What percentage of the time does White win in the Lomonosov tablebase? Studies show a slight advantage for White for having the first move.  In the tablebase of trillions of 7-piece endgames, with White to move, how many of those endgames end up as wins, how many as losses, and how many as draws for White?  And what are the numbers for 6, 5, 4, etc piece endgames?

As I do not have access to the full Lomosonov tablebases, here is an answer based on the Syzygy tablebases, which are available online in machine-readable format. I interpret your question as "how often does the side to move win, lose or draw". As the Syzygy tablebases only include positions where White has material advantage, we have to add the statistics with White to move to the statistics with Black to move.
You are going to be disappointed
It seems that there are actually more positions in which the side to move loses. The reason seems to lie in the positions with large material imbalance. For example, consider KQQQQQvK. If you check that link, you will see that:

with White to move, there are 37 099 315 080 winning positions for White (see "histogram":"white":"wdl":"2", the format is explained here)
with Black to move, there are 334 280 290 500 winning positions for White (losing positions for Black), which is about 9 times more! (see "histogram":"black":"wdl":"-2")

The reason for this is that, in KQQQQQvK, most of the positions are checks or checkmates. These positions are legal with Black to move, but illegal with White to move. This strongly biases the statistics to the point that the non-moving side (White) actually has more winning positions than the moving side.
I wrote a Python program to count the wins, draws and loses of the side to move for 3 to 7 pieces. Here are the results. In the spirit of open source/reproducible research, the source code is also included below. As these results are somewhat surprising, I will be happy to be informed of possible mistakes I may have made.
3- to 7-man Syzygy tablebases
Total positions: 945907910147154
Side to move loses: 439240886147124 (46.4359%)
Side to move loss saved by 50-move rule: 1405811609374 (0.1486%)
Draws: 124655757593757 (13.1784%)
Side to move win saved by 50-move rule: 1511382741156 (0.1598%)
Side to move wins: 379094072055743 (40.0773%)

3-man Syzygy tablebases
Total positions: 367868
Side to move loses: 99222 (26.9722%)
Side to move loss saved by 50-move rule: 0 (0.0000%)
Draws: 166126 (45.1591%)
Side to move win saved by 50-move rule: 0 (0.0000%)
Side to move wins: 102520 (27.8687%)

4-man Syzygy tablebases
Total positions: 143702885
Side to move loses: 48712335 (33.8980%)
Side to move loss saved by 50-move rule: 0 (0.0000%)
Draws: 45850555 (31.9065%)
Side to move win saved by 50-move rule: 0 (0.0000%)
Side to move wins: 49139995 (34.1956%)

5-man Syzygy tablebases
Total positions: 32612482961
Side to move loses: 12895319023 (39.5411%)
Side to move loss saved by 50-move rule: 38951980 (0.1194%)
Draws: 7248043033 (22.2248%)
Side to move win saved by 50-move rule: 33205648 (0.1018%)
Side to move wins: 12396963277 (38.0129%)

6-man Syzygy tablebases
Total positions: 6170694290902
Side to move loses: 2634258815181 (42.6898%)
Side to move loss saved by 50-move rule: 8110268813 (0.1314%)
Draws: 1075100392347 (17.4227%)
Side to move win saved by 50-move rule: 7817500373 (0.1267%)
Side to move wins: 2445407314188 (39.6294%)

7-man Syzygy tablebases
Total positions: 939704459302538
Side to move loses: 436593683201363 (46.4607%)
Side to move loss saved by 50-move rule: 1397662388581 (0.1487%)
Draws: 123573363141696 (13.1502%)
Side to move win saved by 50-move rule: 1503532035135 (0.1600%)
Side to move wins: 376636218535763 (40.0803%)

Source code
import json
import numpy as np

fd=open('stats.json')

wdl_keys=('-2', '-1', '0', '1', '2')
wdl=np.zeros((5, 5), dtype=np.uint)

data=json.load(fd)

for key, value in data.items():
    n_pieces=len(key)-1
    for i_wdl in range(5):
        # add WDL data for White to move
        wdl[n_pieces-3, i_wdl]+=value['histogram']['white']['wdl'][wdl_keys[i_wdl]]
        # add WDL data for Black to move
        wdl[n_pieces - 3, i_wdl] += value['histogram']['black']['wdl'][wdl_keys[i_wdl]]

total_positions=np.sum(wdl)
total_wdl=np.sum(wdl, axis=0)
print('3- to 7-man Syzygy tablebases')
print('Total positions: {:d}'.format(total_positions))
print('Side to move loses: {:d} ({:.4f}%)'.format(total_wdl[0], 100.0*float(total_wdl[0])/float(total_positions)))
print('Side to move loss saved by 50-move rule: {:d} ({:.4f}%)'.format(total_wdl[1], 100.0*float(total_wdl[1])/float(total_positions)))
print('Draws: {:d} ({:.4f}%)'.format(total_wdl[2], 100.0*float(total_wdl[2])/float(total_positions)))
print('Side to move win saved by 50-move rule: {:d} ({:.4f}%)'.format(total_wdl[3], 100.0*float(total_wdl[3])/float(total_positions)))
print('Side to move wins: {:d} ({:.4f}%)'.format(total_wdl[4], 100.0*float(total_wdl[4])/float(total_positions)))

positions=np.sum(wdl, axis=1)
for i_pieces in range(5):
    print()
    print('{:d}-man Syzygy tablebases'.format(i_pieces+3))
    print('Total positions: {:d}'.format(positions[i_pieces]))
    print('Side to move loses: {:d} ({:.4f}%)'.format(wdl[i_pieces, 0], 100.0 * float(wdl[i_pieces, 0]) / float(positions[i_pieces])))
    print('Side to move loss saved by 50-move rule: {:d} ({:.4f}%)'.format(wdl[i_pieces, 1], 100.0 * float(wdl[i_pieces, 1]) / float(positions[i_pieces])))
    print('Draws: {:d} ({:.4f}%)'.format(wdl[i_pieces, 2], 100.0 * float(wdl[i_pieces, 2]) / float(positions[i_pieces])))
    print('Side to move win saved by 50-move rule: {:d} ({:.4f}%)'.format(wdl[i_pieces, 3], 100.0 * float(wdl[i_pieces, 3]) / float(positions[i_pieces])))
    print('Side to move wins: {:d} ({:.4f}%)'.format(wdl[i_pieces, 4], 100.0 * float(wdl[i_pieces, 4]) / float(positions[i_pieces])))


White have an advantage with the first move I am beginner in chess but in my mind one question overcome, Does white have an advantage with the first move?

It really depends on what level of chess you're looking at. At the amateur level (<2200), I would hypothesize that white's supposed "first-move advantage" is relatively insignificant. However, it's quite evident at the higher levels that white has an advantage when playing mainstream openings - please reference the Shredder Opening Database for the details of individual moves. For example, out of the 242,221 Grandmaster games where White has played 1. e4, he has scored 54.5%.

Chess players and theorists generally agree that White has a certain first-move advantage. The page on Wikipedia is certainly a fascinating read.


Benoni setup defence In the Benoni, there is a certain setup for White where there is a knight on g3, and a bishop on d3. White then starts a pawn storm with f4-f5, with a large attack. How am I meant to play against this setup? Do I just trade the g3-knight off?
   rnbq1rk1/pp3pbp/3p1np1/2pP4/4P3/2NB2N1/PP3PPP/R1BQK2R b KQ - 5 9

Black to move.

The thing about the Modern Benoni is that White is usually trying to run you over on the e- and f- files. Black adopted a very small stance in the center (d6), and White's pawn play is the price to pay.
The difference between these two plans for white:
Bb5+, f4, Nf3, with a view toward e4-e5
and the one you describe here Bd3, Ne2-g3 with a view toward f4-f5
is that the f4-f5 plan is more likely to give Black the counterplay he desires with a knight on e5. You know that's why you play the Modern Benoni in the first place, yeah?
Go about your queenside business, and take their best shots on the f-file. If they crash through because you overlooked a tactic, you lose. If you hold them off and then jump all over the a1-h8 diagonal with your pieces, your Benoni is a success.
In other words, you're fretting over the plan for White that you should prefer to face as Black.


Looping through the same lines while solving puzzles When solving tactics sometimes I spend a lot of time (20-30 minutes) looking at the same line over and over again.
Sometimes I have a feeling that one particular line is the right one but my vision gets blurry after 4-5 moves and I'm unable to go on without moving the piece.

Do you have any suggestions (books and/or training methods) on how to improve in this area?

Establish an order to analyse the lines!

I would begin by the most forced moves (checks, mate threats, captures...) and finish with those where the opponent was multiple possibilities. Respect that order strictly so you won't be jumping back and forth.

Use the same criteria also for sorting subvariations (ie: start by the most obvious check, pick an opponent's answer, now calculate checks, threats and captures after that particular answer and so on)


Which piece is least likely to be taken? If one were to analyse a large number of chess games, which specific piece (not type of piece) would be found to be taken the least number of times? And yes, in light of SomePatzer's comment, besides the kings of course.

I recently looked into that very thing a couple of weeks ago, and found an excellent breakdown on it (just this one, though):

The short answer is that aside from Kings, h2 & h7 are the least likely to be captured pieces (with survival rates claimed to be 73.92% and 72.29%, respectively).

Regarding individual pieces' survival (from a 2,196,968 game database), http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-chances-of-survival-of-individual-chess-pieces-in-average-games/answer/Oliver-Brennan gives a table (and an accompanying graphic) of each piece's respective chance of survival.

While I was at it, I found some data on square usage. I've included the sources below not because square usage relates to your question directly, but because the nature of the two topics is so close that I figured that they might be of interest to you (or future readers).

Using 509 games selected randomly [and analyzed] out of a 567,000 game database, these two URLs give tables of raw events and normalized through-traffic usage of squares, and heat maps of same:

http://sarcasticresonance.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/chess-territorial-2
http://sarcasticresonance.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/random-chess-conquests/

This URL analyzes the moves of 12 Grandmasters' entire careers (separated by white and black, all normalized [no raw counts]), along with some graphs of average-data counts:

http://en.chessbase.com/post/seth-kadish-visualizing-chess
http://en.chessbase.com/post/study-of-square-utilization-and-occupancy

There are also some excellent analyses (per side) of each type-of-piece's square usage at http://philanalytics.blogspot.com/2014/11/chess-analytics-analyzing-championship.html .


Are there any tournaments that treat less-represented groups preferentially? These less-represented groups could be women, transgender players, etc. As of time of writing there's only one woman in the world's top 100 players by rating, and I don't know if there's any transgender player there either.

I'm thinking in particular of tournaments where the organizers reserve some space explicitly for these less-represented groups. For example, suppose one of the 8 spots of the Candidates Tournament were reserved for the Women's World Champion, that would qualify (of course this has never happened). For the purpose of this question I exclude women-only tournaments, unless these tournaments gave special privileges to players who transitioned from male to female.

Further questions: if this has happened before, how did the community react? If this has never happened, has it ever been considered?

Fide World Cup

Are qualified for the World Cup:

The Women's World Champion
The last two World Junior Champions
Players from Continental Championships


Name of pawn struture in B42 Sicilian defense I like positional games, and the Sicilian defence is very dynamic, however the B42 Sicilian defence is quite positional, but the pawn structure has some weaknesses. I would like to learn more about the B42 pawn structure and the name, or where to seek more information on the B42 Sicilian pawn structure.

According to Johan Hellsten-Play the Kan, there are six structures found in the Kan.

