha)
      break;
  }
  minimaxDict[game.fen() + ' [ ' + depth + ' maximizing ]'] = bestMax;
  return bestMax;
}

var bestAI = function() {
  var options = game.ugly_moves();
  if (!options.length) return;
  orderMoves(options, maxDepth, true);
  var bestScore = -99999;
  var moveIndex = -1;
  var alpha = -99999;
  var beta = 99999;
  for (i = 0; i < options.length; i++)
  {
    game.ugly_move(options[i]);
    var moveScore = minAI(maxDepth - 1, alpha, beta);
    if (moveScore > bestScore)
    {
      moveIndex = i;
      bestScore = moveScore;
      alpha = Math.max(alpha, bestScore);
    };
    game.undo();
    if (beta <= alpha)
      break;
  }
  game.ugly_move(options[moveIndex]);
  board.position(game.fen());
  if (game.in_checkmate())
    window.setTimeout(alert("Checkmate!"), 250);
  else if (game.in_draw())
    window.setTimeout(alert("Draw!"), 250);
  else if (game.in_stalemate())
    window.setTimeout(alert("Stalemate!"), 250);
  else if (game.in_threefold_repetition())
    window.setTimeout(alert("Threefold repetition!"), 250);
  else if (game.insufficient_material())
    window.setTimeout(alert("Draw by insufficient material!"), 250);
}

Here is my game running on maxDepth = 5 after 5 moves, without the transposition table hash being used. At the bottom of the picture are the setTimeout violations, which (though they aren't supposed to be used as timers) show the time it took for each move to be made.

And here is my game with the transposition table hashing:

Comparing the two move calculation durations, it doesn't look like my transposition table is helping too much, and is sometimes slowing me down. Is my implementation of the transposition table incorrect? Is the move ordering algorithm hampering me in some way?

Let's give a try:

Are you sure your fen() is correct? Don't assume, check how many times your TB table is being used. If the fen() is bugged, your TB would never be used. A possibility is that you add halfmove clock and fullmove number into FEN (please check).
Please note the fen() function is very slow. Your line minimaxDict[game.fen() + ' [ ' + depth + ' maximizing ]'] is wrong, because you are asking the computer to compute the FEN position twice. It's important to note computing an FEN position can only be done by looping through the whole board (64 squares). Everytime when we read a square, we must append a character to the existing (possibly immutable) memory array. Appending a character to memory is a super slow operation, because the computer might need to allocate new memory. Please ask on Stackoverflow if you want clarification. This is a very serious issue. Your TB implementation is meaningless unless you're sure fen() is fast, and no reallocation complexity.
Please note a much better implementation is zobrist hashing. Why wouldn't you use it?
Please check, double-check and triple-check if your TB is being used. Are you sure if (minimaxDict[game.fen() + ' [ ' + depth + ' maximizing ]']) is true? Anything could happen in a program.
How many times your TB value was returned in the search? 1%? 2%? Do you have a number?
Your TB has the depth information and min/max. I've never done it myself like this. Are you sure it makes sense?


Can Black perform a successful freeing break? If yes, what would be his long-term plan after? I have tried to resurrect an old line and use it in my repertoire. Every single time I play it I reach positions similar to this:

[Title "White to move"]
[fen "r2q1rk1/pbpnbppp/1p2pn2/8/3PNB2/3B1N2/PPP1QPPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1"]

Usually, engines and most human opponents continue with c4. I almost always go for Re8 + Qc8, so I can safely play ...c5 (the Queen is off the d-file so there will be no pressure from a potential Rd1, and Be7 is protected so there will be no d5 tricks).

QUESTIONS:

Can we confirm that this is the correct plan, or does Black have better moves at his disposal?

If my plan is viable, how should I proceed when White exchanges on c5-> recapture with a pawn or with a piece?

What would be my long-term plan in the resulting position-> minority attack with ...a6 + ...b5 or fighting for ...e5 push?

Thank you.

c5 is, by far, the preferred idea and line here, because it not only frees up the light squared bishop, breaks and challenges the d4 pawn, as in some Rubinstein lines, but also allows your queen to visit in e7, and park your rooks on c8 and d8 respectively.

It is by far, in terms of breaks, the most effective, and does not allow white the luxury of a kingside attack.

Therefore, as white, it would be beneficial, tactically, to park your a-rook on d1 to prevent c5 and then try to play on the d-file with doubled rooks and c3 (to prevent counterplay).


Aronian vs Anand World Championship Candidates 2014 Round 8. Is White better after 19.f4. This game occurred between Aronian and Anand today at the World Championship Candidates 2014 event. In the final position, instead of 19. Nd2, Aronian could have continued with 19.f4. He was a pawn up, so I don't see the necessity to repeat moves. Is White better after 19.f4!?

    [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
    [Event "World Championship Candidates 2014"]
    [White "Aronian"]
    [Black "Anand"]

    1. c4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. Qb3 d4 4. e3 c5 5. Qb5+ Nc6 6. Qxc5 e5 7. Qb5 a6
    8. Qb3 Bc5 9. d3 Nf6 10. e4 O-O 11. Be2 Bb4+ 12. Nbd2 a5 13. O-O Nd7
    14. Qd1 Bd6 15. Ne1 Nc5 16. Nb3 Na6 17. Nd2 Nc5 18. Nb3 Na6 19. Nd2 (19. f4!?)

I am not even close to a decent level in chess, therefore you have to be really skeptical to what I am going to write here. But here is my ~2000 rated opinion:

  Black is not winning after 19.f4, is he?

This is kind of funny to state that black is winning here. This is just 19-th move (so people just went out of the opening), which means that the game just began and most of the previous moves were not actually a real game. Yes, white is a pawn up, but pawn up in the opening does not really counts for too much (mobility of pieces, clear vision of what to do next, preparation of the line, your mood and confidence and many more things should be counted here).

  Why did he choose to draw instead?

No one can tell you except of him. But here are my thoughts:

He already lost to Anand and Anand is a current tournament leader so why gamble and stress yourself in this situation? Having a draw, you secure yourself 5 points which puts you on the same position as a leader. With few possible advantages:

there is no more Anand anymore
you are not stressed and got your points from the game
you have more time to rest, prepare yourself for future games

Also, as you saw from game analysis the position is equal, but unbalanced. Playing the game, you will be really stressed and most probably after additional 1 - 1.5 hours of thoughts you will end up in a draw. Or may be win. Or lose. So why do you need this?

Look at the game Anand vs Svidler in round 7. Both have spend a lot of nerves playing really hard an unbalanced position just ending up in a draw. Approximately 2 hours of hard thought for 2 points. And here Aronian can get them basically for free.


Finding a piece to promote a pawn There is only one queen of each color is a chess set.  When a pawn gets promoted, say to a queen, where does that queen come from?

Most over the board sets come with 4 queens total (2 of each color) for exactly this situation. It's quite likely that at some point in your games, you'll need to have 2 queens on the board simultaneously, so they give you the main queen and a spare.
If you really need more than 4 queens, you can always "steal" another piece from your neighbors' game so that you have enough pieces to continue playing. Just make sure you give it back when one gets captured or they'll be mad with you!
Of course, it's possible to have 9 queens simultaneously, but it would be unnecessary for any chess set to give you this much redundancy on the off chance you decide to troll your opponents and promote every piece to a queen. Same thing with underpromoting so that you have 10 knights, 10 bishops, or 10 rooks...


Can doping increase/decrease a player's level of play? The reason I ask this is because according to this article, Magnus Carlsen is going to participate in FIDE's pilot project on doping test.  FIDE says the reason behind it is that the organization wants to be considered as an Olympic sport by the IOC in the future, with anti-doping program set as a prerequisite.

I personally don't see how doping can increase the level of play, but I can see how it would decrease the level of play, but then there would be no point in doping. Also, is this a result of there has to be some anti-doping test for every Olympic sport regardless if doping has an effect or not?

One way to think about this - if there was no societal stigma or legality surrounding the issue, would the use of stimulants improve one's chess game?

A while back, there was a thread around this topic on chess.com, though be warned that a lot of it is just noise.

