How does one promote a third queen in an over the board game? Most chess sets come with only one spare queen, and according to the video in the question Is holding the opponent's captured pieces legal or allowed?, one cannot use an upside down rook, and doing so it results in promotion to a rook.
If two queens already on the board, how can one promote a third one?

Under USCF rule 8F7:, it is acceptable to place a rook upside-down if a spare queen is not available.

If the desired piece is not available to replace a promoted pawn, the player may stop both clocks in order to locate that piece and place it on the board. A player who cannot quickly find such a piece may request the assistance of the director. It is common practice, however, to play using an upside-down rook for a second queen. In the absence of the player’s announcement to the contrary, an upside-down rook shall be considered a queen.

Under FIDE rules, you can't use an upside-down rook as a spare queen, but you can find the answer hidden in the section about the clocks:

6.11.2  A player may stop the chessclock only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, for example when promotion has taken place and the piece required is not available.


Why sacrificing a pawn was more preferable over more materialistic moves in Nakamura vs Ding in Altibox Norway Chess 2018? Why sacrificing a pawn in this situation, 19... h5 is slightly more preferable by engine over more materialistic g6 or Kh8? This is in fact what Ding chose to play actually. Obviously, this is to protect from 20. Bh6, but I myself try not to give away pawns when I have reasonable alternatives.

Why protecting dark squares was so important for Blacks even in the presence of the dark-squared bishop?

[FEN ""]
[Event "6th Norway Chess 2018"]
[Site "Stavanger NOR"]
[Date "2018.05.28"]
[Round "1.3"]
[White "Nakamura, Hikaru"]
[Black "Ding, Liren"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A18"]
[WhiteElo "2769"]
[BlackElo "2791"]
[PlyCount "73"]
[StartPly "38"]
[EventDate "2018.05.28"]

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 d5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.e5 Ne4 6.Nf3 Bf5 7.d3 Nxc3 8.bxc3 c5 9.d4 Qa5 10.Bd2 Nc6 11.Be2 Be7 12.O-O O-O 13.a4 Rac8 14.Ra2 a6 15.Rb2 c4 16.Ne1 b5 17.axb5 axb5 18.Bg4 Bxg4 19.Qxg4 h5 20.Qxh5 b4 21.Qg4 Rfe8 22.Nf3 Qa3 23.Rc2 b3 24.Rcc1 Qa2 25.Qf5 Ra8 26.Bg5 Qe2 27.Qd7 Bxg5 28.Nxg5 Ne7 29.e6 f6 30.Nf7 Ng6 31.Nh6+ gxh6 32.Qf7+ Kh8 33.Qxf6+ Kh7 34.Qf7+ Kh8 35.Qf6+ Kh7 36.Qf7+ Kh8 37.Qf6+

Blacks counter play is based on ...b4  If he plays a slow move White  can thwart b4 with Nc2 (which also stops Blacks Queen from entering on the a-file) and then attack on the kingside.  Some ideas are f2-f4-f5-f6, Rf1-f3-h3.  After Nc2 White can also take his time and just play Rf-b1 and Black is passive.


Is it true that Queen's Gambit tends to have positional play and King's Gambit A tactical one? I have heard somewhere that Queen's Gambit is favored by those who like quiet positional play and King's Gambit by those who like lively game studded with tactical traps. Is this true?

It depends a little. The Queen's Gambit can lead to very lively play, if both parties are willing, but it's easier to turn it positional, as the Queen's Gambit is more of a "pseudo-gambit" than the King's Gambit; White will almost always be able to regain his pawn if it's taken, even without going all out for blood.

The King's Gambit is different. White opens up lines in front of his own king, and in order not to get into a worse position, White will have to play very energetically, as it's more difficult to regain the lost pawn. If White loses his initiative without regaining his sacrificed pawn, things can turn very ugly.

So it's more a matter of White being forced to be prepared to play that way in the King's Gambit, as opposed to the Queen's gambit, as White in the latter opening doesn't need to worry as much about being worse if his attack doesn't go through.


Can White win this Q+P endgame? Can white win this queen and pawn endgame?

From this position put Black queen on the best defensive square, and then it will be White's to move.

[FEN "8/1PQ3pk/6pp/8/8/8/8/3K4 w - - 0 1"]

It might look like this:

[FEN "8/1PQ3pk/6pp/8/q7/8/8/3K4 w - - 0 1"]

My computer gives +6 for White, but it doesn't seem to be able to find a winning strategy.

Black seems to be able to get away with a draw by perpetual check. The usual way for White to escape that, is to advance the pawn, or interpose his/her own queen while giving check (thereby forcing the exchange of queens). The latter is impossible because black's king is well protected. The former is impossible as well, as long as black remembers to give check from the a-file if the white king is on a8.

Your computer probably doesn't see a threefold repetition (indeed, it's possible for White to stave this off for more than 50 moves) and thinks the b7 pawn is worth almost 6 pawns because it is on the verge of queening.


Add comments in a pgn file I have a pgn file containing a game. I want to add a comment into the game (like at move 23. - This is a ok move etc.) using words and not symbols. Is it possible  to do this?

[Date "1910.01.07"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Carl Schlechter"]
[Black "Emanuel Lasker"]

1. e4 {Notes by J. R. Capablanca} e5 {This is Black's second move!} 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 *

This is a sample PGN game. You'll just need { and } to enclose your comments. But you should use a chess program to do it for you. SCID is free and can do it for you.


After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3, is 2...Nf6 safer and easier to learn than Nc6? I am an amateur player and do not have much time to study and memorise complicated opening lines. Am wondering after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3, if 2...Nf6 is a safer and simpler option for black than 2...Nc6. My database shows that after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3, the move which gives white the lowest winning percentage is 2...Nf6 instead of 2...Nc6.