Classical Sicilian Structure
Hedgehog Structure
Enhanced Hedgehog Structure
Maroczy Bind
Aggressive Maroczy Bind
Classical Maroczy Bind


In how many cases of K, P vs. K, N, N endings can the stronger side force checkmate? For instance, it wouldn't be possible if the Pawn was on the verge of queening.  But is it always possible if the Pawn started off on its original square?  Is it usually possible?  Or is it only rarely possible?  How is it accomplished?

Let's assume that white is the side with the two knights, and black has the single pawn. The endgame study composer A. A. Troitzky gave an analysis (in a lengthy supplement to his 1937 Collection of Chess Studies) that established what is now known as the "Troitzky line":

So long as a white knight has the black pawn securely blockaded on one of these squares (or further back), then white can win no matter the other arrangement of the pieces. Now there are also times when white can still win with the pawn already advanced beyond the Troitzky line, but then it usually depends on the location of the black king; that is, the board usually breaks down into a drawing region for the black king, and a losing region for the black king. Establishing that was also part of Troitzky's work.

I'd be way out of my depth trying to say anything about the details of Troitzky's analysis, and besides, he spent a good 60 pages or so working out the things that he did. But it's not too hard to get the conceptual idea behind the Troitzky line. The most basic winning approach for white is this: to blockade the pawn with one knight, then use the king and other knight to corner the black king, and finally release the pawn to move while bringing the blockading knight in to deliver checkmate.

In order for this to work, white needs a fortuitous combination of (1) the pawn not being too quick to queen, and (2) the white knight not being too slow to deliver checkmate. Since the knight is most mobile - has the most travel options - in the center of the board ("A knight on the rim is dim" and all that), it stands to reason that the further away from the center the knight starts, the more time it will need for a win to be guaranteed in general, and so the further back the pawn needs to be from queening. This reality is reflected pretty clearly in the inner V shape of the Troitzky line.

But what about those far advanced rook pawns in the Troitzky line? Well, as often happens with rook pawns, they lead to special cases. Here, the reason white has this additional leeway is because of Stamma's mate, as is pointed out, for instance, in section 35.03 of this article on ChessCafe by Karsten Müller (of Fundamental Chess Endings fame).

One caveat in all this is that the Troitzky line does not take into account the 50-move rule; though there are wins in all those cases, some of them take longer than 50 moves to convert against perfect play. In the article I just mentioned, Müller raised the question of determining a "second Troitzky line" that does take the 50-move rule into account. And in a followup article he announced that Helmut Conrady solved that problem by using Rafael Andrist's Wilhelm program to analyze the Nalimov tablebases. This second Troitzky line is

So if a white knight securely blockades the black pawn on one of these squares (or further back), then white can always win in under 50 moves. Note that while there's no guarantee of a 50-move win with either a b- or g-pawn, Conrady's analysis also showed that if the pawn is blockaded on b6/g6 or further back (as in the first Troitzky line), then for over 99% of the possible positions there is a win in under 50 moves.


What will be the best move in this position? I am a lower rated (1200-1300) player, and I am quite hesitant while making sacrifices. In the current game I see that black's king is unprotected and a bishop sacrifice at f5 can open up an attack against the black king. Is this the best move in the current position?

Almost certainly Bxf5 is a winning move, but it may not be what you want to play. I asked if exf6 was legal. If it is, play it. After Black recaptures play Bg6+ and your attack is just as strong without sacrificing.

In the diagram position, Blacks position is dreadful, probably lost. If you can win without taking risks, why not?

You are not sure if the sacrifice works. That is, you do not trust your analysis. Under those circumstances, should you sacrifice and risk losing? Generally speaking not, if you have a very good position and can see other ways to make progress. Generally yes if you think that your position is bad, and the sacrifice is a last shot.

But perhaps you should sacrifice anyway, just to find out how good your analysis is. Much depends then on the circumstances of the game, Friendly skittles? Last round of tournament? But if you find that it does not work, try to learn something. What did you not see? Why did you not see it? Is there something you should now remember to look for? Did you win, but only because your opponent defended badly? You should look at these things post mortem if you opponent is willing.


Does checkmate over ride 50-move rule? If a move reaches the 50-move rule and gives checkmate at the same time, does the checkmate take priority over the draw?

Checkmate overrides the 50 move rule.

Fide Handbook Article 9.3:

  The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, if:

  a. he writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move which will result in the last 50 moves by each player having been made without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, or

  b. the last 50 moves by each playerhave been completed without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.

The player making the move that mates could claim a, but he of course won't do it because he is about to win. The player losing does not have the move after the checkmate, so he cannot claim the draw.

This interpretation is also confirmed by Geurt Gijssen, in his column An Arbiter's Notebook from 2006:

  Regarding your remark about the 50-move rule: only the player on move is
  entitled to claim a draw, but he is not forced to claim it. So if the 50th move produces checkmate – the checkmate stands.


How to play against bad bishop outside pawn chain I'm trying to understand general principles and common themes on how to play against a bad bishop outside of the pawn chain. In particular, I'm talking about the less sharp variations of the london system, slav, and caro kann(although I don't play the caro kann with either side). Think typical london system or 4. e3 slav where black plays Bf5 or Bg4.
Are there any enlightening games or common ideas?

Two ideas that spring to my mind:

Harass the bishop, and threaten to trap it / exchange it for a knight, with moves like h3, g4 and Nh4.
Attack the squares/pawns the bishop has left behind, with moves like Qb3 targeting the b7 pawn, or Qa4 / Bb5 / Ne5 targeting the a4-e8 diagonal.


Wedge pawn formation with slight differences In the Nimzo-Indian Rubenstein, there's a solid line for Black that begins thus:

[FEN ""]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 b6 5. Bd3 Bb7 6. Nf3 Ne4 7. O-O f5

Since I am Class A rated, I normally look for lines that class amateurs would tend to play against me and not IMs/GMs, etc. I think a lot of class amateurs would be really tempted to chop here with:

[FEN "rn1qk2r/pbpp2pp/1p2p3/5p2/1bPPn3/2NBPN2/PP3PPP/R1BQ1RK1 w kq - 0 8"]

1. Bxe4 fxe4 2. Nd2 Bxc3 3. bxc3 Qg5!?

Thus preventing the freeing break f3.

The question is: If we just look at the position here structurally, this is basically sort of a Wedge formation but with the difference being that my pawns are doubled and I don't have a traditional Wedge structure outpost on d5.

Since the opponent usually faces the more difficult time in the endgame vs. a Wedge formation, should I in general play this position like a traditional Wedge formation position with a possible kingside attack and generally trading down into a favorable endgame, or are there other nuances that make this type of position deviate from a traditional Wedge formation?

While it's true that your 10. ... Qg5 prevents the freeing break 11. f3?? (due to 11. ... Qxe3+ followed by ... Qxc3), White could get away with 11. f4 in response if so inclined. If you respond by moving the queen, then white is no longer so cramped on the kingside and doesn't have to worry too much about an onslaught on that wing. If you respond with 11. ... exf3 12. Nxf3, your bishop has improved scope, but White has in effect achieved the freeing f3 break your tenth move was meant to prevent.

Maybe more problematic than 11. f4, though, is that White can play 11. Ba3! in reply.

[FEN "rn2k2r/pbpp2pp/1p2p3/6q1/2PPp3/2P1P3/P2N1PPP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 11"]

1. Ba3!

This temporarily prevents castling, and things like 11. ... d6 12. c5 are in the air, when White can have further ideas of play on the b-file (and against your bishop on b7) with Rb1 and/or Qb3. It's not as though Black is in big trouble here, but I think there's no reason to speed up this queenside play with your 10. ... Qg5, especially since your move doesn't prevent a freeing f-pawn move after all. Better to wait a bit, perhaps, for a more opportune time to bring the queen into play.

I think you're absolutely right that Black should aim toward an attack on the kingside, but for the reasons just stated I think you should start off with the straightforward 10. ... O-O instead. It seems that White should still aim for the same kind of queenside play described above, but now you won't have any awkwardness involving castling (or needing ... d6 to achieve it and helping White to start opening up the queenside with c5). Now you'll try to get something going on the kingside while White does the same on the queenside, and unlike above it seems like the two armies are on a pretty even footing. After, say, 11. Ba3 Rf5 12. c5 Qh4,

[FEN "rn1qk2r/pbpp2pp/1p2p3/8/2PPp3/2P1P3/P2N1PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b - - 0 10"]

1... O-O
2. Ba3 Rf5
3. c5 Qh4

each side is doing its thing, and I do think that Black should have a comfortable endgame -- though I don't know that I'd use your word "favorable" for it -- if White should arrange for a queen trade to relieve pressure on the kingside.


Is capturing a piece while castling legal? Is it possible for white to do a queen-side castle in this situation and capture black's bishop? Assuming both rook and king haven't moved, of course. The rook would be capturing the bishop in this case.

[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/8/8/R1b1K3 w - - 0 1 "]

I've been trying to find examples or rules one way or the other, but I could not.

No, such a move is illegal, because one requirement of castling is that there be no pieces (of either color) standing between the king and the rook. From the FIDE Rules of Chess, 3.8(b):

  Castling is prevented temporarily:

  a. if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, or

  b. if there is any piece between the king and the rook with which castling is to be effected.


How to earn IM/GM titles Can someone please provide detail on how IM (International master) and GM (Grand master) norms are attained?

Thanks!

First you should also know that these titles can also be won via "Direct Title". For instance, in the current World Cup competition all the players who reached the last 16 are entitled to the GM title. Of course they were all already GMs, but other competitions also give the opportunity to win GM and IM titles outright.

GM and IM norms can be obtained either by Direct Title or by performance of the required standard in a tournament which qualifies as a norm event.

For instance if there is a tie for world champion in any of over 65, over 50, under 20 or continental championship then players tieing for first each get a GM norm if they are not already GMs.

For norm tournaments and the standard of play required there is a full description here.

GM norms require a "GM performance" and IM norms require an "IM performance"
These are:

GM performance is ≥ 2600 performance against opponents with average rating ≥ 2380.

IM performance is ≥ 2450 performance against opponents with average rating ≥ 2230.

There are complicated rules regarding the length and make-up of the tournament and the players played. For full details see the handbook reference.

Here is a simplified (and so inaccurate) summary:

The player must play at least 9 games

At least two federations other than that of the title applicant must be included

A maximum of 3/5 of the opponents may come from the applicant’s federation and a maximum of 2/3 of the opponents from one federation

At least 50% of the opponents shall be title-holders excluding CM and WCM.

For a GM norm at least 1/3 with a minimum 3 of the opponents must be GMs.

For an IM norm at least 1/3 with a minimum 3 of the opponents must be IMs or GMs.


Which currently active chess player tends to play complicated positions? In earlier years, Michail Tal would be a candidate for this topic.

Which player could be a candidate today for regularly playing complicated positions ?

Alexander Morozevich probably obtains the most consistently complicated positions of any >2700 player, although he has fallen off some since the mid-2000s.

Baadur Jobava is probably his rightful successor, but a recent string of horrible tournaments pushed him under 2700 and he is now sitting at 2699.


The a2-g8 diagonal in the Dutch Defense I've been playing the Dutch defense, mainly the Leningrad, although sometimes I'll delay the fianchetto, starting off in more of a Hort-Antoshin Dutch. My biggest trouble has been when white avoids the main lines and plays an early Bc4 or Qb3, making it impossible to castle without e6, or d5, which completely changes the nature of the opening.