Seems like an interesting choice that has to be made - short-term increase in concentration (there are drugs for that: taking Adderall, Ritalin or caffeine) versus stimulants that enhance right-brain thinking that help one see increased connections.

When I read Jonah Lehrer's book "Imagine" I thought of possible connections to chess. The book covers this at some length, especially as it relates to Bob Dylan's creativity. This NYPost article covers it well:

  Stimulants increase the flow of dopamine, creating a state in which
  “the world is suddenly saturated with interesting ideas,” Lehrer says.
  “Dopamine makes even the most tedious details too interesting to
  ignore.”

So it is arguable that these dopamine stimulating drugs can make players see connections and become a better player, at least for a period of time. For concentration improving stimulants, with a lot of immediate incentives riding on it, a player might opt for the short-term gain, even knowing the long term deterioration.


Term for checking piece whose opponent daren't capture it What if any, is the term for a piece whose owner gets a draw by keeping up a relentless series of checks with it -- a paradox being that even if this player puts it en prise, the opponent daren't capture it because that would deliver stalemate?

The piece is in many cases a rook, and I have come across the terms "rambling rook" and "roving rook", but they seem to mean something else.

I've also come across the term "desperado", and that seems to mean something similar, but it is not the same. A desperado is a piece which might do some damage, e.g. delaying-checks, but they merely delay mate: those checks run out, and the other side captures the desperado without stalemating, and goes on to win.

The tactic is an unusual form of perpetual check. In most perpetual checks, the checking piece switches back between two squares on neither of which is it en prise.

I'd use the term you already mentioned, "rambling rook", for this (at least when it's a rook). Tim Krabbé claims to have invented it:

If the term 'Rambling Rook' sounds unfamiliar, this could be because I invented it. In Russian it is beshenaya ladya, in Dutch dolle toren, both meaning 'crazy rook.' There is no English term, and I thought a little alliteration would be in its place.

Here are a couple of usages, showing that the term is quite widespread:
Rambling Rooks, compiled by SwitchingQuylthulg on chessgames.com

Rambling Rooks
Witness rooks selflessly throw theirselves at the opponent's mercy again and again... until there is no choice but to take them and accept draw by stalemate.

Can you stop the rambling rook? by user Sleafar on our sister site Puzzling Stack Exchange:

The rook can't be taken, because black couldn't move anymore which is a stalemate (= draw). If the king moves away the rook will continue to give checks.
Can you stop the rambling rook and find a way for white to win the game anyway?


Is it allowed to prepare for a game after the round has started? At the recent US Open I started the tournament well and was paired against a GM in the roped-off area. I had worked out the pairing well in advance and was able to do some fairly heavy openings preparation before the game. The official pairings, though, went up a relatively short time before the round.

My opponent did not show up until about 20 minutes after the round had started. I heard one of the tournament directors remark to another that my opponent was probably preparing for the game. After the game (he had 350 rating points on me and ripped me to shreds even in one of the lines I had prepared) he volunteered the information that this was indeed what he had been doing.

While I do not think that this was unethical, I am left wondering: is this legal under USCF rules? Obviously it does not affect the outcome of the game at this point, several weeks after the fact. The reason that it seems like a potential gray area to me is that a player doing this is looking at a chess database after his clock has started.

I would ask about FIDE rules but it seems like the zero-tolerance forfeit rule would render it a moot discussion.

I would think not since there is no realistic way for the organizers to find out if you are preparing if you are in your hotel room for example, and even if they do you will probably not forfeit your game as long as you are not in the playing hall.

Maybe this was why the zero tolerance rule was put into effect.

In a logical sense though, whilst your opponent could hope to get an advantage out of the opening against you, you are getting a definite time advantage, so you could see it that way.


Should a beginner move from fundamentals to opening theory? After learning the fundamentals, should one start learning openings or should there be something else in between?

Moving from fundamentals to memorization of openings is probably not recommended. I would instead recommend learning the fundamentals of openings (controlling the center, developing minor pieces, don't bring out the queen too early (usually), pawn structure), and then, as you say in your comment, focusing on tactics practice.

If your goal is to play fast games, then studying openings is certainly going to help you increase the speed out of the gates.

If your goal is to improve your slow game, which is probably a good idea for most beginners: my recommendation is to consider each opening move as carefully as you would a move later in the game. Many openings are as tactically tricky as the middle game, so it pays to be careful.

Just my opinion. Obviously, there is a point where learning some openings will be helpful.


How is this situation not a checkmate? According to the chess app I am using, this is not a checkmate against black:

[FEN "1rk4r/1p6/3p3q/Q1pPbRnP/p1P3B1/P6P/1P4R1/7K w - - 0 1"]

1. Rf7+

How is it not? I think the black king is checkmated by the queen and the white-squared bishop.

It is not checkmate because Black can interpose a piece to block the check from the bishop: move knight or queen to e6.

It's still only a miniscule delay for the inevitable.

[FEN "1rk4r/1p6/3p3q/Q1pPbRnP/p1P3B1/P6P/1P4R1/7K w - - 0 1"]

1.Rf7+ Ne6
(1...Qe6 2.Qc7#)
2.Qc7# 1-0


Who is eligible to play in the 2017 FIDE Asian Zonal 3.3 in Tagaytay, Philippines? I'm struggling to find information on this chess tournament.  It's listed on FIDE's website (link):

I'd be interested in playing in this tournament, but my federation is Australia and I don't know if I'm eligible.

Question: Who is eligible to play in the 2017 FIDE Asian Zonal 3.3 in Tagaytay, Philippines?

That tournament is for federations in zone 3.3 (basically SE-Asia and Japan). Australia is in zone 3.6. So you could only play at the Asian zonal 3.6 in Auckland.


Can black win in this KR vs. KN endgame? If white has the next move, can black still win the game? The players accepted the draw here, but I am not sure if it is still a draw.

[fen "8/8/3k4/4NK2/8/8/8/6r1 w - - 0 1"]

No, this is a draw. These kind of positions can be checked with an online database, e.g. this one.

In general, King+Rook vs. King+Knight is only a win for the side with the Rook if the other King is cornered or separated from its Knight, as also described in this answer. Just play around a bit with the endgame database to get a feeling which positions are drawn and which ones are won. Black to move wins in this particular position only because of some short term tactics (Rf1+ and Re1+ wins the Knight).


How quickly must a move be completed? I was playing in a tournament once, during a sequence of captures, my opponent could recapture my Knight about 4 different ways. He just removed it and carried on thinking.

What should I have done?

The mere act of touching one of your pieces obligates your opponent to capture it (if legally permitted) on his current move (at least according to USCF standards), unless he explicitly declares his intent to adjust the piece beforehand. Assuming the clock continued running on your opponent's time and he did eventually choose how to capture the knight, I suspect that what he did would be considered legal (though somewhat unorthodox). However, if he didn't end up properly capturing the piece after touching it and before punching his clock, you would've unquestionably been justified in complaining to the official arbiter.


How would you make a queenside pawn storm opening idea work? I played a Lichess bullet game as Black in which I disregarded any opening theory because I just wanted to mount up a pawn storm on the queenside. Has anybody come across this idea? It seems to me that a French Defense-like position with the e6 and d5 pawns blocked would make this to work. Also, the pair of bishops seems quite important here and I think that when established, this pawn structure would limit White's space and, if he castles, allows for pressure along both sides of the board. How would you make this work though?

[Title "abranzyck-LIR1618, Lichess, 8/24/19"]
[FEN "*"]

1. f4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. d3 a5 4. e4 c6 5. e5 Nh6 6. h3 b5 7. Be2 Bd7 8. O-O Na6 9. Be3 c5 10. Bf2 d4 11. Bh4 Be7 12. Ng5 Nf5 13. Qe1 Bc6 14. Bf3 Bxf3 15. Rxf3 Nxh4 16. Qxh4 h6 17. Qh5 g6 18. Qh4 Qd5 19. Nd2 O-O-O 20. Nde4 hxg5 21. Qf2 f5 22. Nxg5 Bxg5 23. fxg5 Rh5 24. g4 fxg4 25. Rf7 Rxg5 26. Kh2 Rh8 27. Rf1 Rxh3+ 28. Kg1 g3 29. Qf6 Qh1#

That is a beautiful checkmate, but I personally don't consider a pawnstorm in the opening or early midgame a really good idea, since its easy to penetrate and it loses in terms of development.