As an amateur player, you should know the connotation that 2...Nf6  (The Petrov defense) has a reputation of being more boring and more of a draw than 2...Nc6 (leading to the Ruy Lopez, Italian, and Scotch games). However, this really doesn't apply at the amateur level. In fact, you're much more likely to win or lose than draw, unlikely to the masters' database showing that certain lines have a drawish tendency.
So my suggestion, as unexciting as it is, is play what you like! Try out Nf6, try out Nc6, and see what pawn structures/middlegames you're getting in your games. Do you like them? Do you prefer one or the other? Play that one more often!


Would move sealing make sense in chessboxing? Or do the chessboxing people explain why they don't have? In chessboxing, I think that every switch from a chess round to a boxing round is kind of an adjournment. Yet, I notice chessboxing doesn't have move sealing. Some ways a switch is not quite an adjournment:

Obviously, you don't have the night to think over the position.

As I understand, the reason regular chess (or chess960) tournaments don't really have adjournments anymore is because of computers. Computers are I guess going to be ruled out here. (I guess it's a rule that the cuthumans don't have computer access. But ok not really relevant maybe.)

Elephant in the room: Of course chessboxers/chessboxing players don't really necessarily have time or energy to think when they're preparing for a boxing round. All the more if they've just had boxing rounds.

Question/s:

However, if you don't really consider the boxing, if you're familiar with adjournments and if you take into account your knowledge on adjournments, then should it be proper for players to seal moves here?

(1.1. Maybe never mind the specifics e.g. moving player has 5 seconds to seal move. I think just focus 1st on whether or not players should seal.)

Or (Any of 1 or 2 to be answered is fine): have the chessboxing people (WCBO, LCB, FIDE, FIDE-WBA or whatever) explained why there is no sealing?

(2.1. Actually I think if this were the original question, then this might post might not have been closed in the 1st place because this would be factual and not argumentative.)

Thoughts:

I think the boxing maybe is not really relevant. Just think of any hybrid where you alternate rounds of chess and another sport/game. Whenever you switch from chess to the other thing, I think moves should be sealed or at least I think it's reasonable to consider whether or not moves should be sealed.

It's speed chess, so every millisecond counts. If I'm a chessboxer playing a chess round in a chessboxing game, and it's my move, but then the bell rings, then the clock is paused but I still get to think for a few seconds, even milliseconds while the board is being taken away and the ring is being setup for boxing. It seems that if the round ends on my turn, then I get an advantage. But perhaps this advantage goes away in that my clock starts on the next chess round.

Maybe a not so good example, but I was thinking about 40:53 in St Patrick's Day Bash 2020 | Bout 4: Here, white finishes a move just as the bell rings. White has already touched a knight, but I'm not sure White has any incentive to make a move with a knight for round end, at least in general. In this particular case, I don't think there's any other move to make with the knight.

I have pretty much no knowledge about adjournments, sealed moves, etc. I just saw this on The Queen's Gambit. (Not sure if coincidence, but: The Queen's Gambit was dedicated to Iepe Rubingh, the founder/creator/inventor of chessboxing!)

Thank you note:
I cannot believe this got only ONE downvote. Insane. Thanks all for the edits, etc. Thanks especially to Glorfindel♦.

No: I don't think move sealing would make sense in chess-boxing. I think it would disrupt the fluidity of movement between the two kinds of round, and introduce an asymmetry between what the two players have to do after the chess round.
Nor does the current situation give a significant advantage to the player on the move. Neither side has a chance to analyze the chess while engaged in the boxing which demands their full concentration. And can they can’t consult their friends or computers.
What part of one’s consciousness does one need for different activities? Speaking personally, I can drive safely while listening to radio at the same time. However I can’t navigate while doing both of those things. Where do chess and boxing overlap in brain function? My initial guess is that it’s best to focus on one at a time, with the main benefit of the boxing time for the chess is to refresh my mind so
I maybe see something different.
The only time in my humble little life that I was called upon to fight for real (the famous night of my grandmother’s 80th birthday, when I was ambushed with my brothers and cousins by a bunch of louts as we came out of a nightclub) time slowed down - I had infinite time to think as I moved without conscious decision between the other apparently frozen fighters. Who knew that I could behave in this way? It was surreal, and fortunately no-one was armed. I say this not to boast but to illustrate that in genuine peril, emergency circuits can be engaged although I wouldn’t have wanted to play chess at the same time.
I can see advantages in being the last to play in a chess round, and also not being the last to play. Particularly as the match goes on and both players begin to deteriorate in concentration, forcing the opponent to be the first to play in the next chess round makes it more likely that they will make a slip.
Simillarly, setting up a trap at the end of a chess round could be an excellent trick. Will it be spotted by the opponent when they are just sitting down and getting focused.
Nor, as I mentioned in a comment, do I think that the last punch should be sealed between boxing rounds! The dislocation between rounds of chess and boxing is all part of the sport.
To see this sport at the top levels, here's a clip of Chessboxing World Championships.


Distribution of time per move I am interested in the distribution of time (in seconds) that players take per move. To this end, I am looking for game traces that contain timing information.

I have found a number of chess databases on Google, but none of their traces contain this information.

Can somebody point me to a source of traces that contain the time when each move was taken?

The FICS online game database has move times, however those are mostly blitz and rapid time controls, so the time used will not be indicative of tournament play.

Note that you can filter the database to only allow for your desired time controls, as well as rating range.


Is it possible to improve by playing mostly blitz? Can you improve significantly in chess by playing mostly blitz (say, 3 0) games? Or will you eventually reach a wall where the only way to advance is by sitting down for lengthy periods analyzing board positions?

The way I see it, blitz is good because:

Lots of in-game experience
Board vision
Quick tactics practice

What's say chessexchange?

Blitz is good for working out the kinks in an opening repertoire and reinforcing themes that you already know, but it won't help if you want to learn new tactics or ideas.

Blitz is too fast to be conducive to figuring out new plans, especially 3 0.