I'm referring to positions like the following:

rnbqkb1r/ppp1p1pp/3p1n2/5p2/3P4/1QP2N2/PP2PPPP/RNB1KB1R b KQkq - 1 4

or

rnbqkb1r/ppp1p1pp/3p1n2/5p2/2BP4/4PN2/PPP2PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 1 4

What can I do to counter this?

My suggestion would be to go for the g6 setup right away, and then if White plays Bc4 or Qb3 you can counter with d5 or e6.  In this case you could combine the Stonewall setup with the Leningrad setup, for example.  While not perfectly ideal, Nakamura himself has played it a few times (in the main line!), and it's a respectable setup in the Leningrad.

The good thing too is that White usually has to go for a less than ideal setup against the Dutch in order to play Bc4 or Qb3.  The positions you showed aren't that great for White, so the small compromise you would have to make with e6 or d5 is completely worth it.

Here is a link to a Chess Publishing article where a Leningrad game with ...e6 is discussed:

http://www.chesspublishing.com/content/11/oct11.htm


Opening assistance for a beginner I am new to chess and am confused on what to do with the following opening

[fen ""]

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nf6
3. Nc3 Bb4

I have been playing 4. a3, but the Bishop then proceeds to take c3 so I end up with a doubled pawn.

If someone could offer some guidance or tell me what this opening is called so I can do some research, it would be very much appreciated.

Cheers

Edit: Using the chessgames Opening Explorer, I confirmed the move is playable, here is the list of possible replays:

Move     #games
---------------
4.Nxe5   175
4.Bc4    151
4.d3     52
4.a3     14
4.Nd5    12 <- my option
4.Be2    2
4.d4     2
4.Bd3    1
4.g3     1

4.Nd5 looks viable and easily prevents that double pawn.

It also pushes the game into an aggressive one, which can be good or bad depending on your play-style.

Final position after 4.Nd5:

rnbqk2r/pppp1ppp/5n2/3Np3/1b2P3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 5 4

He will most likely do NxN, I don't see many other choices here as both the Bishop and the e Pawn are attacked:

4...Nxd5
4...Bd6 (weak move)
4...a5 (weak move)


Can a player win if their opponent has made 2 illegal moves, but a helpmate isn't possible? Suppose that in a KQ vs. K endgame (or in an endgame where Black can't possibly mate the other side), White makes two illegal moves. Can Black claim a win?

No, the game is drawn, as per article 7.5.5 of FIDE Laws of Chess (emphasis mine):

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


What is the highest number of forced checkmates in a legal position? Having been inspired by a similar question, what legal positions have the most forced checkmates for one side and for both sides?

The answer to this has already been given as an answer in a related question. That answer was 55.

[Title "Ludwig Zagler, Feenschach 1972"]
[FEN "1rB1Q1Q1/1PRQ3Q/2b2k2/2pQ1N1Q/4KRPp/5N2/1R6/B3nn1b w - - 0 1"]

The position is taken from Tim Krabbe's website. According to Krabbe:

  There are 12 mates by Rb2; 1 by g5; 1 by Qd5; 7 by d7; 7 by Qe8, 7 by
  Qg8; 6 by Qh5; 6 by Qh7; and 8 by Nf5, for a total of 55.

The record with both sides to move is 39 according to this Matplus.net thread.

[Title "Ludwig Zagler, Fairy Chess 6/1974"]
[FEN "6B1/2p2R1B/2P1k1NR/2P1q1PP/1pp1Q1p1/brn1K1p1/1b1r2P1/n1b5 w - - 0 1"]


Kasparov's Immortal: Why didn't he play 10.Qg7? Ok, I'm looking at Kasparov's Immortal to try to improve my own. I'm "mediocre" at best, but I enjoy a good game of chess.
At the end of the 9th move by both players, Kasparov has his queen on Qh6.
Now, I'm what would be called a "beginning" chess player, in that I like the game, but I'm not that good at it, even though I have been playing (though not professionally or really competitively) for years.
But my question is as follows: For Kasparov's 10th move, he moves a3. What would have been the ramifications of him making the move Qg7? It seems to me like that would set up a good capturing opportunity, or at least cause Topalov to move the rook to a different protective position, like Rf8.
[FEN ""]
[Event "Hoogovens Group A"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee NED"]
[Date "1999.01.20"]
[EventDate "1999.01.16"]
[Round "4"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Garry Kasparov"]
[Black "Veselin Topalov"]
[ECO "B07"]
[WhiteElo "2812"]
[BlackElo "2700"]
[PlyCount "87"]
[startply "19"]

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Be3 Bg7 5. Qd2 c6 6. f3 b5 7. Nge2 Nbd7 8. Bh6 Bxh6 9. Qxh6 Bb7 10. a3 (10. Qg7?) e5 11. O-O-O Qe7 12. Kb1 a6 13. Nc1 O-O-O 14. Nb3 exd4 15. Rxd4 c5 16. Rd1 Nb6 17. g3 Kb8 18. Na5 Ba8 19. Bh3 d5 20. Qf4+ Ka7 21. Rhe1 d4 22. Nd5 Nbxd5 23. exd5 Qd6 24. Rxd4 cxd4 25. Re7+ Kb6 26. Qxd4+ Kxa5 27. b4+ Ka4 28. Qc3 Qxd5 29. Ra7 Bb7 30. Rxb7 Qc4 31. Qxf6 Kxa3 32. Qxa6+ Kxb4 33. c3+ Kxc3 34. Qa1+ Kd2 35. Qb2+ Kd1 36. Bf1 Rd2 37. Rd7 Rxd7 38. Bxc4 bxc4 39. Qxh8 Rd3 40. Qa8 c3 41. Qa4+ Ke1 42. f4 f5 43. Kc1 Rd2 44. Qa7 1-0

Hey, he's the grandmaster and I'm not, I'm just wondering what might have happened had he made that move instead of a3. Mainly, how the game might have unfolded, and what Topolov's counter may have been.

What would have been the ramifications of him making the move Qg7?

That would be a really bad move. In a heartbeat his opponent would play Rg8 threatening to take the queen. The rook is protected by the knight on f6. The only move the queen has is to go back to h6 and then it is Topalov's move. All white has done is give away a tempo.


Is it possible to play vs bots on FICS? I was playing a 15 min game vs some 2300 guy. He doesn't take any time to think about his next move, not even a second, not even against a c4 opening. When i offered him to play, he accepted immediately, instantly.

He blunders or should I say, he plays slow moves, but he's strong, so no obvious blunders.

Is it possible that bots play on FICS servers? Like you run a bot client, connect it to the server and that's it? since there's no CAPTCHA or anything to make sure that you're a human? And since you can connect to FICS in so many ways?

To answer your question: There are computer accounts in FICS, with handles ending in (C). Also guests may be computers. There might be computers also behind other players, but that's against the rules of FICS. Engines can be connected to FICS using icsDrone, XBoard/WinBoard with Zippy, or similar tools.


how to keep an offline database of my own games What would be the most standard way to keep an offline database of my online and over the board games?

Would just keeping PGN files (with arbitrary filenames) in a directory work? Would  database browser programs like Scid vs. Pc then be able to browse such a collection of files? or do I need other tools to generate a database out of a collection of PGN files? Is there a file-naming convention for the PGN files I have to be aware of?

The database browsing tool I use is Scid vs. Pc which I run in Ubuntu under wine but I am open to other suggestions as well.

PGN files is definitely the best way to go. PGN is an open and human readable format. Merging two PGN files is very easy; simply copy the content of one PGN file to the end of another.

How you want to organize your PGN files is up to you. You may want to store your PGN files all in one directory, or you may want to store them in separate directories (based on tournament, opening, result, side, etc.) under the same root directory.

ScidvsPc has the capability to browse through directories and select games you want to view. You can also manually browse the directories and double clicking the pgn will open the game directly in ScidvsPc (if you have set it up to work that way).

There is no file naming convention for PGN files. You don't need any special tools to create a single database from PGN files. Since you're on Ububtu, you can use the capabilities of the Linux sed tool to merge files recursively under a root directory.


What would be the elo of a computer program that plays at random? What would be the Elo of a computer program that plays random moves?

For the sake of simplicity, assume that he never asks for a draw or resigns and never accepts a draw offer.

Right at the bottom of the Computer Chess Rating List for the 40/4 time control is Brutus RND, an engine that simply selects random legal moves.

http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/404/cgi/engine_details.cgi?print=Details&each_game=1&eng=Brutus%20RND#Brutus_RND

It has a rating of 205 (as of 6/6/2018). This is not a FIDE rating of course, but it is using the Elo system.

It has 0 wins, 242 losses and 64 draws. The draws are due to faulty programs that accidentally cause draws by repetition or occasionally stalemate, though they generally have a substantial material advantage when this occurs.

FIDE has a rating floor of 1000. Brutus RND would simply fail to establish a rating that high and would be unrated.

If we ignore the FIDE rating floor, it is possible to have a negative rating under the Elo system.

One point to mention is that FIDE uses a table to calculate rating changes and if the rating difference is greater than 735, no change occurs when the stronger player wins. This means Brutus could never have a rating of -5000 or anything like that because it would need to lose points to spectacularly incompetent players that would not be capable of delivering checkmate.

https://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?view=article&id=197

We are left guessing here. 1000 Elo rated players would be able to get Brutus's rating down to 265, but since there are no players with worse ratings, we cannot say exactly how much further they could push Brutus's rating down if they did exist.

I would guess that players that are 500 Elo or worse would have trouble delivering mate consistently, much like the faulty programs. Draws by 3-fold repetition or the 50 move rule are not automatic under FIDE rules and would only occur if Brutus claimed them. But a human could lose by running out of time, as well as drawing by accidental stalemate.

So I'm guessing somewhere in the -200 to 200 range if FIDE allowed ratings below 1000 and allowed Brutus to compete.


Polerio Gambit game for review Please analyze and comment about this game  I played as an anonymous uer. I played the Polerio Gambit in the game. I would also like remarks about the Polerio Gambit (1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. d4) as well.

[FEN ""]
[Event "Live Chess"]
[Site "Lichess.org"]
[Date "2020.03.27"]
[White "BramStokers"]
[Black "Anonymous User"]
[ECO "C33"]
[WhiteElo "1000"]
[BlackElo "1000"]
[TimeControl "10 minutes Blitz type game"]
[Termination "game_result.won_by_resignation"]
[Result "0-1"]

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.d4 Nf6 4.Qf3 Bb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.Bxf4 O-O  7.Nh3 Re8 8.e5 d6 9.Bb5 c6 10.Bc4 dxe5 11.Bxf7+ Kxf7 12.Ng5+ Kg8 13.Bxe5 Nfd7 14.Qf7+ Kh8

First, this is not really a Polerio, aka Muzio Gambit (this is the only name I have ever heard it called). That is characterized by the move 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0. You left out some of the opening moves, and the way you played it was lost right out of the opening.

My first impression is that I see a lot of tactical mistakes. There is a beautiful tactic that was missed on move 13. Here are my notes to the game.