But if you were to make a queenside pawnstorm, you could probably start with the queens gambit? You can probably push your queen pawns and still end up with a playable midgame in that case. As you mentioned, the bishops are important (and so are the knights) so you maybe would like to get your minors out and attacking or supporting the pawns.


Potential exchange sacrifice in a King's Indian Defence middlegame [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9. Ne1 Nd7 10. Be3 f5 11. f3 f4 12. Bf2 g5 13. b4 Nf6 14. c5 Ng6 15. cxd6 cxd6 16. Rc1 Rf7 17. Nb5 a6 18. Nc3 Bf8 19. Na4 Bd7 20. Nb6 g4 21. Nxa8 g3 22. hxg3 fxg3 23. Bxg3 Nh5 24. Bf2 Ngf4 25. Nb6 Rg7 26. Nxd7 Qxd7 27. Kh2 Nxg2 28. Nxg2 Rxg2+ 29. Kxg2 Nf4+ 30. Kg1 Qh3 0-1

I won this game, but I think that I was lucky. I feel that allowing 21. Nxa8 was a blunder.

What if white captured 21. fxg4? Then I have to play 21. ... Nxe4 . White then captures my rook at a8. I don't see any compensation for black for the loss of material. I also don't see how to continue the attack through this variation.

First, it is highly unlikely that you will get a definitive answer here since computers are not great in these types of positions where the danger to white might be 10 moves down the road. It is also not uncommon for black to "lose" a rook in this opening, the Classical King's Indian, however, we often find that black's k-side attack is simply too strong in practice.

Computers are not yet strong enough to see this deeply, and even if they could, you are playing a human being. As a practical matter, positions like these, which are so complicated and dangerous, even if technically not correct, they are fine to play in practice...ask Tal. :) Still, you also missed some quicker wins too.

In the line 21.fg Ne4, you clearly have compensation since the eval is only +.7, and falls to about +.4 the move after taking on a8 and the recapture, however, the question is if you can ignore the immediate recapture, and just play something else. I do not think so since white's q-side attack comes too quickly. I think you have to take back immediately, and then bring the queen back to the k-side. If you have to do that, you are right that it is probably wrong.

All of this is a bit moot since the most popular move is 18...h5, which scores at only 33% for white compared to 83% after 18...Bf8. I like the idea of the pawn roller there since it is more flexible when you play g4.

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

    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9. Ne1 Nd7 10. Be3 f5 11. f3 f4 12. Bf2 g5 13. b4 Nf6 14. c5 Ng6 15. cxd6 cxd6 16. Rc1 Rf7 17. Nb5 (17. a4 {a4 is a more common move here.}) 17... a6 18. Nc3 Bf8 (18... h5 {h5 is a more common move here.}) 19. Na4 Bd7 20. Nb6 g4 21. Nxa8 (21.fxg4 Nxe4 22.Nxa8) 21... g3 22. hxg3 fxg3 23. Bxg3 Nh5 24. Bf2 Ngf4 25. Nb6 Rg7 26.Nxd7 Qxd7 (26... Rxg2+ 27. Nxg2 Qg5-+) 27. Kh2 Nxg2 (27... Rxg2+ 28. Nxg2 Qh3+ 29. Kg1 Qxg2#) 28. Nxg2 Rxg2+ 29. Kxg2 Nf4+ 30. Kg1 Qh3 0-1


Why has the number of games decreased over time in WCC? The World Chess Championship between Lasker and Capablanca in 1921 was organised as the winner would be the first to 8 points, draws not counting, and if this goal was not reached, the player with more points after 24 games would be declared the winner. Lasker forfeited after 14 games.

The winner of the World Chess Championship between Karpov and Kasparov in 1984 would be the first to achieve 6 victories. The match was suspended after 48 games.

Those are only two examples of extremely long scheduled matches with many interesting games. However, nowadays the matches are much shorter. The 2013 World Chess Championship was scheduled to be only 12 games, and the last two were not necessary so there were only 10 games!

Is there any particular reason why the matches are now much shorter?

I don't think there's going to be a definitive answer for this: Terms are decided largely by FIDE with a small amount of input from the incumbent champion and challenger, meaning that people like us can't really know. I can however highlight a few factors that I think play a role.

As GuRoux hinted at, not running over other tournaments is a plus. Not just because of divided attention of the community, but because it means that at least two (and likely more, considering the role of seconds) of the worlds top players won't be able to compete in any other tournament while the WCC is ongoing.
Attention span. As an extreme example, the 1984 championship went for 48 (not a typo) games before the match was called off by the president of FIDE. It's hard to expect players or spectators to put aside such large amounts of time when there's no garuantee of a result, and people who are not really 'into' chess will likely stop watching quite quickly.
Increased costs. Aside from the high costs that are present in all post-Fischer-era matches (venue, hotels, prize pool, etc). there are a number of other expenses that have come up in recent years. To give only one example, the current (2014) match between Carlsen and Anand is being streamed live to the internet, which requires a production crew (streaming like that is harder than it looks) and commentators (I can't imagine the experience and quality of a top player and commentator such as Svidler coming cheap). It's true that this allows for advertising possibilities which might cover those costs, but that means that you need to find even more sponsors to cover both new and traditional expenses, and with more sponsors you can ask for less money as they share less of the limelight.
The format promotes attacking chess, in much the same way that 20/20 cricket promotes high-risk/high-reward play over the traditional test match format. The aforementioned Karpov-Kasparov match went for 48 games, but at the conclusion the score was 5-3 (five times as many draws as wins, and the ratio was even worse but for the last two games). Even people already interested in chess would likely lose interest with continual draws, not to mention attempting to attract new players. In a shorter format, you are forced to go on the offensive, because there is less time to make up a mistake arising from a mistake after passive play. Tiebreaks with decreasing time controls also means that the luck factor increses there, and so both players will likely want to avoid that.

In general I agree that 12 games is very short, but it's almost inconcievable that at 24-game match would occur these days, and even 16-18 would likely be stretching things considering the chess world's continued problems with finding and maintaining sponsorship.


Struggling to improve past beginner level I am a beginner skill level chess player who has been playing primarily against computers.. well on my Samsung, and Google apps for about a year regularly, but have played now and again my whole life (47). I cannot seem to beat the computer programs unless I am on the lowest setting of skill level.

On these lower levels the computer makes ridiculous mistakes and is no real challenge. When I raise the bar, I am able to hold my own through opening moves and am so, so during mid-game, but always get crushed in the endgame. Before I enter chess matches with live people, I would like to be a little more prepared, although my mind tells me I would improve if I played against live people.

I've read several articles and played tactics improvement apps, endgame, studying chess masters on Youtube which I subscribe to MatoJelic etc.. but somehow have reached a plateau. This leads me to your forum. Maybe there is a highly regarded site, video or book that can save me some time in the learning process for improving my mechanics or maybe just re-wire my brain.

EDIT ( edited on January 8th, 2014 ):

Some of the other excellent answers pointed out a flaw in mine: I have failed to mention the importance of analyzing one's own games. This is corrected below, for the sake of completeness. I apologize to the OP and others who found my post useful.

First off, let me say Happy New Year and Marry Christmas to you!

Second, you will have to invest quite some work to be really good, but I believe it is doable based on the information about your current skill you have provided.

Based on the information you provided I think that you can help me with this and I hope that we can successfully solve your problem. In order to suggest you resources for your improvement I need to get to know you as a chess player. I need to know *what pace of play you like, what type of positions you prefer and so on**, but you did not provide me that information so I will cover both options.

So far I have concluded that you are experienced enough to learn successfully from books and tutorials so I will tend to recommend those resources to help you self improve.

Rule #1 that drastically improves players strength:

Know your openings!

You really have to know your openings well, so you do not:
1. Fall for cheap traps
2. Get horrible position which you will hopelessly defend for 50 moves, only to resign later.

If you like fast-paced games with lots of sharp, tactical play, I could recommend the Sicilian defense against 1.e4, and the King's Indian defense against everything else ( King's Indian defense will reduce your time required to learn the openings, as it is very flexible ).