There are some upsides to blitz, though.  First and foremost, blitz is fun!  If you have 20 minutes, a few blitz games are probably going to be more enjoyable than digging up an old master game and slogging through that.  If you go over blitz games afterwards, you'll definitely learn more about your openings as well.

In terms of reinforcing themes and working on tactics, if you make an honest effort during the game to look for the best move and work out the complications (as opposed to just making speculative sacrifices), then yes, it can be useful.

So to summarize, nothing quite compares to going over games between two grandmasters, but blitz isn't terrible.  Make sure that when you do end up playing slow games you settle down and think long enough on every move.


How to tell how far you are from checkmate? What are some tips to tell if you are close to checkmate?

It is extremely difficult to know how far you are from checkmate. If you could calculate as deep as you wanted (essentially, solve chess), then you would be able to look it up on a database. My suggestion then is that you try to calculate and see if you find a series of moves that do the job. As this series of moves will very likely proceed from a tactical motif, I strongly suggest that you study a few of the many indicators that allow you to know whether a tactical combination is possible.

As a starting point, you may want to check Chess Tempo and it's Tactical Motifs list, which include many of the most basic and important ones.


Are there any "underground" openings or gambits? Playing a lot of blitz online, from time to time I meet quite strong players who regularly use very dubious lines that can have some shock or practical value in blitz or bullet chess, such as these, as White:

[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Bxf7+

Or, as Black:

[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Nc6

[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Bg4 4.dxe5 d6

[FEN ""]

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qe6+ with Qg6 and an early Nc6-b4 attack

I was wondering if all of this means that some players have their private analysis of some (objectively bad) lines for use in speed chess.

Are you aware of other similar lines? As you can see, I don't mean Grob's Gambit or Cochrane's Gambit, but the very bad lines...

In bullet chess (1 min or less), you basically don't have time for thinking and will pre-move or make moves instantaneously often making assumptions about your opponent's moves. In such situation playing the best moves becomes less important; basically you just need to move fast without blundering too much. Playing chess at such short times becomes more about bluffing and less about thinking.

The practical value of dubious lines/moves can be two-fold:

your opponent has to think (=losing valuable time) to refute the move
your opponent plays a standard (pre-move) which is not the best in this situation

Due to the limited time it is difficult to refute such dubious lines even if you lose a minor piece. So there is little risk involved.

I doubt there is much private analysis involved.  I also doubt there is much value in trying this at longer times (3 min or more).


In this puzzle, why does white play dxe5? I came across the following puzzle on lichess (black to play):

[Event ""]
[Site ""]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round ""]
[White ""]
[Black ""]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "1k5r/1pp2q2/p2p2n1/4pp2/2PPP1p1/1P2B1P1/P2Q1P2/2KR4 b - - 0 1"]

1...f4 2.dxe5
    ( 2.Bxf4 exf4 )
2...fxe3 3.Qxe3 dxe5 *

Which apparently proceeds as follows:

... f4
dxe5 fxe3

f4 is clearly a good move, since both sides have triple protection on the f4 square so black always ends a piece up. What is confusing me, however, is the following move by white – dxe5. This is odd, since fex3 is a queen threat, and hence a forcing move. Stockfish, on the other hand, agrees with dxe5.

Why can white not play Bxf4, simply taking the pawn and also avoiding the queen threat?

It is quite pointless analyzing moves in lost positions.

Here in either line white will lose a bishop for a pawn.

A queen threat is just that, a threat. Why are you so much afraid of it? The game could continue

... f4
dxe5 fxe3
Qxe3 Nxe5

In the other line you'd have

... f4
Bxf4 exf4

Both are very lost positions.

Why the computer picks the first over the second line, who knows (who cares)? Perhaps it prefers it because the white pieces get slightly more space.

In a practical game, other than resigning, my first choice would also be dxe5 for two reasons:

gives black the chance to blunder with dxe5 after which white can mate starting with Qd8+
it opens the position which gives more chance for swindles for the lost player.


Whose games should I collect for Benoni? I have been adopting the Benoni opening against 1 d4 recently with some moderate success. I would like to know whose games should I look at to have a good understanding. I see that Tal, and to a lesser extent Fischer, have practiced this opening in the past.

I would start with Vugar Gashimov and Veselin Topalov.


How to add variation to a game on Arena Chess? Suppose I load a game from PGN on arena. Check screenshot.

If I want to add a variation to a main move, how can I do it? Is there any option to add a variation?

Go to the move where you want to insert a variation and make an alternative. Then, a popup will open:

New variation will create a new variation (what you actually want).
Overwrite will overwrite the main move and all the next moves.

If you want to make a variation mainline, then right-click one of its moves → Upgrade variation.


Learning chess over the board vs using software I have some good quality chess books and of course use the chess board to follow all chess game examples and variations provided. However I noticed that it is quite a tiring activity as it takes time and I do sometimes lose  the sequence of moves as I lose focus when switching between board and the book.

Not long ago I found that there are ebooks (CBH, CBV and PGN file format) which allow to "read" books on a chess application (chessbase, fritz etc) and examines provided using software.

The question I want to ask actually about learning: do you learn more by physically interacting with the pieces (reading book and moving pieces) or you find yourself learning more and quicker by interacting with the software while going through variations?

You always pay attention when moving heavy wooden pieces. Work with PC can be faster but make sure you don't do it too superficially. Sometimes I just wheel the mouse, listen to the music and after checking twenty games of my opponent I don't know what is his first move. I like the old style learning, it isn't that powerful technically but still it can produce better results. The faster you play the lines, the less understanding you will get. That's why real pieces and books are not dead for training. I would go for watching videos on pc but I think I wouldn't read ebook on it.


Why increment isn't popular online blitz? I find it strange that the dominant time controls for online blitz is 3 min and 5 min instead of something with delay like 3 increment 2. Fide blitz tournaments have increment too. Any insight on this trend?