 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. d4 $4 {This is almost losing already.} (3. Nf3 $1 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. O-O {This is the Muzio/Polerio.}) 3... Nf6 $2 (3... Qh4+ {This is close to winning already.} 4. Ke2 {This is forced, and if so, white needs to deviate sooner.} (4. g3 $2 fxg3 5. Nf3 g2+ $1 6. Nxh4 gxh1=Q $19)) 4. Qf3 $6 Bb4+ $2 {This allows white to solidify the center with tempo.} (4... Nc6 $1 5. c3 d5 6. e5 Ne4 $17 {And black is better.}) 5. c3 Ba5 $2 {The bishop is really needed for the defense of the king.} (5... Be7 $1 {But white is still much better after e5.}) 6. Bxf4 $2 (6. e5 {This drives the knight back to its home, and it clearly the best since white will be way ahead in development.} Ng8 7. Bxf4 Ne7 8. Bd3 {With a huge advantage.}) 6... O-O 7. Nh3 $4 (7. e5 $1) 7... Re8 $4 (7... Nxe4 $1 {This just wins a pawn, and black went from much worse to at least equal.}) 8. e5 d6 $1 {The white king is now stuck in the middle, so black will be winning material.} 9. Bb5 (9. Nd2) 9... c6 (9... Bg4 10. Qd3 Nbd7 {Finishing development is even better.}) 10. Bc4 dxe5 11. Bxf7+ {This is nothing more than a check. Black can take this with impunity.} Kxf7 12. Ng5+ Kg8 13. Bxe5 Nfd7 $4 {Black is crushing here, but instead walks into mate in two. Almost any move here wins, but this one. That said, black had a beautiful, and unique tactic here that wins another piece.} (13... Qxd4 $1 {Exploiting two pins, this wins the Be5.}) 14. Qf7+ 1-0


What is perpetual check? I know that there is 6 types of draws including mutual agreement, stalemate, insufficient material, 3 move repetition and the fifty move rule, but I do not know what is perpetual check.

Perpetual check isn't a thing any more. But the idea is that one side demonstrates that they can keep putting the opponent's king in check, regardless of what the response is. Sooner or later it will turn into a threefold repetition or run afoul of the fifty move rule.


What is the long-term idea of the Ruy-Lopez opening? I have studied the London opening system on lichess.org. What really clicked with me are the systems two main ideas: (1) develop a defensive structure which (2) allows you to crash black's kingside castle by pushing pawns with rooks behind them (and very often crush your opponent).

What you have is plan A, which is to crash black's king side, and if black doesn't castle you return to plan B, which is to improvise from a very strong defensive posture. The main point is that you have plan A with a very specific way to win in mind.

I am /not/ asking about opening principles. I am asking about the specific ideas of the Ruy Lopez. I understand how it gets your pieces out fast, is aggressive, and allows for a fast castle. But what approach or strategy does the Ruy Lopez aim for?

In my own games, the best idea I have is to position my rook in the center file (because I can castle quickly) and try to open up the center and use a discovered attack on the king or queen by exposing my rook. But is this 'classical'?

The answer to this is way beyond my pay grade, but I may be able to say something that prepares you for a better answer.

You are not only comparing two very different opening systems (London System and Ruy Lopez), but you are comparing two different ideas of what an opening system is. The London system was once described by GM Julian Hodgson as the "businessman's opening", ideal for those with little time for study, because once you have played d4 and Bf4 there is not much choice for the other pieces. It can be said without gross exaggeration that the London system can be learned in five minutes.

The Ruy Lopez is much more vague and much more ambitious. The vagueness is why no short answer is possible. The goal is to increase Whites mobility and control of space and to retain the option of where to strike. There are some standard manoeuvers such as c3 and d4,0-0 and Re1,Nb1-d2-f1-e/g3, a4, and others, but Black can often play a big role in deciding the sort of game it will be. He can go for complicated counterattack with the Schliemann, the Open, or the Marshall. He can play more safely, with Steinitz/Steinitz Deferred or more classical approaches like the Chigorin, Keres, Breyer.. In fact one reason NOT to play the Lopez is all of the work required to prepare for everything that might happen. Mastering the Lopez is a lifetimes work.


Best resources to learn the Chigorin variation of the Ruy Lopez for both colors? I faced this opening 3 times recently in a tournament, and only scored 1 win and 2 losses. I would like to know: what are the best books or DVDs that cover the Chigorin variation of the Ruy Lopez?

I'm not going to say its the best for exhaustiveness but great entertainment st louis chess club


Which chess server is most stable in mainland China? I had been playing mostly on chess.com. Recently I moved to Shanghai, and chess.com is really unstable here. I had numerous abandoned games due to disconnection, and I can check that my internet is ok during the disconnection countdown.

Maybe due to internet censorship? But surely a chess site can't be sensitive...

Could players in mainland China recommend a more reliable site please?

I suspect it is more about your Internet connection than which chess server you are connecting to.

I was watching the recent Nakamura-Duda quarter final in the speed chess championship, and Nakamura, who is known to have a great connection, was playing from a hotel somewhere but had connection issues, and lost a game. He continued virtually the whole match with no video feed due to this. The only thing that changed was his connection. Other Chinese players in the tournament have also had problems.

Many places are famous for their bad Internet, and that is the likely culprit, not the server you are connecting to.

That said, with a bad connection, the Internet Chess Club, and its predecessor, the Free Internet Chess Server, both use protocols that are require very little bandwidth to have a decent connection. I doubt there are any servers that require less as they are UNIX-based, and were started at a time when bandwidth was nothing compared to today.


Struggling to improve past intermediate level I have been playing a lot of chess recently after not having played much in the last few years. My rating (sorry, I don't know which rating systems) on most chess websites and so on tends to sit comfortably in the 1400-1500 range, but I can't seem to break that. On various tactics trainers, I seem to able to reach a tactics rating of around 2000 or sometimes higher. Again, I don't know how useful these numbers really are, but if I take them at face value then it would seem that tactics are not my problem. I also think my grasp of strategy is not too bad, I am quite aware of outposts, open files, weak pawn structures and so on and they tend to drive my moves in my games, more so than tactics I would say.

I have a couple of questions to ask regarding improvement here. Firstly, I play a lot against computers, since I can just play a game on my phone without worrying about internet connection. Is this a bad idea if I am trying to improve? The computer I play against seems to be totally brain dead below a rating of about 1300, then suddenly above that rating seems to make almost no blunders. It makes plenty of strategic errors, (advancing way too many pawns early on and stuff like that) but it just seems to be able to plug every hole so quickly, even though it creates a lot for itself. My question is: is it a mistake to practice against computers, given their somewhat erratic way of playing?

I think my game is okay in most areas, and I feel like it could be one or two crucial weaknesses that are holding me back. My opening and end game skills I think are adequate for the level I am playing at, but my middle game seems to be remarkably uninteresting. I can notice where the most important squares are and tend to avoid any big blunders, but against computers the games tend to seize up in the middle...they are just really dry in terms of attacking opportunities because the computer has got it all covered, and I can't create strong threats as quickly as it can defuse them.

I think this may be the big gap in my game. I can solve tactical puzzles quite easily, but I cannot consistently create those sorts of positions that appear in the puzzles in my own games. So my second question is: is this a common pitfall in players around my level and, if so, how do players usually break through this?

Thanks for any input, and sorry for the life story. :)

Unfortunately playing against computers is a mistake amateur players often make.

There is not much to learn from computers as they are just that, computers. You will lose the psychological aspect which dominates a significant part of human chess. Computer's "plans" are based on brute calculation and not a  "feeling" for the position, as human players do. You cannot calculate to the level of a computer, nobody can, but you can obtain a "feel" for the position, and this can only be learnt by playing with strong human players.

That is the key, to play against strong human players, be it on the internet or in real life, preferably in real life. I myself never played against computers, and instead concentrated on playing on internet chess websites. But the greatest aspect of my improvement was my experienced gained from playing strong human players, in real over-the-board games. This helped me to absorb their ideas, their plans and to become an overall better player.

Keep solving tactical puzzles, your doing good, don't stop! Tactics is a crucial part of chess and can help in transforming advantages from one form to another and to decide the game in your favor. Tactical Awareness can also stop you from making blunders and seeing your opponents threats before he executes them...

 "My opening and end game skills I think are adequate for the level I am playing at"

The endgame is a crucially important part of chess which amateurs always disregard. I cannot stress enough the importance of it. The legend himself Capablanca stressed the importance of the endgame. Improvement in the endgame will guarantee improvement of your entire game. Do not just neglect study of it because your endgame skills are "adequate for the level" you are playing at (1400-1500). Move forward. You neglect study of the endgame, and you wonder why you are not improving, well...

For openings its not as serious at your level. You just have to know the basic principles (control the center, develop pieces, castle quickly). Restrict your opening choice as well to make study of it easier. For example, don't play all 1.e4 1.d4 1.Nf3. Don't respond to 1.e4 with all 1...c5 1...e6 1...c6. Play just one opening! This will make it easier to absorb the ideas of that opening and will leave you more time to improve other aspects of your game.

Jeremy Silman's Complete Endgame Course is the perfect book for the improvement of the endgame at your level. I recommend reading up and practicing until the 2000 level. Do not be intimidated by the rating, it's just a number. Some of the material is challenging but I'm sure with repeated practice you will absorb it easily.

OK I know I'm a Jeremy Silman fanatic but How to Reassess Your Chess is truly a great book which helped me to improve. Not trying to sell anything here, but it really is fantastic material.

To answer your question about creating positions that arise from puzzles

"is this a common pitfall in players around my level"

Well this just shows that you are at that level. Common pitfalls of players at your level is missing tactical combinations, implementing the wrong plan (bad judgement of the position) and ignorance of the endgame.

Relating to your previous question

"how do players usually break through this?"

Break through the common pitfalls of players at your level?

Perfect question to finalize my post, as I mentioned before.

1.Play against strong(er) players (preferably in real life)

2.Study the endgame

3.Continue practicing tactics!

4.Read How to Reassess Your Chess Or take a look at this

OK just going to recommend a bunch of websites to help you

Chess Tempo

The Chess Website

Chess

Internet Chess Club

Chess Network

Chessgames


How bad is this reverse Trompowsky? Chigorin played this opening five times in his match with Steinitz, 1889:

[FEN ""]

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Bg4

It looks like black is playing a Trompowsky attack.  I never seen this line except in these games.  Chigorin scored 1 win and 4 losses, which is maybe why nobody plays it.  But is this worse for black than the Trompowsky is for white?

My database has 1603 games in the line 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Bg4, with Black scoring a poor 41.3%. (Contrast this with White scoring 54% over 38,587 games in the Trompowsky.) In particular, White does very well with the two responses that Steinitz used in the Chigorin match: 3.Ne5 leaves Black with a dismal 33.9% score, while 3.c4 leaves Black with a 34.7% score. So the numbers tell the story that this line is considerably worse for Black than the Trompowsky is for White, which explains why it isn't played much. (Nigel Short appears to be the only top player in recent times to play the line even a handful of times; he did score a nice rapid game win against Kasparov with it in 1987 though.)

Why the disparity in results, though? Well, the only difference between what White is getting in the Trompowsky and what Black is getting in your line is that White has gotten in the extra move d4; but that's a pretty significant extra tempo. To illustrate with just one concrete line, after e.g. 3.Ne5 BF5 in your line, White can strike Black's center immediately with 4.c4 and have a good game. In the Trompowsky, on the other hand, Black couldn't really do the same with 2...Ne4 3.Bf4 c5?!, since White could kick the knight and then push ahead in the center with something like

[FEN ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bf4 c5?! 4.f3 Nf6 5.d5 d6 6.e4

when White has grabbed a lot of space and Black will lag behind in development. This is just an illustration, but the point is that White having already gotten in d4 is a significant plus.