If you are slow-paced, positionally oriented player I recommend the French defense and Queen's gambit.

Just search for the Starting Out series on Amazon and read those first.

Rule #2 that drastically improves players strength:

Know how to play the middle game that arises from your openings!

To learn how to play the middle games from those openings here is a masterpiece:

Andrew Soltis: Pawn Structure Chess (1995)

A must have - period! This alone can improve your strength by 50%!

Rule #3 that drastically improves players strength:

You must know how to play endgames!

You need to know basic principles, at least, or else you will squander all the advantage you have built in your middle game.

End games are tough to master, and you will need lots of books. I can not recommend one made for beginners at this moment.

You can try with Mastering Endgame Strategy ( Johan Hellsten ).

Rule #4 that drastically improves players strength:

You must be able to exploit tactics in the game!

We have all "been there": You have a "won" game, yet you lose it because your opponent found a "lucky move". Or you just got destroyed by a sacrifice you didn't expect.

There are lots of books on this topic, and I will recommend Starting Out: Chess Tactics and Checkmates.

Rule #5 that drastically improves players strength:

You need to know the basics of the "positional play"!

Sometimes you will play openings that require from you to "deaden" the position, or your opponent will do it, and without this knowledge you will end up in a "boring game", you will lose focus and your opponent will easily "pick you off". Also, the problem with these openings is that raw calculation does NOT help you to find a plan.

You can calculate until you die, but you will not find a plan; you will need the knowledge of the positional themes to get you by.

Try with Mastering Chess Strategy ( Johan Hellsten ).

Rule #6 that drastically improves players strength:

Analyze your own games! I can not believe that I have forgotten about this one! This is the most important part.

This is the pattern that I use:

Write down the game you have played;
Compare the opening you played with the moves in the book about that opening ( here Starting Out series come in very handy );
Evaluate the soundness of your middle game plan by consulting the Soltis' book, discover all the tactics that were in the position ( the computer is great for that ) and consult computer/stronger player/books to see how you would correct both your mistakes and opponents, and most importantly try to pinpoint the game deciding moment in the game;
Evaluate the endgame that arose: is it won, drawn or lost?
Evaluate the time you spend in correlation with the position's difficulty: do you get overly excited when things get tough/you are winning so you waste too much thinking time? Or are you too impulsive so you make moves without thinking?

As others have pointed out, your main goal is to play and not to get too distracted with the books I have recommended. Those books are easy for reading, and will teach you the general ideas + give you the least amount of concrete variations so you can get by in your game. My apologies for omitting this advice, I have forgotten about it, but without it everything else is really useless.

SUMMARY:

Find books from Starting Out series for openings you wish to play. Get the book on middle games that arise from those openings; the ones I have recommended is excellent. Learn chess basics: tactics, positional play, endgames. For that, I can recommend the book I have used, but here is a problem:

The book is not written on English and you will have to find the translated version.

The book was written by Vladimir Vukovic, and is called Uvod u sah or Introduction to chess when translated to English. If you get that consider your problems regarding endgame, tactics and positional play solved. If you fail to find this book, try with the books I have listed above ( I have edited my post to provide you a book for each of the rules stated above ). I haven't read them, but I have a good feeling they can help-based on the critics I have read on Amazon.

I would start with opening books and middle games ( the Soltis' book recommended above ), and then improve my tactics, then positional play and only then end games.

This will be a long journey for you, but definitely an enjoyable one.

If you ever need any help, leave a comment and I will respond as soon as possible.

Best of luck, call if help required!

Best regards.


Is there a good book on the 1927 Capablanca-Alekhine world championship match? To disambiguate what I mean by the shorthand "good" in the question's title:

  Is there an English-language book that tells the story of the 1927 world championship match between Capablanca and Alekhine, and which includes substantial annotations of all the games?

If there's no single book that contains all of that, I'd be happy to cobble such together from multiple sources. Here are a few items I'm aware of that don't have all of what I'm after:

Volume I of Kasparov's My Great Predecessors series includes a good deal of background and context on the match, and also includes annotations for 10 of the match's 34 games (Games 7, 11, 12, 20-22, 27, 29, 31, 34). What appears here is simply great, but I'd like annotations for the rest of the games as well.
Alexander Alekhine's Best Games, which is an algebraic edition of Alekhine annotations from his two-volume My Best Games of Chess and from Alekhine's Best Games of Chess 1938-1945, includes the following games from the 1927 match: Games 1, 11, 21, 32, 34. (So between this and Kasparov, there are 12/34 games covered.)
Capablanca's own book World's Championship Matches, 1921 and 1927 has the unfortunate feature that while the 1921 match is annotated by Capablanca himself, the 1927 match is annotated by Yates and Winter. All 34 games are annotated, but the notes are quite sparse, and decidedly light on explanatory prose.

So my secondary question:

  Barring a complete, top-quality book of the 1927 match, can you point me to sources with good, substantial annotations of any of the following parts of the match: Games 2-6, 8-10, 13-19, 23-26, 28, 30, or 33?

I am aware of ISBN 5278004010

Cons:

the book is in Russian, I don't know if there's an English translation

Pros:

contains all match games, most of them annotated (some games aren't annotated, contain just some short comments about particular moves at the end)
annotations by Alekhine himself
contains other games played by Alekhine in tournaments before the match

Also, Alexander Kotov wrote "Alekhine's Chess Legacy" (2 volumes), you may try looking for games from that match in those books. Kotov was a fan of Alekhine, a strong tactical style player and he was good at explaining chess to players below grandmaster level, so I think annotations authored by him would suit you.


Is this line of the Grunfeld playable for White? So, I was playing this line of the exchange variation of the Grunfeld: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6. bxc3 Bg7 7. Bc4 c5 8. Ne2 O-O 9. Be3 Nc6.

[Fen "r1bq1rk1/pp2ppbp/2n3p1/2p5/2BPP3/2P1B3/P3NPPP/R2QK2R w KQ - 0 10"]

In my computer's opening book, the only recommended move for White is 10. O-O.

However, I want to know whether 10. dxc5 is playable?

The problem with this line is that this is exactly what Black is hoping for.

You give the center to "win a pawn", but Black has several compensation : first of all the black bishop on ...Bg7 is now very strong. Also with ...Qc7 follow by ...Rd8 black will win the d-file. If Black want then they can easily win back the pawn by the following plan : ...e5, ...Bf8 and ...Bxc5.


What is a winning position in chess? I am new to chess, so I have some difficulties on understanding some concepts. For example, by watching games usually I hear that a player has a winning position, or a better position respect to the other player.

But how do I understand if my position is good? What are the signs that a overall position of the pieces on the board is a good position?

Thanks in advance

This is very broad, but what is winning is very related to your strength. I have seen plenty of beginners, who could not win even up a full queen.

For example, a beginner might need a queen, or more, to be able to win a position. I have been a "regular" Master for more than 30 years, so it might just one pawn, but the right pawn. :)

By comparison, I used to read Garry Kasparov's notes to his games in the Informants, and he would use the symbol +- (winning) in positions that looked barely better to me. His sense of winning, of course, was correct, but it was much more refined than mine.

All of this still means only so much in practice because as they say, "the hardest thing to do in chess is win a won position".

Understanding when your position is good or won simply comes with time, study, and practice. It is too open a subject to be more specific.


Choosing one move from the two moves From the given position, is it better to take with rook or the a-pawn and why ?

Black to move:

The engine suggested the move axb4, why?

There must be some strategical or tactical point (ignore the arrows in the diagram).

After axb4 the a2-pawn is a fixed weakness that can easily be further attacked with Ra8. Defending this pawn will force whites heavy pieces into passive positions.

Taking with the queen or the rook on b4 will allow Rb1 with a rook exchange. Even if this rook exchange happens on b4 and therefore creates the same pawn structure as after an immediate axb4, the defence of a weak a-pawn will be much easier without the rooks. In fact white might be able to exchange the a-pawn for the b-pawn relatively quickly.


What is the benefit of making the first move with a Knight? I know that some moves from some opening can transpose to another.