The main reason, I think, for online blitz sessions not including increment/delay is the possibility of premoving. You can't premove in OTB chess, so you will use the increment for the 'motion' time.

Personally, I feel 3+0, where you have to keep good track of your clock, is more challenging than 3+2, where you just have to liquidate to a winning endgame using your time more freely and then play on the increment until checkmate. In sudden death games, you can flag your opponent if you are losing, so once they get a winning position it is not game over :)


Chess GUI that allows null-moves Is there a GUI that allows null-moves as legal moves? Of course for engines the null-move heuristic already is an established technique.

Fritz allows null move entry via CTL+ALT+0. There may also be a menu option to do this.

Scid vs PC also allows this by capturing one king with the other or by using the keyboard to enter "--" i.e. hit the minus key twice.

Hiarcs also uses king takes king to enter a null move. There is also a menu option "Insert/Null Move" in the "Edit" menu, plus a keyboard shortcut of CTL+0


Why is c4 bad when playing the London against a King's Indian? Recently I (rated ~1900 "classical" on Lichess) played the following opening:
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 g6 3.e3 Bg7 4.Nf3 O-O 5.Nbd2 d6 6.c4

[FEN "rnbq1rk1/ppp1ppbp/3p1np1/8/2PP1B2/4PN2/PP1N1PPP/R2QKB1R w KQ - 0 6"]

Upon playing c4, the stockfish analysis goes from a score of 0 to a whopping -1.1, as if I've already blundered a pawn. I've noticed this in a lot of my games - when black avoids developing his queenside and putting pawns in the center, I'm tempted to play c4, planning Nc3, castling kingside, taking up space on the queenside and if black is passive, perhaps pushing for a central pawn break with c5. But in these situations stockfish usually strongly dislikes c4.

Why? Stockfish's response is usually suggesting black play c5 pretty quickly, but this allows d5 giving me a lot of kingside space instead, and I can imagine a nice eventual pawn break with e5. I'm perhaps not at a level where I should be focusing on the opening so much, but I feel like I'm missing a big strategic idea here.

It may be to the fact that you are making his bad Bishop into a Monster.
After 6...c5, 7. d5 Nh5!  and the dark square bishop is free to roam.

[FEN "rnbq1rk1/pp2ppbp/3p2p1/2pP3n/2P2B2/4PN2/PP1N1PPP/R2QKB1R w KQ - 1 8"]


Traps and tricks for White in the 4.Bf4 variation vs the Grunfeld I read in a book (I no longer remember what book) that there are a few traps for White in the 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4 variation vs the Grunfeld, and that the line is somehow popular among GMs, Black has no easy equality, etc. etc. Is anyone aware of what a few of these tricks / traps for White might be?

For example please notice GM Kavalek's comments after Bf4 in this article:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/lubomir-kavalek/the-most-treacherous-defe_b_991426.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX9Ax29jZ1k is video 1 of 4 explaining this system.  Mike Virgo has the links to the rest of the series.
One of the comments is:  "It is a good video, however, Roman makes one mistake. at 15:45, he forgot to place pawn on h3 back to h2."  Many minor errors show in most chess videos, so ensure you understand the moves.


Possible to simulate specific chess situations? I played around with cutechess and stockfish to simulate a specific situation in chess. But I ended up playing complete games against a human or cpu. Is it even possible to set up a chess situation by hand and let the chess engine compute solutions?

You could use Fritz (or any other engine under the ChessBase GUI) to do this, using the "Infinite Analysis" function, so it's definitely possible, though I have no experience with other chess software and therefore don't know how to do this with other GUIs.

As for simulations, it is possible to have the engine play many games against itself, available in the ChessBase GUI again, called Monte Carlo analysis.


How to play against the Grob attack 1.g4 I am looking for resources/ideas (i.e. ECO doesn't seem to have a lot on this opening) to play against the Grob attack.
(Both for facing it and to prepare to play it as White).

So far what I have seen is very tactical, but I am looking for strategical ideas or the main branches to study.

For example what's Black best plan/ideas in the sequence below:

[FEN ""]
1.g4 d5 2. Bg2 Bxg4 3. c4 dxc4 4. Bb7 Nd7 5. Ba8 Qa8

I play the grob a lot, and i don't ever mind if people go into those main lines. That is actually what anyone playing the grob wants.

The easiest play for black is going with 1.e5 and a quick Ne7, Ng6, Nh4! This can't be prevented, the knight is hard to remove from h4 due to the weakness from 1.g4 and it hits the white bishop on g2 which white doesn't want to trade but it's either that or the ridiculous Bf1. That simple plan makes white look silly and gives an easy nice position for black from the opening.


Lichess vs Chess.com ELO system and player strength So I usually play on Lichess now a days while my friend plays on Chess.com. He keeps telling me that Chess.com is harder and has more players and more serious players, therefore the games are harder and players are better than on Lichess. He thereby claims that games are easier on Lichess than on Chess.com.
For me this claim makes no sense because both sites use the same ELO algorithm, which is a mathematical object, independent of which players play on which site. If my strength is X on Chess.com then my strength shall be X on Lichess, as well. The rating number could be different since that can be manually magnified, but the strength of a player cannot be magnified obviously.
Who is right and who is wrong? What arguments would you guys provide to my friend ,or to me for that matter?

Lichess recently added a concise explanation to its site:
Chess rating systems
Important points:

Chess.com uses the Glicko-1 algorithm with an initial rating of 1200.
Lichess uses the Glicko-2 algorithm with an initial rating of 1500.
Neither of them uses the Elo algorithm (not ELO - it's not an abbreviation).
Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to compare the ratings even if both sites used the same system, as they have different player pools.

If we are just talking of abstracted playing strength, the assertion that one site is "easier" than another still doesn't make sense. Elo and Glicko systems all have in common that if you get matched with players with the same rating as you have, they will on average have the same strength. So even if one pool is better overall, you as an individual wouldn't notice as you would be matched to comparably skilled players on both sites.
Unless your friend is a Super GM, of course.