So this line of Chigorin's really isn't good, but if you're interested in playing something like it, a better version can be had via 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4, the Wade Defense (which I play myself sometimes). Now 3.Ne5 is no longer an option, and we have something much more playable for Black. Julian Hodgson himself (who greatly popularized the Trompowsky for White) has played this particular line quite a bit, which is good evidence that this is a fine way to play. (Not to mention, it's been played on occasion by folks like Petrosian, Anand, Grischuk, Ivanchuk, Svidler ...) Of course, playing 1.d4 d6 means having to be ready for the transposition into e4 lines via 2.e4, but if you're OK with that, then this is a perfectly good choice for Black.


Can't engineer queenside play for Black INTRODUCTION:

Recently, I have played online blitz game against very strong GM ( who is also a chess writer ). I didn't even know it until asking him if he has any ELO / title.

We played 7 games and I lost all of them. Although I know my opening choice for White is "idiotic" I just couldn't resist and "went Sparta on him" -> sadly, he dispatched me with ease. Still, with Black, I offered real resistance. Even he said that he had to "work for those wins."

I knew exactly when I made the mistake in all the 7 games, but for the life of me, I was not able to find an idea on how to generate long-term counterplay.

Even analysis with StockFish 5 confirmed my evaluations but the engine couldn't find any move that will give me counter-play when I was Black.

It also confirmed that the GM played the only winning moves which confirms that his above comment wasn't an "empty" compliment but the truth.

I am interested in improving the 3...Qd8 line of the Scandinavian defense so I will limit my question to the positions that arose from those games.

RELEVANT INFORMATION:

To further help you, I will quote the opening positions from those games, and will give additional info / instructions in order to make your task easier.

[Title "How can Black generate counterplay?"]
[fen ""]

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd8 4.d4 c6 5.Nf3 Bf5 6.Nh4! Bg6 7.g3! e6 8.Bg2 Be7 9.Nxg6 hxg6 10.O-O Nf6 11.Ne2! ( 11.a3 a5! $8 ) 11...Nbd7 12.a4 O-O?! ( 12...a5! $8 ) 13.a5! $16

The point of Ne2! and a5! is in grabbing as much space as possible in the center ( with subsequent c4 ) and queenside. He also tried with a3 instead of a4 in other games, but the idea was the same: Ne2 -> c4 -> gain space on the queenside.

His Bg2 killed my ...c5 push, so I was without any counterplay. I still think Black would be fine if he had played 12...a5!, but I don't see how to generate freeing break or any other sort of counterplay.

As a good chess writer he knew for Nh4 + Nxg6 + g3! plan from the Slav defense, but so did I. It didn't surprise me. His Ne2! maneuver didn't surprise me either but the idea to gain space on queenside threw me off.

QUESTION:

How can Black generate queenside counterplay that gives him equality?

Please avoid computer-only analysis. This is the position where they can do little as it involves planning, for which engines are not capable of.

I was not able to find an idea on how to generate long-term counterplay.
How can Black generate queenside counterplay that gives him equality?

It might be cruel for you but...answer is simple: in this position black can not achieve equality or counterplay at all. Your opening choice made you wait for him to kill you or if he's not able to (can't find as you said 'best moves'), then it might end in a draw. Scandinavian is not a good choice in case of counterplay.
Let's have a look at the position without using any engines:
White adventages:

Space
Pair of bishops
Pawn structure

Black has no pluses in this position at all. If you are standing worse you want to simplify the position by exchanging some pieces. However, looking at the black's pawn structure, it might be a bad idea to go for an endgame with doubled pawns which make the majority less effective and more vulnerable.
As you mentioned before, 12. ... - a5 might have been better than 12. ...-O-O. I would rather play a5 myself. Once he got to a5 square he might want to play a6 and create weakness n c6 making his Bg2 even stronger. And you can't really play a6 yourself leaving a nice hole on b6 and making b7 pawn vulnerable for rest of the game.
Another thing is, I don't understand why you'd like to play on a queenside when you are 3-4 in terms of pawns there. Any b-pawn or c-pawn move there makes his white-squared bishop a monster.
To sum up, I'm against that Scandinavian. Reason is simple: If there's a skill gap between you and your opponent, you end up in a (bit) worse, positional position, sooner or later you will get crushed. You have much better chances to play, as you called, sparta. There's better chance in complicated tactical positions against GM than playing against his positional (and overall chess) understanding and huge experience. Scandinavian is praying for a draw for me.


Is the number of possible chess games infinite? This question is somewhat related to Can the total number of possible wins/draws/losses be calculated?, but slightly different.

There is a recent TV show episode that claims that there are "more possible games of chess than atoms in the universe". They go on that "each possible move represents a different game, a different universe [..]"; "by the second move there are 72084 possible games, by the third -- 9 million, by the fourth --- 318 million".

So is the total number of chess games infinite, for all practical purposes given human and technological limitations? And do the above numbers actually hold up to scrutiny? (i.e. What are the estimated possible games by, say, the 10th move?)

Curiously, Wikipedia seems to be implying that the number of games can be estimated:

  the number of possible games [in Go] is vast (10761 compared, for example, to the 10120 possible in chess)

The maximum number of moves in a chess game is not infinite, it's 11797 plies = 5898 moves and a half. This is due to the fifty-move rule.

So no, the number of possible chess games is not infinite.

The maximum number of legal moves in a position is 218. So a crude upper bound for the number of possible chess games is 218^11797 = 10^27586

Wait, actually after fifty moves without any capture or pawn movement the players can also continue playing without claiming the draw...

Article 9.3 of FIDE Laws of Chess states that:

  9.3

  The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move,
  if:

  he writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move which will
  result in the last 50 moves by each player having been made without
  the movement of any pawn and without any capture, or
  the last 50 moves by each playerhave been completed without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.

So I guess the number of possible chess games could be considered as infinite then...

But if you're not interested with the previous theoretical numbers:
The average number of legal moves in a position is around 35, and the average length of a chess game is around 40 moves = 80 plies, so an estimate of the number of "rational" chess games is 35^80 = 10^123
As for the total number of legal positions, it's somewhere between 10^40 and 10^50.


Why does chess tempo fail at random; what is the biggest free database online that is reliable Sometimes chess tempo works.  Sometimes it does not.  Seems random. Is there another database that is completely reliable that is as big as chess tempo?

I am looking for a DB that gives the moves with winning percentage or else percent results for  WDL for each move.

This fits the bill perfectly, and ChessBase is incredibly reliable:

https://database.chessbase.com/

You will have to create a free account, and there are features that are premium, but for winning percentages, it has that for free. I am logged into this with a free account and you can see the percentages in the screenshot.

Here is what it looks like with my paid account (just the right portion of the screen changed, so I only took a screenshot of that).

Chessgames.com also has what you are looking for in terms of percentages here, but with much fewer games: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer


How do I decide what color squares to place my pawns on? I often hear people say "I have my pawns on the dark/light squares like I'm supposed to" or something similar. I have no idea what actually dictates which squares to try to place your pawns though. Does it depend on the bishops the opponent has or doesn't have or is it more in relation to the opponents pawn structure? Or is it something else completely?

This is a very complicated subject since there are a lot of other factors that come into play so I will give some examples, but there are no general rules that apply in all circumstances.

First, let's take this common opening structure from the Slav. In this equal position, black wanted in imbalance, and traded off the light-squared bishop, so in order to keep some control of the light squares, he played e6. In addition to wanting to keep some control of the light squares, it also does not contribute to potentially making the Bf8 bad later.

 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 Bg4 5. h3 Bxf3 6. Qxf3 e6

Next, lets talk about an endgame position with a bishop versus a knight or a same-colored bishop. In general, you do not want to put pawns on the same color of the bishop as that makes the bishop "bad". A bad bishop lacks scope due to its own pawns, and in addition, it often leads to zugswang.

Here is a position that is equal, but one bad move putting a pawn on the same color as the bishop, and it is over. In addition to limiting the Bf8, it weakened the light squares, and in many positions, it might have given white another target to attack.

 [FEN "5b2/3kpp2/1p1p4/5P2/3K2P1/1PP3B1/8/8 b - - 0 0"]

 1... f6 $4 2. Kd5 Bh6 3. Bf2 Kc7 4. c4 Bf4 5. Ke6 Kd8 6. Bxb6+

An exception might be if all the pawns are compact, and you want a draw. Consider this position where black plays e5, but then can put the king on the unassailable e6 square. Even losing f6 here would lead to a draw.

 [FEN "8/4k3/4pp2/8/4P2B/2b2P2/8/5K2 b - - 0 1"]

 1... e5 2. Ke2 Ke6

Next, let's talk about opposite colored bishops. In general, if you are winning, you want your pawns on the opposite color as your bishop, but often if you are worse, it is fine to put the pawns on the same color as the bishop since they cannot be attacked by two pieces.

Note in this ending how white advances the pawns, but always only when they can both stay on the light squares.

 [FEN "8/8/3k4/1b6/3PP3/4K3/8/4B3 w - - 0 0"]

 1. Bb4+ Ke6 2. d5+ Ke5 3. Bc3+ Kd6 4. Kd4 Be2 5. e5+ Kd7 6. e6+ Ke7 7. Ke5 Kd8 8. d6 Bb5 9. Ba5+ Ke8 10. Kd5 Ba4 11. Kc5 Kf8 12. d7 {and queens}

This last one is an example of the latter type discussed above. Black is worse, and has multiple ways to draw, but the immediate f5 makes it virtually impossible for white to win, let alone attack any of the black pawns. At best, they will trade some, and black will sacrifice the bishop for the last pawn.

 [FEN "8/4kp2/2b1p3/8/8/4B1P1/3KPP2/8 b - - 0 1"]

 1... f5

Summing up, and these are VERY general rules, most of the time, you want the pawns on the opposite color of your bishop, or if you are going to trade a bishop, trade the one that is of the same color as most of your pawns. Occasionally, you may find positions where you are worse, but the bishop can defend everything well if the pawns are on the same color, especially in opposite-colored-bishop endings, but if they are not opposite colored, you must look out for positions that are ripe for zugswang, so be VERY careful breaking the first rule about putting them opposite your bishop.

Lastly, in opposite-colored-bishop endings, if you are winning, keep them on the opposite color of your bishop, or they will be easily blockaded, but if you are worse, and trying to draw, often you can create a fortress by putting them on the same color as the bishop.


"chess problem" software (free/paid) to download for PC? I tried one a while back but it was quite elementary, it had a few thousand problems but did not give detailed answers, just one single move as correct and that's it!

I do play Chesstempo sometimes but don't always have internet connection and also I want something I can have on my computer if I'm outside or somewhere there is no connection so I can do that, one with range of problems, not just tactics but like endgame stuff too that sometimes is more tough to calculate than tactic. Any programs you're aware of?

Edit: I only saw a thread on training particular chess tactics but that's not what I'm looking for, just chess problems of all sorts.

LucasChess is the best free software out there. You can add any engine you like and you can analyze your games with multiple engines. It also has a training mode for tactics, openings, and endgame.

I highly recommend it. I recommended it to a friend who loved it so much that he hardly uses his Chessmaster these days.

Here's the link:

https://www-lucaschess.rhcloud.com/


Can Black defend in this difficult position? Can Black reach solid and defensible position in the below diagram? I understand that Black will have to apply "equalize over time" method, so to help posters keep the analysis brief, I am interested in position that offers realistic chances to reach equality over time.
[Title "Black to move"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "r3kb1r/ppp1pppp/n4n2/1N1P5/8/4B3/PPP1NPPP/2KR3R b kq - 0 1"]

I'd like to point out that I tend to post Stockfish's entire tree of moves, but anything past the first 4 or 5 full moves is likely fiction.