But if I move my knight first, does it have benefit to me? In my Houdini, it shows lower value than I move a pawn first.

Best Regards,
Ahmad

It's not worth it to analyze 1st moves with an engine. It's better to see possible variations in ChessBase's ECO view because you need to play opening which suits your mind style or antisuits your opponent's. An engine can't help you with that.


Improving my ability to scan the board This seems like a silly noob question...but I am a silly noob. Sitting at around 600 (and floating there in both tactics and in 30 minute games) I've noticed I give away material or extend the game considerably sometimes because I just don't see the moves needed.

I know that the trope I read all the time is "tactics, tactic, tactics", and I have been doing tactics for around an hour or so a day in addition to my daily games. I've noticed significant improvement in my ability to see attacks and play smart - but my problem seems to consistently be missing important moves for pieces. Especially in regards to 2 and 3 move mates.

One thing I do is I look for pieces under attack, and start to evaluate moves from there. If no pieces are under attack, I look around the board at pieces that I can improve their positions on. My issue seems to be target fixation:

[FEN "r4rk1/p1p4p/1p6/3pP3/P3nppq/1Q2PP2/4K1PP/R4BNR w KQkq - 0 0"]

Here, the actual move is to move the queen in for a mate in 2, however my first instinct is to notice the queen is protecting a square I can put my knight on, and guarantee a capture of their rook at h1. I don't think I made a terrible move, however it appears I have trouble spotting these easy mates. Additionally, sometimes I fixate on the check and put pieces in peril unnecess

Is there a way I can scan the board more effectively? Or does it come down to just getting beaten down over and over again in tactics until I learn to see them?

Skill in chess is all about pattern recognition. You are doing the right thing with the extra tactics training, and as you said, you can definitely see improvement, right? Unfortunately, that is a slow process with no easy shortcut.. but don't worry, if you follow the path you are on, you will be able to spot a mate like in your example easily one day.

In fact, you already do see patterns ("Enemy rook trapped by own knight and pawn, I can win it with my knight on f2"), which is good. Your main problem is that your "map" of patterns is still very incomplete. And of course, it is only natural to focus on a pattern you see immediately and which is already favorable for you, instead of one that you don't know by heart yet. As said, the right priorities will come with time as you fill the blank spots on your map.

It is a good idea and might accelerate this process a bit if you try to get into the habit of ALWAYS calculating all possible checks each move. Especially point blank checks with a queen are rarely a bad idea (this is a pattern too, one that you want to have higher in your priority list). In all honesty, your example isn't that obvious a mate to see at first glance as you might think. The king first looks to have a lot of space to flee to on the queenside. My instinct in a real game (where you don't get told that there's a mate in 2 now) would probably be something like: "Let's see.. point blank check! Always good! Let's do that. Now, before I move, let's check his escape. d1 and d3 (pattern: point blank queen checks only offer 2 escape squares in the way a knight moves). Hm. Kd1 is an obvious mate (pattern: king at border, queen can move right next to him and is protected there), but d3 is kinda out in the open, which is bad when I only have 2 pieces to attack him further. But wait! The pawn on d5 covers c4 and e4! These are the escape squares from a queen check on d2, so this actually is mate, too! Cool."

Long story short, when I start calculating Qf2+, I don't see the mate either, it only becomes obvious after a few seconds of calculation. Hopefully you can draw some hope from that - you are only missing some links, not the whole chain ;)
So, keep up your work, focus a bit more on calculating forcing moves (checks), and you should be fine. Good luck!

PS: I am assuming the white king should actually stand on e2, otherwise your example makes no sense.


How can I STOP hanging pieces? As hard as I try to not "give away" pieces in a game by checking the square that I am moving to first, paying special attention to the "long range" pieces of my opponent, and calculating exchanges, I can't seem to stop blowing a won game by hanging a piece or two. Bishops seem to give me the most trouble as they just seem to blend in the background late in the game for me, and then just snap off a piece of mine as I think I'm close to giving checkmate. Especially late in the game I just seem to get "tunnel vision" with what I'm doing and the lapse in concentration costs me a piece and the game. Will power doesn't seem to be doing it for me, so what else can I do to stop hanging pieces??

You speak the language of my people.

There's nothing magical, unfortunately.  You must avoid 'target fixation'.  That is, even if you're close to delivering mate, you have to stop before every move, and look at every piece your opponent has. Every time.  And you must remember that your opponent is choosing moves for a reason. One of those reasons is to snap your pieces off the board.

So the other thing you can do is to be cognizant of basic tactics such as pins, forks, x-rays, etc.  You can work on these by running a tactics trainer.


Engine output: FEN string when blundering What is the best way to go through a database of my games and have the computer generate a FEN string as well as the next move any time I make an error greater than, say, a minor piece loss?

I've looked at SCID a bit and am not sure if I can do it there. I also doubt I could do it with stockfish on the command line. Pointers?

You may want to do it yourself. Please take a look at a PGN annotation project on Github:

https://github.com/fsmosca/chess-artist

The source code is easy to follow.

To get the engine evaluation, you have:

  engBestMove, engBestScore, complexityNumber, moveChanges, pvLine = self.GetSearchScoreBeforeMove(gameNode.board().fen(), side)

To check whether a move you play is a blunder:

  if abs(engBestScore) > 3.0:

To print FEN:

  fen = gameNode.board().fen()

To print FEN and whatever you want to the console, follow the implementation in:

  def WriteNotation(self, side, fmvn, sanMove, bookMove, posScore,
                        isGameOver, engMove, engScore, complexityNumber,
                        moveChanges, pvLine, threatMove):


In a ChessBase opening tree how can we put a column that displays the percent of time each move is played or a column that displays "Perf" minus "Av"? Here are the columns displayed in an opening tree on ChessBase 12:

I would be interested in adding two columns:

A column which displays the percent of time each move is played in the position.
So for the starting position it should display something like that: 1.e4 42% - 1.d4 40% - 1.Nf3 9% - 1.c4 6% - etc.
A column which displays "Perf" minus "Av".
"Av" is the average Elo before the game has started of the players who played that move. "Perf" is the average Elo after the game has ended of the players who played that move.
So "Perf" minus "Av" is equal to the average Elo one is expected to gain by playing that move.
In my opinion "Perf" minus "Av" is even more useful than the average score (the percent of time White wins plus half the percent of time it ends in a draw). And it takes me a lot of time to calculate and remember them every time.


Play against a computer, but only with a few pieces and without the kings I would like to practise playing chess against an chess engine/program, but only with a few pieces, without the kings. For example, 3 pawns against one knight.

Does exist any chess engine/program like this?

No engine that I’ve ever come across has this functionality. In fact it would actually be surprisingly difficult to get a chess engine to do this;
The most fundamental rule of chess is that you have to checkmate your opponent’s king. A position without kings on the board wouldn’t make sense to something like Stockfish, because the game ends before the king can be captured. If you don’t have kings on the board, you essentially have to rewrite the rules of the game for the engine. This would also have the knock-on effect that, because king safety it widely considered the most important consideration in chess, you would then have to re-programme how the engine analyses the board, as king safety would no longer be a thing. By this point, once you have an engine which has different game rules and a different way of analysing the game, it doesn’t really make sense to say that it’s the same engine, but rather two different engines playing two different games. Long story short; you couldn't give a position without kings to a normal chess engine and expect to get a meaningful analysis back.
If you wanted to get around this, you could set up a position where both kings are in the opposite corner, so that they’re far enough away from the action that they couldn’t get there in time to help (assuming it’s something like 3 pawns vs a knight). Alternatively, you could set up the position on a board and play against yourself, trying to find the best move for both sides.
tl;dr – You would have to build an engine with this specific scenario in mind for it to work.


What to play after 4.d3 in the Two Knights for Black Against 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 I usually play the Two Knights Defense, but I don't really know what to play after 4.d3. I'm bored to death in the Giuoco Pianissimo (4...Bc5) and 4...Be7 is a bit dull.

So what would you recommend for Black to play to spice it up, for a player who enjoys asymmetrical positions? Even if it's a bit inferior from a theoretical point of view to the aforementioned lines.

If you really want an unsymmetrical position, don't play 1...e5.  White has many move order options to steer the game into a relatively quiet position in double king pawn openings.