A script that can create a chess tree from an EPD file Is there any script (any language) that can make a chess tree from an EPD file? Or what algorithm (any example) should be use to create it on my own?

I am looking for one like the Chessbase opening tree window. The EPD evalulation should be such that it is sorted by eval, but how I tell comp what position is first and what position is next one.

EDIT:
tree example

Not exactly. Both Chess Position Trainer and Chess Openings Wizard (the successor of Bookup) can create a tree manually or importing a PGN, export the positions to EPD, and import the evaluations from EPD, but won't create positions from an EPD, so they can't create trees from EPD.


What levels should theoretical endings be learned at? When I am introducing beginners to the game, I immediately teach them KQvK, KRvK and KPvK. I follow that up with KBBvK at around the 800 level. Are any resources on when one should learn/teach the following techniques: Lucena win, Philidor draw, KBNvK, KQvKR, KRBvKR, KNNvKP? Each of these teaches valuable lessons with applications beyond just the endgame but the last two may not be worth studying seriously until the IM+ level.

The more I look at Silman's Complete Endgame Course, the more I agree with how he has organised it.

Overkill mates where the stronger side is up by at least two rooks worth of material. KQQk, KQRk and KRRk. Especially KRRk is good because it emphasises the importance of having a plan. With queen(s) on the board, mindlessly checking might let the student accidentally fall into a mate, but checking over and over again in KRRk is unlikely to produce progress.
KQk and KRk. The two basic mates. Further hammering in the importance of having a plan.
KQkb and KQkn.  Easy enough to win, but especially the latter one takes surprisingly many moves against a stubborn defender.
KPk, opposition and the square of a passed pawn. Nothing much needs to be said. This is obviously required knowledge.

These four represent what I'd call the bare minimum needed. And the third is really more of a case of "head fake learning". When one is better at chess, one can obviously figure out how to win KQk{b|n} over the board, so from the viewpoint of teaching theory this is at best marginally useful. The student is actually learning about what the pieces can and cannot do which is always going to be useful.

Beyond this, I think the most practically useful are KQkp, Lucena, Philidor (the KRPkr draw, not the KRBkr win) and a small selection of minor piece theoretical draws (wrong-coloured bishop + rook pawn, KNPk with pawn on h7, etc.).

You want to minimise memorisation while maximising useful knowledge gained for practical play. Not just in the endgame but also the ability to formulate and execute plans (try KRRkr for this) and gaining familiarity with the capabilities of the pieces.


What do 2600 level grandmasters do to earn a living? I want to know what a grandmaster does to earn a living, because if he has a 2600 rating then he is not able to win many tournaments.

I believe you meant a rating of 2600 not 1600, the most common way is Coaching. Coaching rates can be as high as 100 usd per session(1.5-2hrs) with a grandmaster of that level or as low as about 35-40 usd(each session).


Why move bishop first instead of queen in this puzzle? In this puzzle (white to move), the solution first moves the bishop (to pin the knight) and only then the queen. Why is it better to move the bishop first?
[FEN "r2qk2r/pbp1bpp1/1pnp3p/8/3NP3/2P3P1/PP1N1PP1/R2QKB1R w KQkq - 1 12"]

After Qa4 Black can reply ...Kf8 if you capture there's ...Qd7 (pinning your knight and regaining it later)
A continuation would be 1.Qa4 Kf8 2.Nxc6 Qd7 3.Bb5 a6 4.Nxe7 axb5


How is the life of a professional GM with ELO around 2500? How is the life of a professional chessplayer with ELO around 2500? I mean, someone who is no doubt strong, but hardly a top GM? How does he make a living these days, if he hasn't another job?

I know a few GMs in 2500-2600 range who would be considered professional -> ie chess provides the primary means of earning income for them.

It is very hard work with wages not matching the effort/skill spent:

Being the primary player for medium club team (European/Middle East/Far East)
Teaching (preferably within said club as it guarantees steady supply of clients)
Being an personal assistant/coach to another player
Playing for hire for a stronger club in say Bundesliga lower boards
Actually getting some prize money in medium sized tournaments
Books provide a tiny bit of income, but mostly are used for name/brand building for the next item
Selling training coarses - again only a few can make a living from this
A growing but still insufficient means of income is streaming, a few personalities can pull it off
Playing in special norm tournaments, in Eastern Europe GMs get about 250-350Euros for a week long tournament, where IMs/FMs/untitled have to pay 100-300 Euros to compete for GM norms.

That said most GMs around 2500 have other means of living besides chess.


How to search a chess database for exchange sacrifices? I am looking for a way within any of the common chess packages to search for a specific maneuver - rook takes bishop that is protected  (i.e. an exchange sacrifice)? I've heard of CQL, but never used, so I would be curious if it supports something like this.

Chess Query Language does do this very well. The following short .cql file works like a charm to find all games in input.pgn in which one side is up an exchange (while allowing a difference in the number of pawns for each side) for 4 straight moves (picked so as to rule out, say, situations in which an equal sequence of trades happens to begin with a rook taking a minor piece, or other such temporary pseudo-sacrifices).

(match
    :pgn input.pgn
    :output output.pgn
    (position
    :sequence(
        (position :powerdifference [Rr] -5 -5 :powerdifference [Qq] 0 0 :powerdifference [BbNn] 3 3)
        (position :powerdifference [Rr] -5 -5 :powerdifference [Qq] 0 0 :powerdifference [BbNn] 3 3)
        (position :powerdifference [Rr] -5 -5 :powerdifference [Qq] 0 0 :powerdifference [BbNn] 3 3)
        (position :powerdifference [Rr] -5 -5 :powerdifference [Qq] 0 0 :powerdifference [BbNn] 3 3)
    )
    :flipcolor
    )
)

Standard point values for pieces are used, so the :powerdifference [Rr] -5 -5 condition means that Black has one more rook than White, while :powerdifference [BbNn] 3 3 guarantees that White has exactly one more minor piece than Black. The :flipcolor at the end does the same search with the roles reversed. By default, CQL inserts a "MATCH" comment in the games of the resulting output.pgn at the positions that warrant their inclusion, so you can quickly locate the exchange sacs.