To answer the OP's question, the answer is "with perfect play, Black looks lost. However, Black is not so lost he can't offer resistance."  Giving up on the game makes no sense to me since imperfect play got Black into this situation to begin with. With staunch resistance, perhaps White will err as Black did previously.

EDIT -
1... Nxd5 2. Rxd5 c6 3.Re5 and black is lost` variation shows White's advantage dropping to .5

The ever-practical Stockfish sees the following after several minutes. It decides that the d5 pawn is the problem and removes it. In the main line, White ends up with a 1 point advantage. The good news is that Black is well positioned to defend.

In the 1...Nxd5 variation, Stockfish says White is slightly better than the main-line.  I'm going to have to look at this one a bit more. It's... odd.

In the variation at move 3, Stockfish rates the final position as -.5, but I don't see how Black's extra piece is going to save him from the pawn onslaught.

[Title "Black to move (Stockfish)"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "r3kb1r/ppp1pppp/n4n2/1N1P5/8/4B3/PPP1NPPP/2KR3R b kq - 0 1"]

1... e6 (1...Nxd5 2.Rxd5 c6 3.Rd2 (3.Re5 cxb5 4.Rxb5 b6 5.Rd5 Nb4 6.Rd2 e6 7.Nc3 Rd8 8.Rhd1 Rxd2) cxb5 4.Rhd1 b4 5.Bxa7 e6 6.Bb6 h5 7.Rd7 h4) 2.dxe6 fxe6 3.Rhe1 ( 3.Nxa7 c6 4.Nd4 Bc5 5.Ndxc6 Bxe3+ 6.fxe3 bxc6 7.Nxc6 Rf8 8.Rhf1 Ng4 9.Rxf8+ Kxf8 10.b4 Nxe3 11.Rd3 Nd5 12.Rf3+ Ke8 13.a3 Kd7 14.Ne5+ Kd6 15.Nc4+ Ke7 16.Kb2 Nf6 17.Rg3 g6 18.Rd3 Nc7 19.Ne5 Ncd5 20.c4 Nf4 21.Nc6+ Kf7 )Kf7 4.Ng1 c6 5.Nd4 e5 6.Nb3 b6 7.Nf3 Re8 8.Kb1 Nb4 9.Nbd2 e4 10.Nd4 Rd8 11.a3 c5 12.Nb5 Nc6 13.h3 Be7 14.Nc3 h6 15.Ndxe4


The Historical Comparison of Players Arpad Elo described (chess life 1962) his ratings as

  "the measurement of the position of a cork bobbing up and down on the
  surface of agitated water with a yard stick tied to a rope and which
  is swaying in the wind".

Thus the Elo Ratings system is more a measure of Chess players' relative strength against contemporaries rather than one with a historical context.

Is there a way to adapt the Elo system to give it historical context or is there a superior
way to compare the relative strengths of players throughout history?

There is Chessmetrics, and it attempts to assign inflation adjusted ratings, even create elo-type rating for players of earlier period.

I am personally not a big fan of trying to compare great players across time. But it could be useful if you want to see who the top 10 players were in 1910 to 1920 time period.


How to analyse an endgame quickly? I am a relatively new player (less than 1 year, ungraded) but I feel I have made good progress so far. I am playing competitively with players in the 1300-1500 region and would like to continue my improvement.

Middle game is my strong point for sure, I am able to muddle through some common openings and get into a complex middle game quickly, as that is where I am strongest. But I can't get over the hurdle that more experienced players seem to be able to instinctively recognise if an endgame is won, drawn or lost.

I want to spend my efforts in understanding common endgame patterns and how to handle them. Here is an example of a position I found myself in recently as white. My opponent felt it was a draw but it took me a long time to agree.

[FEN "8/5kp1/5p1p/4p3/nB1pP3/1b1P1P1P/5KP1/2N5 b - - 0 1"]

My question

Other than simply playing more games and gaining more experience, are there any patterns I should be looking for in an endgame such as the example given, so I can more easily determine if a position is won/drawn/lost?

Note: I see a number of similar questions being asked, and the general responses tend to be "practice more, here's a book/website of endgame positions for you to analyse". I'm looking more specifically for people who can explain endgames in a bit more detail, I'm not afraid of a bit of maths.

There are all kind of endgames, so it is a bit difficult to generalize, but still there are a few things that are relevant in many cases.

Just like in the middle game you can evaluate the position based on for instance:

material (this is often the most important)
piece activity
weaknesses in pawn structure

Unlike in the middle game "king safety" is often irrelevant as with reduced material it is difficult to get mated and in fact the king often plays an active role in defending/attacking pieces.

If material is equal (as in this example), in many cases you can only win by promoting a pawn. The goal is then simply to create a passed pawn and push it to the other side of the board. To do this, you can either capture opposing pawns or make use of a pawn majority (basically, with the support of your own pawns to walk passed the opponent's pawns). So you should focus on how to create a passed pawn (and of course how to prevent your opponent from doing the same).

In order to improve your endgame technique you should also familiarize yourself with the most common endgames, such as:

mating with K+Q vs K, K+R vs K, K+BB vs K
winning or defending K+P vs K
various endgames with pawns on both sides
K+R and pawn(s) vs K+R (and pawn(s)). This is a very common endgame, but also very difficult to play properly. Perhaps too difficult at your current level.

Also you should know typical themes that appear in endgames like:

zugzwang
corresponding squares
triangulation
stalemate

With this in mind, regarding your example, you note that:

material is equal
opposite colored bishops (which tend to be more drawish)
symmetric pawn structure
blocked pawn chains
pawns on squares of the same color as the opponent's bishop (i.e. they can be attacked by either player. If the pawns were on the same color as the players' bishops, the position would be even more drawish as pawns would be even harder to attack and there would be an additional defender for the pawns (the respective bishop).
weak pawns on d3, g2 and g7

In order to win this position either side would need to create a passed pawn. Because of the symmetrical pawn structure it is difficult to achieve this by pawn breaks except for special situations like this. This leaves as the only option to somehow create a passed pawn by capturing enemy pawns.

How to do this? The most likely candidates for capture would be the weak pawns on d3, g2, g7, however these are easily defended by the king and if necessary the other pieces such as the knight on c1. Also note that it is not really possible to activate the kings (i.e. march the black king to somewhere around c3 or the white one to a more active square), because (i) white/black would have lots of time to attack and win the g7/g2 pawn and subsequently all the other pawns in the chain and (ii) the knight+bishop block the entrance on the a-b-c files (white covers the squares c4, b4, a3, b3 and black the squares c3, b3, b2, a2).

So it seems fairly impossible to just capture the weak pawns and also it seems impossible to create another weakness or passed pawn on the kingside through a pawn break. The last thing I'd check is if there is a possibility for a sacrifice (e.g. white could sacrifice a piece for two pawns on d4. However with the pawns being rather far from the promotion square it seems unlikely to succeed.

An agreed draw would be natural in this position, however at your level there is nothing wrong with playing on in order to practice and it is not impossible to make mistakes in this position. A plan for white could be to play g3 followed by f4 which could lead to another weak pawn on e5 (after capture fxe5 fxe5). Still with correct play it should be a draw.


Should the Laws of Chess have an overseeing board independent from FIDE? Why are the laws of chess still being overseen by the same political-governing body called FIDE and not by an independent autonomous body like in other major sporting codes such as football where IFAB (International Football Association Board - which is an independent body that determines the Laws of the Game of association football outside FIFA)?

I'm going to answer with a question. In any case this was an opinion-based question so it's not like I can give a factual answer, and this is too long to post as a comment.

You make it sound as if IFAB took control of the Laws of the Game from FIFA, at least if we go by analogy with the idea of some organization taking control of the Laws of Chess from FIDE. But it turns out that IFAB is actually older than FIFA (1886 vs 1904). Maybe the case of football is just historical accident. I don't know about other sports.

My question to you is: why? What problem do you think would be solved by having the Laws of Chess be controlled by some other organization? Maybe you have a solution in search of a problem. Maybe chess by being a "smaller" sport doesn't need another layer of bureaucracy?


What's a good website to study recent grandmaster games? I would like to study some opening theory on the Grand Prix Attack. What is a good website to study recent grandmaster games?

Chessgames has all the games from recent top GM tournaments.

Chess24 has live transmissions of the top tournaments.

And the Opening Tree at Chessok has opening variations with statistics and engine evaluations.

You can also find a lot of opening material on Chess.com, ChessPub or blogs like the Kenilworthian.


how to break through using pawn storm This is a game I played against my phone. I think I have an attacking chance with pawn storm. But staring at the situation for a bit, I can't find a plan to bring down black's defense.

When attacking with g and h pawns against a flat f7/g7/h7 structure, where do my pawns usually go (g5/h6 or g6/h5?)? How to coordinate my other pieces?

Any general suggestion or illustrative games I can follow to see how this is done?

Thanks

There are many plans for White here.
One is h5 and then g6 depending on whether the Knight on f5 hangs after fxg6. If instead black plays ...h6 you sack a piece on h6. Otherwise you can consider gxh7 check and attacking on the g file. Another plan is h6 and opening lines on the kingside. It seems that your pieces are not that well co-ordinated for these plans though.

All of this depends on concrete analysis. I would suggest the first move as 1.h5, with the idea h6, Qd4 and Qxg7 checkmate. If Black plays 1...f6 thwarting this idea then g6 and transposes to the ideas above. If Black plays 2...f6 then 3.fxg7. If 1...g6 then you have the option of hxg6 at any point in the future. edit eg after Rh1.


What are the mistakes that I have done in the following game? I am a begginer and I have a rating of about 1000 Elo. I played a game against stockfish 5 but I lost the game. I know that stockfish is a very strong engine but I played against it to learn more. This is the game:

[fen ""]
[Event "Computer chess game"]
[Site "Kartikay"]
[Date "2015.03.08"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Kumar Kartikay"]
[Black "Stockfish_14053109_x64_modern"]
[Result "0-1"]
[BlackElo "2200"]
[ECO "C01"]
[Opening "French"]
[Time "11:59:28"]
[Variation "Exchange, 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5"]
[WhiteElo "880"]
[TimeControl "900"]
[Termination "normal"]
[PlyCount "44"]
[WhiteType "human"]
[BlackType "program"]