There are a few things that you can consider in order to keep the game interesting.  First and foremost, if you must win at all costs, I would recommend playing 4...Be7 in order to keep all of the pieces on the board.  Black will be cramped for some period of time, but since all of the pieces remain on the board there is plenty of play left in the position.

If you just want open lines, then consider playing an early d5.  For example:

[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d3 Bc5 5.c3 O-O 6.O-O d5

The downside is that lots of pieces can get traded, but black has easy development plans with Bg4, Nb6, and f7-f5 once the white bishop moves off of the diagonal.

With all that said, although black can have a hard time creating immediate imbalances, white has a very hard time getting an advantage with the Italian game, so generally keeping the pieces on the board and accepting equality will let the better player outplay his or her opponent and win.


Difference between Swiss Manager Light and Full version? I just realized that there are two versions of Swiss Manager. Does anyone know the difference?

The difference is in the scale of the tournament / match you need to handle. If you plan a tournament with maximum of 60 participants and 11 rounds (or a team championship up to 6 teams), the light version is enough.

If you plan to grow big, then choose the full version.

You can read this on the official site (last paragraph).


Is there any way to gain equality with the QGD Marshall Defence? The Marshall defence goes 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6?!

I played this game recently as white. It was the first time I saw the Marshall in a game and the real contest was over by move 14.

[FEN ""]
[StartPly "7"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. Nf3 Bg4 5. e4 Nb6 6. Be2 Bxf3 7. Bxf3 e6 8. O-O Be7 9. d5 O-O 10. dxe6 fxe6 11. Qb3 Qd7 12. Bg4 Rf6 13. Rd1 Bd6 14. e5 Rg6 15. exd6 Rxg4 16. dxc7 Rd4 17. Rxd4 Qxd4 18. Qxe6+ Kf8 19. c8=R+ Nxc8 20. Qxc8+ Ke7 21. Qxb7+ Kf6 22. Qf3+ Ke6 23. Qe3+ Qe5 24. Nc3 Nc6 25. f4 Qxe3+ 26. Bxe3 a5 27. Rd1 Ne7 28. Nb5 Rb8 29. a4 Nd5 30. g4 Nxe3 31. Re1 Rf8 32. Rxe3+ Kd7 33. f5 g6 34. Rf3 Kc6 35. Kg2 gxf5 36. Rxf5 Rg8 37. Kf3 Rd8 38. Kg3 Rd3+ 39. Rf3 Rd2 40. b3 Rb2 41. Na3 Ra2 42. Nc4  1-0

Now the Marshall defence is considered to be dubious, even refuted:

  This [1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6?! 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. Nf3!] is considered to be the refutation for this defence

Source: GreenCastleBlock on YouTube, @ 0:58.

But my question is there any move after 4. Nf3 where black gains equality?

The Marshall is considered dubious since Black essentially just gives up full control over the center.  For that reason, there is no move that would give Black absolute equality after 4. Nf3

There are probably good development schemes that would give Black a playable game, but there is no direct path to absolute equality.  Heck, there's no direct path to complete equality for Black in even the most respected openings, such as the Grunfeld and Slav.  Even in those openings Black has to work to achieve an equal game.

The best development scheme that I know of in the Marshall is the following (after 4. Nf3):

g6, Bg7, 0-0, Nc6, Bg4.  And if White plays e4 at any point, the Knight on d5 retreats to b6.  This gives Black a reasonable game, and I believe it is the most popular system in the reference database.  But even here, White keeps a comfortable edge.


Most pieces involved in checkmate in actual game? I recall seeing a number of chess games where a lot of pieces are involved in the final checkmate, and was curious to know what is the maximum number of pieces of one player A that have been involved in a checkmate of the other player B, where a piece is said to be involved if and only if removing it either causes B's king to be no longer in check or causes one of the squares around B's king to be no longer attacked by A's pieces. It is easy to construct a reachable position where 9 pieces are involved, and to prove that no more than 9 pieces are involved. It is also possible for all 6 types of pieces to be involved. For example:

[White "Checkmate"]
[Black "9 pieces involved"]
[FEN "6B1/7K/2N5/5kP1/2R1P2P/8/6N1/3Q4 w - - 0 1"]

But are there any actual competitive games that ended with such a checkmate (i.e. using 9 pieces)? If not, what is the maximum number ever used in a competitive game? Among these games, what is the maximum number of types of pieces used? I exclude non-competitive games merely to avoid contrived games.

Note: As John Coleman pointed out in the comments, this notion of "involved" is more like "critically involved" because it is possible that a checking piece is covering another piece that would also provide check if the first was removed, or that a piece next to the checkmated king is protected by more than one piece. One could consider a variant notion of "loosely involved" defined as follows: A piece X of A is loosely involved in a checkmate of B if and only if we can remove some pieces of A that attack B's king or a square next to B's king such that it is still a checkmate and X is (critically) involved. I think this should cover such cases, so I am fine with including examples that use this looser definition of "involved".

After going through a list of games with king hunts, I found game at last in which 6 pieces are involved in the mate!

[Title "Alexander Alekhine-NN, Simul 34b, Moedling Austria, 3/24/1936"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "33"]

1. e4 e5 2. d4 f6 3. dxe5 fxe5 4. Qh5+ Ke7 5. Qxe5+ Kf7 6. Bc4+ d5 7. Bxd5+ Kg6 8. Qg3+ Kh5 9. Bf7+ g6 10. h3 Qf6 11. Nf3 Be7 12. Qg4+ Bxg4 13. hxg4+ Kxg4 14. Nh2+ Kh4 15. Nf1+ Kg4 16. Be6+ Qxe6 17. f3#

The Bc1 prevents the Black king from moving to f4 and g5, the e4 pawn covers f5, the f3 pawn is giving mate, the Nf1 covers g3, the g2 pawn protects the mating piece and covers h3, and the Rh1 covers the h3, h4, and h5 squares.

Upon seeing this question, I remembered entry #355 of Tim Krabbe’s Chess Diary, which gives some examples of checkmates involving all four minor pieces. The best and simplest example is this game.

[Title "Vasily Borisovich Malinin-Viktor Savinov, Leningrad Russia, 1988"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "71"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 a6 5. bxa6 Bxa6 6. Nc3 d6 7. Nf3 g6 8. g3 Bg7 9. h4 O-O 10. h5 Nbd7 11. hxg6 hxg6 12. Bh3 Re8 13.  Qc2 Rb8 14. Be3 Nxd5 15. Qxg6 fxg6 16. Be6+ Kf8 17. Nxd5 Rxb2 18. Ng5 Nf6 19. Nf4 Qa5+ 20. Kf1 Bxe2+ 21. Kg1 Reb8 22. Bf7 Rb1+ 23. Kh2 Ng4+ 24. Kh3 Rxh1+ 25. Rxh1 Nxf2+ 26. Bxf2 Bg4+ 27. Kxg4 Rb4 28. Kf3 Qa3+ 29. Be3 Qa8+ 30. Bd5 Qa5 31. Nfe6+ Kg8 32. Nc7+ e6 33. Bxe6+ Kf8 34. Nh7+ Ke7 35. Bg5+ Bf6 36. Bxf6#

This is easily deduced to be a pure mate, thus raising the known record to four pieces.

Also, to user @John Coleman from the comments, here’s a king hunt, with four pieces, for you. :-)

[Title "Roland Schmaltz-Ronen Har-Zvi, Internet Chess Club, 3/7/2001"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "48"]

1. e4 Nc6 2. Nc3 e5 3. g3 Bc5 4. Bg2 Nf6 5. Nge2 d6 6. h3 Bb6 7. O-O O-O 8. Kh2 Re8 9. f4 exf4 10. gxf4 Ng4+ 11. Kg3 Nf2 12. Rxf2 Qh4+ 13. Kxh4 Bxf2+ 14. Ng3 Re6 15. Kg4 Nd4 16. f5 Rg6+ 17. Kf4 Rxg3 18. Qf1 g5+ 19. fxg6 Ne6+ 20. Kf5 Ng7+ 21. Kf6 Rxg6+ 22. Ke7 Re6+ 23. Kd8 Bb6 24. Nd5 Re8#


How do I make the right move after an opening? I'm slowly getting better at my chess skills.