Refutation of the Maróczy Bind, suitable for correspondence chess? I've been meaning to develop my understanding of the Hyper-Accelerated Dragon (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6) as Black, mainly by playing a few correspondence games and working through deep positional analyses. Most of what I read about this opening centers on the Maróczy Bind as White's typical response, as it's the most efficient restriction on Black's dynamic play. I haven't yet read any solid ideas for Black to play for an advantage against the Maróczy. Most sources that I've been able to find could basically be summed up as "Stay sharp and wait for White to lose concentration." However, this isn't realistic when it comes to correspondence games (particularly against centaurs). It seems that facing an ideal offense from White, Black's position gets irredeemably worse:

[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.c4 Nf6 6.Nc3 d6 7.Be2 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Bg7 9.Be3 O-O 10.Qd2 Be6 11.O-O Qa5

In fact, there are several OTB games between high-rated players that feature this line, such as two games between Ivanchuk and Anand in 1994. Actually, after 12.b3, it seems that White has never lost an ICCF game from this position, nor does the database at 365Chess have any winning games for Black. Is the Hyper-Accelerated Dragon just not a viable opening for Black in a correspondence game? Can anybody point out where Black might improve their play along this line? Thanks in advance for your time.

In Beating the Sicilian 3 by Nunn and Gallagher, they claim (emphasis is mine):

  Although the Maroczy Bind is slightly passive for Black, players such as Larsen, Petursson and Velimirović have shown that by patiently waiting for a lapse of concentration from White this line can offer winning chances for Black. The theoretical opinion is that White should maintain a slight advantage, but no one should believe that this is a line in which White cannot lose.

As you know, in a correspondence game lapses of concentration are rarer than in over-the-board.

My generic advice would be to be alert to weaknesses induced by white's last move, and take advantage of that. If you want more specific advice, please post a new question requesting feedback on your middle/endgame play.


Is 22..., Nf6 a good alternative move to accepting the rook sacrifice by 22..., Kxf7 in Yi's recent "Immortal Game"? In his recent "Immortal Game" against Lazaro Bruzon Batista, Wei Yi initiated his king hunt with the move 22.Rxf7!! from this position

[FEN "3qr1k1/1b1rbp2/p2p2p1/1p1np3/4P3/P2BB2Q/1PP3PP/4RR1K w - - 0 22"]

The annotation to this move said that the next four moves were forced.  My question is why the king recapture of the rook 22..., Kxf7 is considered forced, since 22..., Nf6 seems to be a viable alternative, defending against the threatened mate by the queen at h7, saving the knight and trapping the rook?

After 22. ... Nf6, white will reply 23. Qe6!, threatening a nasty discovered check. 23. ... Bf8 won't work because it is mate after 24. Re7+ Kh8 25. Qxf6+ Kg8 26. Qxg6+ Kh8 27. Qxh7#, and 23. ... Kh8 loses to 24. Bg5! and Black's position will collapse.


Human and computer vs computer alone How much stronger are human/computer teams vs. computers alone?  My understanding is that that advantage is enough to be decisive, especially in correspondence play, but just how large is it?

Well, humans have the advantage of identifying potential long term positional ideas where as computers are better at calculating quite complex positions. I predict most of the games would end up in draws but in some situations (specially endgames where you need depth as well as complex strategic plannings), human and computer partnership would triumph. A famous example would be the Caruana vs Nakamura game where computers never identified the queen sacrifice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMjj9SPnlBE.

Also it's self evident that artificial intelligence programs such as Alpha-go-zero has both human like abilities (long term strategic plannings) as well as computer like abilities (deep calculations). So it would be a great example for you to see the games played between Alpha go zero and chess programs like Stockfish (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP2J4WNN4Qg)


Not able to use rooks properly While playing a game, I observe that I am not able to use my rooks properly. The reason is that I am not able to bring them out earlier as they occupy the corner position. This gives a lead to the opposite player.

Can someone tell what is the best opening moves for rooks if I want to use them for defending my two middle pawns?

In general, it is not easy to develop rooks during the opening per se. Not only it's not easy, it rarely is a goal of the sound opening.

In some references, the opening ends, when minor pieces (bishops and knights) are developed and rooks are connected. Therefore, it is highly likely that you are already talking about the middlegame rather than the opening.

Now, regarding the general use of the rooks. Rooks are good at open files (or files that are likely to become open). Instead of having the goal of using rooks to defend the two middle pawns, I suggest looking for good files for the rooks, whether it is in the center, open C-file, or, soon-to-be-open A-file.

To get the best of your opening (again, there are always exceptions, established theory) in general, look at developing your minor pieces at active squares, castle your king, connect the rooks, and place them at strategically promising files.


Endgame technique: How to win with rook + g and h pawn vs rook? The tablebase suggests it's a win for White, but I struggle to beat my phone. Black's rook seems to always be able to harass the white king to stop white make any progress.

What's the technique to win this endgame?

[fen "8/8/6k1/6r1/8/8/6PP/5RK1 w - - 1 61"]

As we can see from the other answers, there are two things you should avoid: 1) The pawns getting blockaded. 2) Your king getting cut off from the pawns.

It is not the only way to win, but as a matter of technique it is a good thing to advance the h-pawn before the g-pawn. In this way your king can use the g-pawn to hide both from checks from the side and checks form behind. But first use the rook to chase the opponent king as far back as possible.