1. e4 e6 {(e6 Nc3 d5 d4 Bb4 exd5 exd5 Bd3 Nf6 a3 Bxc3+ bxc3 0-0 Ne2 Nc6 0-0
Re8 Bf4 h6 c4 g5 Be3 Qe7 Nc3 Be6) -0.26/21 21} 2. d4 d5 {(d5 Nc3 Bb4 exd5
exd5 Bd3 c5 dxc5 Nf6 Nf3 0-0 0-0 Bxc5 a3 Nc6 Bf4 Re8 Re1 Rxe1+ Qxe1 Ng4
Bg3) -0.17/21 8} 3. exd5 exd5 {(exd5 Nf3 Nf6 Bd3 Bd6 0-0 0-0 c3 Re8 Bg5
Nbd7 Nbd2 c6 Qb3 h6 Bxf6 Nxf6) -0.09/20 13} 4. Qe2+ Be7 {(Be7 Bg5 Nd7 Nc3
Ngf6 Qd2 h6 Bf4 Ne4 Nxe4 dxe4 0-0-0 Nf6 Kb1 0-0 Bc4 Nd5 Ne2 Be6 Bb3 c6 Rhe1
Nxf4 Nxf4) +0.34/22 12} 5. Bg5 Nd7 {(Nd7 Nc3 Ngf6 Qd2 h6 Bf4 0-0 Bd3 c5
Nge2 c4 Bf5 Nc5 Bxc8 Nce4 Nxe4 Nxe4 Qe3 Rxc8 0-0 Re8 f3 Nf6 c3 Bd6 Be5)
+0.31/22 18} 6. Bxe7 Nxe7 {(Nxe7 Nc3 0-0 0-0-0 Re8 Qd2 Nf6 Kb1 Nf5 h3 Ne4
Nxe4 dxe4 g4 Nd6 Qf4 b6 Ne2 a5 Bg2 Ba6 Nc3 Bb7 h4 f6 g5) +0.20/23 14} 7.
Nc3 O-O {(0-0 0-0-0 Re8 Qd2 Nf6 Bd3 Bf5 Kb1 Qd7 Nge2 Bxd3 Qxd3 Nf5 Rhe1 c6)
+0.26/23 8} 8. O-O-O Nf6 {(Nf6 Qd2 c6 Re1 b5 f3 Nf5 g4 Nd6 Kb1 a5 h4 Re8
Rxe8+ Qxe8 Bd3 b4 Na4 Ba6 Bxa6 Rxa6 Ne2 Ra8) +0.29/22 14} 9. Nf3 Re8 {(Re8
h3 c6 Qd2 Ne4 Nxe4 dxe4 Ne5 Nd5 Bc4 Be6 Kb1 a5 Bxd5 Qxd5 c4 Qd6 Qc2 a4 a3
f6 Ng4 b5 Ne3 bxc4 Nxc4) +0.51/21 16} 10. Qd2 Ne4 {(Ne4 Nxe4 dxe4 Ne5 Be6
Kb1 c6 Bc4 Nd5 Bxd5 cxd5 h3 a5 f3 a4 fxe4 f6 Ng4 Bxg4 hxg4 Rxe4 Rde1 Rxg4
c3 Re4) +0.39/22 24} 11. Nxe4 dxe4 {(dxe4 Ne5 Be6 Kb1 c6 Bc4 Nd5 Bxd5 cxd5
h3 a5 Rhe1 f6 Ng4 b5 f3 exf3 gxf3 Rc8 Rg1 b4 Rde1 Rc7 Qd3 Qe7 f4) +0.39/24
8} 12. Ne5 Be6 {(Be6 Kb1 c6 Bc4 Nd5 Bxd5 cxd5 h3 a5 Rhe1 Qd6 Ng4 b5 f3 Bxg4
hxg4 b4 fxe4 dxe4 Qe3 Rac8 d5) +0.41/22 19} 13. c3 Bxa2 {(Bxa2 Re1 Nd5 g3
c6 Qc2 f6 Nc4 b5 Ne3 Qa5 h4 Rad8 Nxd5 Bxd5 Bg2 f5 b4 Qa3+ Qb2 Qa4 Qc2 Qa6
Qb2 h6 Bh3 e3 Rhf1) +1.43/21 20} 14. Qe3 f6 {(f6 Bc4+ Bxc4 Nxc4 b5 Na5 Qd5
Qe2 Rab8 b4 Qe6 Qd2 Nd5 Rde1 Rb6 Kb2 e3 fxe3 Nxe3 h4 f5) +1.60/21 22} 15.
Nc4 b5 {(b5 Na5 Bd5 b4 a6 Kb2 Qd6 Qg3 Qd7 Be2 Bf7 Ra1 Nf5 Bg4 Nxg3 Bxd7
Nxh1 Bxe8 Rxe8 Rxh1 e3 fxe3 Rxe3) +1.85/21 26} 16. Nd2 Nd5 {(Nd5 Qh3 b4 c4
e3 fxe3 Nxe3 Bd3 g6 Qh4 Nxd1 Rxd1 f5 Qxd8 Rexd8 d5 a5 Nf3 a4 Nd4 a3 Re1 Re8
Rxe8+ Rxe8 bxa3 bxa3 Nb5 Bb3 Nxa3) +2.64/24 14} 17. Qg3 e3 {(e3 fxe3 Rxe3
Qf2 Qe7 Nf3 c5 dxc5 Qxc5 Qc2 Nxc3 Bd3 Ne2+ Bxe2 Qxc2+ Kxc2 Rxe2+ Rd2 Rc8+
Kd3 Bc4+ Kd4 Rd8+ Kc3 Rdxd2 Nxd2 Bd5 Ra1 Rxg2 h4) +2.94/23 36} 18. fxe3
Rxe3 {(Rxe3 Qf2 Qe7 Nf3 c5 dxc5 Qxc5 Rd3 b4 Rxe3 Nxe3 Bd3 Rd8 Nd4 Nd5 Qf5
g6 Qe6+ Kh8 Qf7 bxc3 Qg7+ Kxg7 Ne6+ Kf7 Nxc5 Nf4 Rd1 Rd5 g3 Nxd3+ Nxd3 Bb3)
+2.72/24 20} 19. Qf2 Qe7 {(Qe7 Nf3 c5 dxc5 Qxc5 h3 Rc8) +2.94/24 7} 20.
Bxb5 Rxc3+ {(Rxc3+ bxc3 Qa3+ Kc2 Qxc3+) +M3/120 0} 21. bxc3 Qa3+ {(Qa3+ Kc2
Qxc3+) +M2/120 0} 22. Kc2 Qxc3# {(Qxc3+) +M1/120 0} 0-1

So I want to learn from my mistakes so please tell me how can I improve my game.

The first mistake you made was playing against Stockfish. Modern engines are so strong (and have been ever since at least Fritz 5!) that you learn nothing from playing them. They'll punish all your tactical mistakes (and at 1000 Elo you make plenty), but you'd get much more useful tactics training out of just doing exercises.

If you want to improve your game you should seek out human opponents somewhat above your level (100-200 Elo points) instead.


What to play if someone ignores your King's Gambit? So I'm an (unranked, but ~1500 on lichess) amateur who's been working on developing my opening strategy for some time, and I've basically been using the King's Gambit for a variety of reasons:

It is easy to play and fairly straightforward
Castling opens my kingside rook, which I tend to use a lot
Most casual players are unfamiliar with the technicalities of the gambit

While I may not be using the King's Gambit for the most optimal reasons, I am fairly comfortable with it and usually play the following:

e4 e5
f4 exf4
Nf3

After this I pretty much know all the major strategy, and can also play against some of the more common defenses (classical defence, Falkbeer Counter Gambit, etc).

What really gets me, however, is when players just ignore the gambit altogether and do something like

Nf3 Nc6

Now what am I supposed to do? I know that these are not good moves and will be appropriately penalized, but I often find it frustrating because all of a sudden I am placed in an unsure position. This particular case has happened to me several times in the past, but players often also play other strange moves like

Nf3 d6

What would I attempt when players simply ignore the Gambit (i.e. neither accept nor defend?)

Well, it is funny that 4.Nc3 is then the most popular move, with 4.d4 a distant second. In practice though, 4.d4 scores a very high 73.3% for white, compared to only a typical 56.7% for 4.Nc3. In addition, Stockfish much prefers 4.d4, and it is not even close (-.54 to +.92).

I will take that big center, and get my pawn back with an open f-file any day. The reality is that you do not have to do much there other than to develop your pieces as black has no space. I will give a suggested setup below. Black really should fight back earlier, try to hold the pawn, or maybe not take on f4 to begin with.

For the record, as soon as they play exf4, they have accepted the gambit, but they may not try to hold it with g5.

 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. d4 d6 5. Bxf4 Bg4 6. Nc3 Nf6 7. Be2 Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. Qd2 {With a fantastic position.}

Here is a suggestion based on your supplemental question. Keep in mind that there are a virtually infinite number of ways that black can deviate from the path, but just develop your pieces, and you will get a decent game.

 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. f4 Nc6 3. Nf3 d6 (3... f5 {The most popular move here.} 4. d3 {This is the main line, but does not really try to punish black.} (4. exf5 {Might be a better try, but there are many lines here.}) 4... d6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. g3 g6 7. Bg2 Bg7 8. O-O) 4. Nc3 Nd4 {And this strange moving of a piece twice is the computer's first choice, and the most commonly played in practice.} 5. d3 {And just finish developing with Be3, Be2 and Qd2.} Bg4 6. Be2 Bxf3 7. Bxf3 Nf6 8. O-O Be7 9. Be3 $16 {With a very comfortable game.}


How far from solving chess are we? See here: Does there exist an algorithm that would play perfect chess if given infinite processing power?

With infinite power, we could trivially recursively check every board state for winnability, and gradually work back towards knowing the winnability of the opening position.

At that point we would be able to definitely state whether perfect play leads to a White Victory, Black Victory, or Draw.

I don't know what the maximal tablebases currently are, but it seems like if you have a perfect tablebases for N-pieces, then exhasutively testing a single N+1 piece position shouldn't be that hard, and you would in the process also cross out a bunch of other N+1 positions. So the difficulty isn't specifically in evaluating positions at the next N, it's merely "there are a lot of those, and exponentially more of the next layer".

But we also have a LOT of brute-force computing power available.

How long would it take Google or Amazon to add another layer to our endgame tables, if they chose to?

How long would it take to just SOLVE chess, if humanity chose to?

Currently most of the 7-piece Lomonosov tablebases have been created. the only ones that weren't, were the K vs. K + 5 pieces. Those took about 6 months using the Lomonosov supercomputer.

Based on this answer, creating the 8-piece tablebases could take 100x the time it took to create the 7-piece, give or take an order of magnitude. Extrapolating, that would mean it could take 5/50/500 years, and probably on the lower end, 5-50 years for a supercomputer, and likely longer for Google or Amazon.

After a certain point, however, storage becomes a problem, as the number of game-tree possibilities surpasses the number of atoms in the universe. (see the Shannon Number)


Which type of openings generally lead their users not to waste much time on the clock: sharp/aggressive/tactical or positional/solid/quiet openings? I’m only asking this question out of curiosity. The answers I’ll get won’t make me change my opening repertoire.

OTB which type of openings generally lead their users not to waste too much time on the clock and not to get into time trouble often:

sharp, aggressive and tactical openings: Sicilian, French, KID, Grünfeld, Semi-Slav, Benoni, Reversed Sicilian
or positional, solid and quiet openings: Caro-Kann, Petrov, QGD, Catalan, Slav, Nimzo, QID, English Symmetrical

?

Of course you must also justify your answer.

Please only answer this question if you have played many many OTB games against many different opponents with different styles of play. If you have only played 30 OTB games you probably can’t answer this question.

First I would like to preface that both the positional/solid/quiet openings and sharp/aggressive openings can be played quickly without using much clock time by simply being very knowledgeable about your opening.

Quiet openings, particularly systems, tend to require less time. This is because sharp openings are dynamic, that is to say that every move makes a big difference, something big is on the line. Take the kings gambit for example. The opening could quickly become complex white may have a strong attack; black would be advised to use his time because one misstep will cost the game. White also should take his time to make sure that he/she executes the attack effectively.
Quiet openings, even when played incorrectly, will usually only result in a positional disadvantage, which of course is much less devastating than material advantage that often is in the air when we talk about sharp aggressive lines.
In conclusion, sharp aggressive openings, by definitions, require precise calculation in a forest of complexity and tactics. Positional openings require analysis of positional motifs in the position; this usually requires less time than long strings of calculations that sharp positions such as the sicilian often get.
I draw attention to systems, which almost by definition are openings that the user is able to use in almost any situation. Take the london system, for example. This opening can be played practically against all black openings and quickly as well.