The one thing that bugs me the most right now is knowing which piece to move after many of my pieces have been developed and the king has been castled.

Any move I make after the opening either seems trivial or will lead to 1-to-1 sacrifices. I'm trying to understand what approach I should follow after both my opponent and I move up our pieces to the point where we can no longer any with sacrificing them in a way that gives me an advantage.

Usually with beginners, they make some silly move so it's easy to know where to move my pieces. But with intermediate people I find it difficult to follow a consistent strategy after the first 10-15 moves.

I tried to use a chess helper to determine the next move, but couldn't quite understand the pattern and the moves it made felt arbitrary.

Usually each opening consists in a middle game plan rather than just a sequence of initial moves. This means that the criteria behind choosing this or that other opening must be driven by the specific middle game positions that one wants to achieve or is confident to play (driven by personal taste, skills or whichever other reason).

There are mainly two ways to develop sense of positions for middle game:

studying the opening thoroughly: this means taking a book written by experts on the subject analysing positions very deeply until the endgame. Classical openings (Ruy Lopez, Queen's gambit, Sicilian, King's Indian) are easy to play but extremely hard to master, therefore one cannot really play them without extensive knowledge (unless you want to fall back into your previous case, where players end up moving pieces randomly after a while)
looking at classical games by classical players: this is the evergreen advice but really it does help to understand what to do. Good players are such because they have a sense of how to treat specific positions and come up with sensible plans for the initiative. In general looking at GM games helps understanding how to convert small advantages into winning positions (at the end of the day, chess games are not won by throwing all your pieces at the opponent's King, rather by accumulating small advantages throughout the game and converting the resulting endgame position).


What Openings can I play against most openings? I'm looking for a "universal" opening. For example the King Indian which you can play against e4 and d4 and several other openings. What other openings (Black or White) can be played versus most classical openings?

As white the task is much easier because you make the first move and dictate terms.
You have:

g4 The Grob

f4 Bird's

Nf3 Reti

b3

b4 Sokolosky

As black you are more limited and have to play much more passively to be able to play the same moves against almost any white response.
The Hedgehog where you play to try and reach this kind of position:
 [fen "2r1r1k1/1bqnbppp/pp1ppn2/8/2P1P3/8/PP3PPP/8 b - - 0 1"]

The Hippopotamus which looks like this (Don't mess with the Hippo!):
 [fen "r2qk2r/1bpnnpb1/pp1pp1pp/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]


Better moves-game analysis Aside from the blunder 27 Nh3, what moves should have been made to make this game winning for white?

    rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

   1. d4  Nf6 2. c4  g6 3. Nc3  Bg7 4. e4  d6 5. f3  O-O 6. Be3  Nc6 7. Qd2  a6 8. a4  e5 9. d5  Na5 10. Ra3  b6 11. b4  Nb7 12. h4  a5 13. b5  h5 14. Be2  Nh7 15. g4  hxg4 16. fxg4  f5 17. gxf5  gxf5 18. Bg5  Bf6 19. Bh6  Bxh4+ 20. Kd1  Bg5 21. Bxg5  Qxg5 22. Qxg5+  Nxg5 23. Nf3  Nxf3 24. Bxf3  f4 25. Ne2  Rf7 26. Ng1  Rh7 27. Nh3  Bxh3 28. Be2  Bd7 29. Rg1+  Kh8 30. Ke1  Rg8 31. Kf1  Rh3 32. Ra1  Rxg1+ 33. Kxg1  Nc5 34. Re1  Rg3+ 35. Kf2  Nxe4+ 36. Kf1  Bh3#  0-1

You don't seem to know the kind of plans that arise out of the way you played the opening. You lined up the Be3/Qd2 "gun" and then never fired it! You needed to play Bh6 at an early stage and look at the possibility of h4,h5 and maybe even sacrifice the exchange if conditions are right if he plays Nxh5.

"Winning" is another question, but you never really made him struggle and fight. Your hand was never anywhere near his windpipe!

Ne2 isn't great. I know you are already a pawn down at this stage, but leave the knight there to protect the pawns and instead look at Ra2-h2 to build a rook battery on the h file. It's a much quicker attempt to get at his exposed king while he is still a bit disorganized.


Is there software which generates novel chess opening traps? Opening traps can sometimes lead to quick wins, but fail against opponents who are prepared or have time to calculate.  Thus...
Question: Is there software which generates novel chess opening traps?
I didn't easily find anything via Googling chess opening trap generator.  Perhaps there's some inherent limitation which makes it not worthwhile or even impossible to do so.

I am sorry, but you can not create any novel chess opening traps because all were already discovered in a certain range of moves.
Also, I want to mention @RemcoGerlich's comment that even if there was an undiscovered opening trap then a computer couldn't recognize that it is a trap.
Instead, you could try to use an engine to look up moves that lose but are difficult to comprehend by humans.


How would I train like Bobby Fischer did? As the title suggests, I want to know how to train like Bobby Fischer did, along with what books he read during his chess training. Remember, keyword is TRAIN. I don’t want to be like him, as that is impossible, but I merely want to know how to train like him.

This question may be better suited for Worldbuilding Exchange, but as Bobby's training system you are asking for started at the precise second Bobby met the game at a young age, you will need to:

Return with a time machine to five years old and develop Asperger
disorder.
Buy not only one but a dozen of chess boards.
Develop an uncontrollable obsession with chess as said, forgetting
everything is not chess. Your mother can do those tasks and the
school is totally unnecessary for you. You know modals and how the law
rules, not to enter in troubles not related with chess.
Play millions of games with yourself. Play chess every minute you
don't have to eat, sleep or waste your time with adults. Use those
books only to follow master moves and remaster the games on your
dozen of chess board that have colonized your home (you will need to
convince your mother for that).
Go to the tournaments and destroy all those poor players that read
the text of those chess books you will take a look later to see if
they are correct or not.
Continue enjoying and learning at FIDE circuit your hole life.


Why didn't the Black rook capture the White bishop? I am a total newbie in chess. I was playing with an ~intermidiate computer~ as White and made a pretty stupid mistake by playing Bf4. I waved the bishop goodbye, yet Black's rook did not capture it. Was there any good reason for the Black not to? The white pawns are moving downwards here. As far as I know, the pawn cannot move back to capture, so I reckon the bishop to have been 100% unprotected.
[FEN "8/4R3/8/4P1B1/6k1/PBP5/1P3r2/1KN5 w - - 0 1"]

1. Bf4 Rf3

When a "total newbie" achieves such an overwhelming position against a computer, it most probably means that the computer was forced to make a "sub-optimal" move from time to time - to give the player a chance to win the game. The problem is that the computer has no clue what is a "reasonable" mistake from a human point of view.
"Rxf4" might have been the best choice (not avoiding defeat eventually). But the computer decided not to make the best move, since the programmers told him to do so. In this particular case, this resulted in choosing the second(?) best move, which from our human perspective is absolutely incomprehensible.


How to record these moves? Suppose a complete hypothetical positions that white has 6 queens and they are at a1, a4, a7, g1, g4, g7, respectively. How to record the following move in the standard algebraic notation?

Moving the first queen to d4?
Moving the second queen to d4?
Moving the third queen to d4?
Moving the fourth queen to d4?
Moving the fifth queen to d4?
Moving the sixth queen to d4?

See for yourself: https://lichess.org/analysis/standard/3K4/q5q1/8/8/q5q1/8/8/q2Bk1q1_b_-_-

It's Qa1d4 for total unambiguity. I imagine this corner case is not covered by every PGN reader though.