Example:

[FEN "8/8/7k/R7/6PP/6K1/8/1r6 w - - 0 1"]
[Title "Rook endgame g+h"]

1. Ra6+ Kg7 2. h5 Rb3+ (2... Rg1+ 3. Kh4 Rh1+ 4. Kg5) 3. Kh4

The checks will stop and you can think of the next step.

[FEN "8/6k1/R7/7P/6PK/8/8/1r6 w - - 0 1"]
[Title "Rook endgame g+h"]

1. Ra7+ Kg8 (1... Kh6?? 2. g5#)  (1... Kf6 2. g5+ Kf5 3. Rf7+ Ke6 4. Rf6+ Ke7 5. h6) 2. h6 Rb5 3. g5 Rb1 4. Kh5

Here I would again chase the king away before advancing the h-pawn another step.

If the g-pawn is pinned there is no point in giving a check first.

[FEN "8/7k/R7/7P/1r4PK/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[Title "Rook endgame g+h"]

1. h6 (1.Ra7+ Kh6) Rb1 (1... Rb5 2. g5 Rb1 3. Ra7+ Kg8 (3... Kg6 4. Rg7+ Kf5 5. h7))2. Kh5 Rb5+ (2... Rh1+ 3. Kg5) 3. g5

In this way you can advance slowly rank by rank. Towards the end black will have to defend passively to avoid mate at the back rank. Just for the fun of it I would try to end the game with a knight or bishop promotion like in my answer to this question.

[FEN "r6k/8/6PP/5RK1/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[Title "Rook endgame g+h"]

1.Rf8+ Rxf8 2.g7+ Kh7 (2...Kg8 3.Kg6) 3.gxf8=N+!(3.gxf8=B!)(3.gxf8=Q??)(3.gxf8=R??)


What are the benefits of having a space advantage in a closed position? I notice that in my closed games when I find myself with an advantage in space, I have more mobility for my pieces and thats all good but once I reach this position I'm never really able to find a plan and never know how to make use of this advantage. Does anybody know how I can make use of it whether that be by opening up a file or trying to create a passed pawn? I never really know how to identify these ideas and generally look for a tactical line or idea that never comes up.

Michael Stean, in his "Simple chess" introduced the idea of the "capacity" of a given Pawn structure. How many pieces can live inside it without getting in each others way. If your opponents pawns do not have enough capacity for his pieces, he will have difficulty manoeuvering them to defend. This introduces the "principle of two weaknesses" You inflict two weaknesses in your opponents structure. You can switch your attack from one to the other faster than they can switch their defence. The nature of the weaknesses can be whatever is in the position. A vulnerable King, a weak Pawn, a desirable exchange, establishing control of a file...It can be an end in itself or a stepping stone to something else. Search for "two weaknesses" on Youtube.


How to prepare for an opponent How does one prepare for an opponent (OTB or Online)?  Do you go through recent games?  How far do you normally go back?  Would certain factors about an opponent dictate how you prepare for them?

There can be no one-size-fits-all as to how to prepare for an opponent, as this will depend greatly on the playing strengths of both the one preparing and the opponent, and what works for one person won't necessarily work for another. So I'm somewhat hesitant to answer at all, but I'm hoping that the following three vignettes of chess preparation will shed a little light on the matter for you, without being blatantly inaccurate or overly biased.

1. Bobby Fischer prepares for Boris Spassky. Leading up to the 1972 world championship match, Fischer famously immersed himself in a deep study of all Spassky games he could get a hold of, going as far back as he could, to the point that he basically knew all Spassky games on record inside and out. (See e.g. the mention and footage of his "big red book of Spassky" at 8:10 of this 60 Minutes report from 1972. The video's a little hazy, but you can make out that the book is Weltgeschichte des Schachs 27: Spassky.)

For someone of Fischer's prodigious talent and understanding, this kind of focused study could yield extremely useful insights in terms of both (1) concrete opening preparation for the match, and even (2) uncovering particular strengths/weaknesses in Spassky's middlegame and endgame play.

This is all well and good for grandmasters, as such particular preparation can be the best use of their time, especially as they necessarily have very strong general skills already. Most of us mere mortals, however, wouldn't be able to reap the same benefits from such an in-depth study of an opponent, for the simple reason that we don't understand enough about chess itself to truly glean much useful information from all that study, and besides, our time could be more efficiently spent improving our overall game. As to the specifics of preparation at that rarefied level of play, well, "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Nevertheless, here's an account of my own very limited personal experience down at my level, which should be taken with an enormous grain of salt.

2. A relatively strong amateur prepares for a particular opponent. Even if I found the idea of preparing for an opponent to be appealing (I very much do not), I still think it would usually be a mistake for someone of my level (~ 2100 USCF) to spend much time on a finely-grained study of a particular opponent (assuming one even has access to many of the opponent's previous games in the first place), for the basic reason I spelled out above: I don't know enough to draw the right conclusions.
Despite that, I have lately found myself facing many repeat opponents because I've been playing a lot at my local club, and without having set out specifically to do so, I have ended up getting a useful sort of individualized preparation from previous games. For instance, there is a fellow expert player who I've now faced 6 times. The first two games were hard-fought draws in which I was on the defensive each time, and somewhat fortunate not to lose. The crude knowledge I obtained about him from those games, and which has proved useful, was just (1) that he is very aggressive and seemingly always looking for a direct attack, and (2) that apparently I could outplay him when things were kept quiet.
In the 4 games since, I have 3 wins and 1 loss, but that loss was only because of a fingerfehler when playing out what would've been mate-in-3 during a time scramble (probably the only time I've ever been truly angry after a game). In terms of the objective chess play, things have gone very poorly on his end since my realization about how to approach him. We have nearly identical ratings, and I believe that my recent success against him can be directly attributed to this very rudimentary sort of "preparation," namely: I know that if I play cautiously and sufficiently deaden the position against this opponent, then the resulting game suits me much more than it does him.