How to change text color in Arena Chess? I am trying to create a dark color scheme for Arena but the problem is that the text inside the analysis pane – the area below the chessboard – is hard to read. How can I change the color of this text?

I am using Arena 3.5.1 on Windows 7.

It seems that in Arena some colors are controlled by the operating system. I went to Control Panel\Appearance and Personalization\Personalization, clicked on Window Color and in the Window Color and Appearance I changed the color of the item Window to green in order to make it easier to see the color changes in Arena.

And this is the result.

As you can see, some text remained black, like:

RAM display (next to the Appearance Settings button)
players' rating
numbers inside the Permanent Statistics pane
last player move (to the right of opening name)
the Demo button

I don't know how to change the color of these elements.


getting started to develop entire chess application Hi i love playing chess and i am software engineer.I want to create a chess web application for the sake of learning , so i need one chess engine,UI and one protocol as far as my knowledge.For chess engine i have chosen Stockfish, but i am not sure for UI and protocol.The below are my questions1.Already we are having quite protocols like ws(websocket) or XMPP why can't we use them as protocol?2.For UI why can't we use simple html to design the page and we will use the images for corresponding pieces?If this question is wrong in this forum please spare me.Provide me any resources related to this topic Thanks

When you want to write a chess application such as playing against a chess engine, you'll definitely need to learn the UCI protocol. You won't go anywhere unless you master it. Stockfish, Houdini, Komodo and a dozen of other chess engines use it. Please google "UCI chess protocol" for more details.

This is probably out of scope. Anyway, there is no reason why you can't use an XML format. You might want to look up ajax, because this is how most of the web sites use to create an asynchronous behaviour.
It's not a good idea to use a simple HTML page, because you'll force the user to reload the entire page everytime you want to update the board. You'll need something asynchronous, such as an ajax call.

Please check and talk with lichess. They have a chat channel that you can use to talk with the programmers. Those guys know everything.


How much time you spend on one puzzle? I know solving tactics puzzles is one of the recommended ways to improve in chess. I spend around 30 min solving puzzles.

How much time I should spend on one puzzle?
During games we don't think 15-20 min on one move (of course depends on a stage of the game) So I though same should apply for solving puzzles.

Would it be better for growth to spend max 5 min or better to to try to solve puzzle even if it takes say 20 min?

You should try to solve until you find the solution. If the puzzle is hard and has concepts new to you, it will take lots of time.

I remember that I tried to solve tactical puzzles for days, and eventually solved them. If you solve yourself, you can be sure that you understand the concept, that's very important. That is the thing what makes you progress. If you try to solve for a few minutes and then give up and check the answer, your time and the puzzle will be probably wasted.

If you think its too hard to solve in mind, you can set up a board and move the pieces. As long as you discover the solution yourself, your efforts will be rewarded.


Whats the difference between these chess tempo databases Chesstempo seems to have two pages for database display.

This one works at random: https://chesstempo.com/game-database.html

Sometimes it shows the moves in sequence of most usage and then the probability of WDL.  Other times it shows nothing.

This one seems to work all the time: https://old.chesstempo.com/game-database.html

What is the difference between the two databases?

Does that 'old.' refer to the database or to old code to display the database?

It seems to me that the 'old' UI works right and the new one is full of bugs.  Or is there some other features I am missing.  Still need an answer to the related question here.

They are currently exactly the same.

Typically, when a website does the old.sitename.com, it is to allow people to temporarily use the old format of a recently-updated website. Over time, they phase out the old one in most cases. The underlying data, such as a database, does not change at all during this transition, just the aesthetics and layout of the webpage.

In this case, it looks like they already phased out the old version, but simply kept the URL for convenience: They are currently exactly the same. To prove this, I did the following:

I opened each page in Firefox (but you could use any web browser), and right-clicked the page, and selected "View Page Source", which shows you all of the data that is used to render the webpage. I selected all the text for each document, and pasted it into a Word document. It was of note that viewing the page source, each one had 2576 lines...exactly the same. Once in Word, each document had 54 pages, and exactly 6017 words.

I then took both documents, "Old" and "New", and used the site copyleaks.com to compare them. As you can see from the screenshot, as I expected from the previous data I mentioned above, they are exactly the same.


Must I develop my bishop on next move? I got to this position, while playing this game: https://lichess.org/dT3d9Dp4

Here I feel the need to develop my bishop. I thought of Bf4 but I feared g5, after  which I will lose a tempo. Be3 always make me think of a pawn fork on d4 or e4. I feel Bd2 is too passive. What frustrates me most is that developing the bishop might not even be necessary at this position. How will I know what to do? Is developing the bishop necessary?

[FEN ""]
[Startply "12"]

1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 e6 3.Nf3 h6 4.Bd3 d5 5.O-O Nge7 6.Nc3 a6

You don't have to develop your Bishop on the next move. Bf4 does look ok, however. Re1 also looks good as it will support the e pawn.


App to read pgn surface Is there anyway to read pgn's on the surface 2 (windows 8), besides using any online tool for that matter.

For Windows desktop there is ChessX and for a modern / metro app there is PgnViewer


Are there any examples of high-level games in which the game was resigned or drawn without any captures? Are there examples of high-level games which were resigned or drawn before any captures were made?  Along similar lines, what game had the most moves before a capture was made?

Edit: I'm especially interested in longer games without captures (I'd like to see the strategies, etc); I'm not necessarily looking for the shortest game without captures.

Wikipedia says that the longest decisive game without a capture is:

Nuber-Keckeisen, Mengen 1994 lasted 31 moves without a single capture. In the end Keckeisen, facing imminent checkmate, resigned:

[Fen ""]

1.e4 b6 2.d4 e6 3.Bd3 Bb7 4.Nf3 g6 5.O-O Bg7 6.Nbd2 Ne7 7.Re1 O-O 8.Nf1 d6 9.Qe2 Nd7 10.Bg5 Qe8 11.Rad1 a5 12.c3 Rc8 13.Ng3 Kh8 14.Qd2 Ng8 15.h3 e5 16.Bc2 h6 17.Be3 Rd8 18.Nh2 Kh7 19.f4 f6 20.Qf2 Ne7 21.Rd2 Rh8 22.f5 g5 23.Bd1 Rb8 24.Bh5 Qf8 25.Ng4 Ba6 26.Red1 b5 27.b4 a4 28.a3 Bb7 29.Rd3 Nc6 30.Bg6+ Kg8 31.Qa2+ 1-0

For a drawn game:

Filipowicz-Smederevac, Polanica Zdroj 1966 was drawn in 70 moves under the fifty-move rule, without any piece or pawn having been captured (Whyld 1986, p. 124).

[fen ""]
[Event "Rubinstein Memorial 4th"]
[Site "Polanica Zdroj (Poland)"]
[Date "1966.08.25"]
[Round "14"]
[White "Filipowicz Andrzej (POL)"]
[Black "Smederevac Petar (YUG)"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C00"]
[WhiteElo "2330"]
[BlackElo "2450"]
[Annotator ""]
[Source ""]
[Remark ""]

1.e4 e6 2.d3 Ne7 3.g3 c5 4.Bg2 Nbc6 5.Be3 b6 6.Ne2 d5 7.O-O d4
8.Bc1 g6 9.Nd2 Bg7 10.f4 f5 11.a3 O-O 12.e5 a5 13.a4 Ba6 14.b3
Rb8 15.Nc4 Qc7 16.Kh1 Nd5 17.Bd2 Rfd8 18.Ng1 Bf8 19.Nf3 Be7 20.h4
h5 21.Qe2 Ncb4 22.Rfc1 Bb7 23.Kh2 Bc6 24.Na3 Ra8 25.Qe1 Rdb8
26.Qg1 Qb7 27.Qf1 Kg7 28.Qh1 Qd7 29.Ne1 Ra7 30.Nf3 Rba8 31.Ne1
Bd8 32.Nf3 Rb8 33.Ne1 Bc7 34.Nf3 Rh8 35.Ng5 Bd8 36.Nf3 Be7 37.Qg1
Bb7 38.Nb5 Raa8 39.Na3 Ba6 40.Qf1 Rab8 41.Nc4 Bd8 42.Qd1 Ne7
43.Nd6 Bc7 44.Qe2 Ng8 45.Ng5 Nh6 46.Bf3 Bd8 47.Nh3 Ng4+ 48.Kg1
Be7 49.Nc4 Nd5 50.Nf2 Bb7 51.Nh3 Bc6 52.Qg2 Rhc8 53.Re1 Rc7 54.Re2
Ra7 55.Ree1 Ra6 56.Re2 Rba8 57.Ree1 R8a7 58.Na3 Ra8 59.Nc4 Nh6
60.Na3 Nf7 61.Nf2 Rd8 62.Nc4 Rb8 63.Nh3 Bd8 64.Na3 Ra7 65.Qh1
Bc7 66.Qg2 Rd8 67.Qh1 Nh6 68.Ng5 Qe8 69.Kh2 Rd7 1/2-1/2


How often does castling occur in grandmaster games? May I know how to find in all grandmaster games, what the percentage of each of the following is?

Kingside castling
Queenside castling
Never castled by the end of the game but still has the right to castle
Lost the right to castle

Note When one side has castled more than once in a game, only the first castle counts.

If you are prepared to use standard Linux command-line tools like wc and grep then I think my free PGN processor, pgn-extract, will do much of the pre-processing necessary to count games in each category. Below is a basic bash script I put together as a proof of concept. It assumes your file of games is called inputfile.pgn - adjust as necessary, or pass it in as a command-line argument:

#!/bin/bash
# Output stats on castling.
src=inputfile.pgn
# Pre-process the games to allow textual analysis.
pgn-extract -C -V -N --notags --nochecks --linelength 10000 -s -o stripped.pgn ${src}
# Castling by white: detect a preceding move number.
grep '\. O-O ' stripped.pgn > Wkingside.pgn
grep '\. O-O-O ' stripped.pgn > Wqueenside.pgn
# Castling by black: detect no preceding move number.
grep '[^.] O-O ' stripped.pgn > Bkingside.pgn
grep '[^.] O-O-O ' stripped.pgn > Bqueenside.pgn
# Find games in which no castling occurred.
grep -v ' O-O ' stripped.pgn | grep -v ' O-O-O ' | grep -v '^$' > nocastle.pgn

# Output the FEN of the final position to include castling rights and
# look for the presence of rights.
pgn-extract -C -V -N --notags --nomovenumbers --linelength 10000 -s nocastle.pgn --dropply -1 -F | grep ' [wb] [KkQq]' > rights.txt

# Output the results - assumes valid Result tags in the source.
echo 'Number of games: ' `grep '^\[Result ' ${src} | wc -l`
echo 'W Kingside: ' `cat Wkingside.pgn | wc -l`
echo 'W Queenside: ' `cat Wqueenside.pgn | wc -l`
echo 'B Kingside: ' `cat Bkingside.pgn | wc -l`
echo 'B Queenside: ' `cat Bqueenside.pgn | wc -l`
echo 'Neither: ' `cat nocastle.pgn | wc -l`
echo 'Rights retained: ' `cat rights.txt | wc -l`

I tried the script on the KingBase database (Apr 2019) and, after removing broken games and duplicates got the following stats:

Number of games:  2072354
W Kingside:  1633762
W Queenside:  246158
B Kingside:  1670870
B Queenside:  128124
Neither:  69776
Rights retained:  24280

The 'neither' figure is about 3.4% while the 'rights retained' figure is about 1.2%. If games with 20 or fewer ply are removed then the 'neither' figure reduces to about 2.9% and the 'rights retained' figure to about 0.7%.