Qa1d4
Qa4d4
Qa7d4
Qg1d4
Qg4d4
Qg7d4


How could I have prevented this long drawn out game? Consider the following game. I am black.
[FEN ""]
1. e4 g6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 e6 4. Nf3 b6 5. Nc3 Bb7 6. Bg5 Be7 7. h4 Nc6 8. Bd3 Qd7 9. Qd2 O-O-O 10. Nb5 f6 11. exf6 Bxf6 12. a4 h6 13. Bxf6 Nxf6 14. Bxg6 a6 15. Nc3 h5 16. Qg5 Rdf8 17. Ne5 Nxe5 18. Qxe5 Ng4 19. Qg5 Rxf2 20. Bxh5 Rxg2 21. Bxg4 Rxc2 22. Qe5 Rg8 23. Bxe6 Re8 24. Bxd7+ Kxd7 25. Qxe8+ Kxe8 26. Nxd5 Bxd5 27. b4 Bxh1 28. h5 Rh2 29. Rd1 Rxh5 30. Kd2 Bc6 31. a5 bxa5 32. Re1+ Kd7 33. bxa5 Rxa5 34. Rg1 Be4 35. Rg7+ Kd6 36. Kc3 Rb5 37. Rg4 Bd5 38. Rg6+ Be6 39. Kd3 Kd5 40. Rg5+ Kd6 41. Rg6 c6 42. Ke4 a5 43. Rh6 a4 44. Rh8 Rb4 45. Rd8+ Kc7 46. Re8 Bd5+ 47. Ke5 Kb6 48. Rb8+ Ka5 49. Ra8+ Kb5 50. Rb8+ Kc4 51. Rh8 Bg2 52. Rh2 Rb2 53. Rh4 Re2+ 54. Kd6 Re4 55. Rh2 Rxd4+ 56. Kc7 Rd2 57. Rh4+ Kb3 58. Rh8 a3 59. Rb8+ Kc2 60. Ra8 Kb2 61. Rb8+ Kc1 62. Rb4 a2 63. Ra4 Kb1 0-1

I would say that both of us are at about the same skill level. The game started out okay. White was being more aggressive and I ended up more defensive than I would have liked during the opening (let's say the tenth move). By move 27, white has a slight advantage but he makes a blunder and loses one of his rooks. Assuming neither of us wants a draw, here are my questions,

I have only a rook and a bishop. Just to make sure, it is difficult to force a mate with a rook and a bishop, right? Against a rook? Is my only option promoting to a queen and then mating him?
By move 37, my intuition was that the (sole) white pawn on d4 would become problematic. Forcing a mate with only one rook is impossible so white has no choice BUT to promote to a queen. Therefore, I have to take that pawn and then work on getting my pawn promoted. Was this a reasonable strategy or was I being too cautious? Is there a better decision I could have made at this point?
I was also unwilling to sacrifice one of my pawns because I didn't want to put all of my eggs in one basket. Was this reasonable or overly cautious?

I eventually took his pawn. The best case scenario is a draw for him now. By move 63, the forced mate is obvious to him and he finally resigns. My main question is,
Was there any way to force a win and end the game quickly after move 30? Any path to a quick decisive victory?
The game became very long and drawn out, probably because I was not being bold enough. This was correspondence chess so the game lasted like two months longer than it had to. My intuition is that I could have ended it sooner but I still can't actually see how. Is my intuition correct? Any comments in general to improve my game are also welcome.

Very simple. Learn endgames.
If you knew much about endgames then you would know that in rook and pawn endgames your rook belongs behind your passed pawn. Knowing that on move 39 you wouldn't have played the pointless Kd5. Instead you would have played 39...a5 with the intention of following this with 40...a4 41...Ra5 and then just keep pushing the a pawn.
Note that your opponent's best plan was also to put his rook behind your passed pawn. That would make it impossible for you to put your rook behind the pawn and make it very difficult to push. Fortunately your opponent was equally ignorant of endgame theory.
Time spent learning endgames will gain you more points than anything else you could spend the same amount of time on.


The most honourable way to lose? When in a bad position, is it more honourable to resign or to face defeat? And if it is to face defeat then is there a time when resigning is considered an honourable thing to do, or is it always considered the cowards way out?

Playing on in a hopeless position when it is clear to you that your opponent has the knowledge, skill and time to finish you off is never honourable. It shows a lack of respect.

If you have played your moves much faster than your opponent so that he is in serious time trouble and you aren't, then it is perfectly reasonable to play on. With just a few seconds left playing without increment he may not have enough time to deliver the coup de grace.

In the reverse situation where you are the one with very little time on the clock it is excusable but perhaps not particularly honourable to play on as you can always claim that with so little time to think the hopelessness of your position hadn't sunk in.

Note that positions where you have very few moves and so stalemate is a possibility are not hopeless. Nor are positions where, although material down and so expected to lose with best play, you have some prospects of counterplay in a double-edged position.


How to break through their "Great Wall of China" It's my move as White. I have no idea what to do. I feel like I'm going to get squashed to death.
What would be my best move or strategy in situations like these?
[FEN "r2q1rk1/4b3/p1n1p1b1/1p1pPpPp/2pP1B1P/P1N2N2/1PP1Q3/2KR2R1 w - - 0 1"]

In order to make progress, one or both of you need to break through that wall. Each of you seem to have the best chances on the side near the opponent's King--you have a passer on the kingside; your opponent has a lot of pressure on your queenside.

First, look at his threats. ...b5-b4 seems to force the issue on the queenside by kicking your Knight and threatening your a-pawn. It's likely that the b file would be at least half-opened if Black plays ...b4. That's not great for you. However, it would free a4 for your Knight, so you could maybe reposition it to c5 at some point--that's not a bad thing, if you can survive the coming attack.

[FEN "r2q1rk1/4b3/p1n1p1b1/3pPpPp/1ppP1B1P/P1N2N2/1PP1Q3/2KR2R1 w - - 0 1"]

Position after ...b5-b4.

Now let's think offensively. Where can you break through his wall? If you can't push pawns of your own, Knights are usually the best at this sort of thing, since they can jump to the back lines. The nature of the pawn wall means their only jumping-off spots are the spaces just in front of enemy pawns. A great spot immediately suggests itself, then: f4! From f4, a White Knight would threaten three Black pawns, as well as Black's light-squared Bishop. If you could maneuver a Knight to f4, then, you may be able to break through on the kingside and really put Black's king in some trouble. It's too bad you don't have a light-square Bishop to pressure h5.

[FEN "6k1/8/p3p1b1/1p1pPpPp/2pP1N1P/P7/1PP5/2K5 w - - 0 1"]

The previous point began with "if you can't push pawns of your own". But you do have a pawn or two with moves, so let's look at those. Pushing the b-pawn isn't very appetizing, as it would likely result in a half-open c-file for Black to use to attack you. But what about a3-a4? It doesn't lose any material, and it somewhat mitigates the threats posed by ...b5-b4, since Black would no longer have anything to capture. He could still take ...bxa4, but once you recapture with Nxa4, he only has a half-open b file, and meanwhile your Knight is placed to advance to c5. Your dark-square Bishop and your Queen also have potential to slide around Black's wall via d2. All in all, not ideal, but not too bad either.

[StartFlipped "0"]
[FEN "r2q1rk1/4b3/p1n1p1b1/3pPpPp/N1pP1B1P/5N2/1PP1Q3/2KR2R1 b - - 0 1"]

Position after 1.a4 bxa4 2.Nxa4.

None of the above lines are perfectly satisfactory: they're either too slow, or potentially inadequate in terms of dealing with Black's queenside threats. Thus we have a third possibility: the King is in danger and no one can come to his aid--therefore, we flee to the kingside.

Because the position is so closed, and Black has no immediate threats against your King, you could simply play Kd2 right away, and march your King out of harm's way, simultaneously clearing spaces for your other pieces to maneuver to the queenside if need be. I'm not going to cover this option in any further detail since Wes already gave a good account of it in his answer, so you should go read about it there.

Conclusion

Three basic plans come to mind for me. Hopefully they at least give you some insight into how I would tackle this situation, so you will be able to evaluate them on their own merits and drawbacks, and then either choose among them or come up with something altogether better!

As a medium-term goal, reorganize the kingside to place a Knight on f4 to pressure all of Black's kingside forces and tie his pieces to the defense of his wall.
Soon or immediately, a3-a4 could be played to limit Black's queenside attacking potential and potentially close the position completely, or free your own pieces to end-around Black's wall.
Go for a walk with your King behind your own lines, via d2 and e3, to make room for your other pieces to maneuver and get your monarch out of the danger zone.