But that's as fine a point as someone like me can put on the matter: "I like quiet, he likes chaos." Big whoop. This is of course a far cry from the sort of preparation Fischer carried out, but that's as it should be, and even so it has proved useful for my own modest purposes. An important point here is that this information is something that I discovered naturally in the course of playing this opponent, and was not something I devoted separate time and energy to figuring out (which I maintain will often be quite a waste of time).
Finally:

3. A novice prepares for a particular opponent. This really shouldn't happen, as the novice's energies should most definitely be focused on all-around improvement, rather than on any particular traits of an opponent's play. Taking what I wrote above a step further, the novice simply isn't equipped to draw many appropriate/useful conclusions at all from an opponent's earlier games, and should instead simply direct all effort toward playing good moves and a solid game.


Calculation and visualisation exercises - do they work? I would like input from actual experience of improving calculation and visualization: can anyone testify to achieving actual and significant improvement in ability to calculate and visualize as a result of deliberately doing exercises set to train this skill? If so, if you could describe the delta of improvement (before, after), and the time it took, that would be appreciated.

My own definition of significant improvement would mean going from missing move possibilities that lie 4-5 moves down the road, to actually seeing them as almost as easily as if the position was on the board now.

My performance rating was four to five hundred points above my actual rating in tournaments where I prepared primarily with calculation/visualization exercises; while tournaments without tactical training showed a performance rating closer to actual.
So, I would say these exercises definitely make you sharper.  There are permanent gains over time but I think you have to continue to use the ability or it will atrophy to some extent.


Bishop's opening - what's the point of 4. Qe2? In Panov and Estrin's Kurs debuytov the following line is proposed in response to 3. d3:

[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Qe2

What's the point of 4. Qe2? Basically you should avoid moving the queen in the opening, which is the contrary here.

Black's main threat after 3... c6 is d5; it looks like Qe2 is an attempt to prevent that, by indirectly attacking pawn e5, even with check. However, I'm not so sure that it works as intended, because Black can play d5 anyway, e.g.

[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Qe2 d5! 5. exd5 cxd5 6. Bb5+ Nc6 7. Qxe5+ Be7 8. Nf3 O-O 9. Bxc6 bxc6 10. O-O Bd6

and Black's center control, slight development advantage and bishop pair provide more than enough compensation for the pawn.

I'd prefer a normal developing move (4. Nc3 or Nf3) instead of 4. Qe2.


Scid vs PC: how to visualize engine line on the board? I've installed scid yesterday and was wondering how to visualize an engine line on the board.

My approach is the following: setting up a position on the board by clickng "Game" -> "New Game", then starting the engine and stoping it after some time.

At "Analysis" window you can see variations that the engine came up with. How can I visualize some of these variations? I've tired clicking on "Add variation" as well as "Add variations" but nothing happened. If I click on "Add move" only one move is added (which is logical, haha, bud doesn't give me any clue on how to use this feature).

You need to bring up the separate "Analysis board" by clicking on the icon in the strip


End Game - Queen + Rook vs Queen Today, when I was playing end game I had a queen, a rook and a king (no pawns). My opponent had just a queen. It was his turn (the board was pretty blank) and he started giving continuous checks. I tried to bring my pieces to defend the king but couldn't stop.

After sometime he claimed for a draw and argued that otherwise this would continue for ever (positions were not repeating, but still). I agreed.

So, is there any way to defend in such cases or is the match just over?
Even, is it fair that though we have a good lead the opponent is forcing a tie?
What would be the result if such thing happens in GM game?

Thanks, in advance.

In the vast majority of the cases, an ending of Q+R vs. Q should be winning.

However, some exceptions exist, for instance:

[FEN "6RK/7Q/5q2/8/8/8/8/3k4 w - - 0 1"]

      1.Qg7 Qh4+ 2.Qh7 Qf6+ 3.Rg7 Qd8+ 4.Qg8 Qh4+ 5.Rh7 Qf6+

In case you want to check whether your game was winning or not and how to win it, you can consult a tablebase, for example the free online tablebase of Shredder.


Where can I watch Carlsen - Karjakin with video + commentaries? Does anyone have tips on where to watch the (now ongoing) World Championship match between Carlsen and Karjakin? I'm looking for live commentaries and a video feed if that's available. Thanks!

There's live commentary from two GMs on Chess24's youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/chess24media

They have video, but only of the commentators (not the players), together with an analysis board


Is it possible to setup DGT Easy+ Gametimer for a 75' for first 30 moves, and 15' for the rest of the game? In the local chess club of which I recently became member we typically play games with time control described in the title. DGT's manuals are terrible so I do not know which DGT clock supports this time control. I tried to contact DGT regarding this, but nobody answered.

PS. someone please make a dgt tag.

My understanding is that this is sold as a budget / beginner's clock which does not support additional periods and so is not suitable for your needs.

You are probably better off springing for the DGT 2010 or DGT XL which I believe are both approved for FIDE competition. The 960 looks a bit flimsy for robust club use although I have no experience using it so it may be tougher than it looks.


What is the most effective way to beat the computer at chess? I have recently been playing a lot of games against the Computer level 9 on chess.com(not to be confused with Komodo 9). It is actually a reasonably difficult computer I would say rated definitely over 2200. I have been taking the King's Indian approach quite often due to the closed center it establishes and the strategic ideas that are brought into the position. The computer makes mindless moves since it doesn't have any plan and it underestimates

Computers have a few advantages over us: speed, memory, and they don't make mistakes (based off the code they're written on). This allows them to go very far ahead in the search tree, navigating the tree perfectly. However, with an engine you estimate to be around 2200, you may have advantages in position evaluation and intuition.

With this in mind, there are a few things you can do:

1) Aim for positions where a high search speed isn't as important. Closed positions are ideal, as you mentioned.

2) Try to drive the game towards positions that you feel comfortable evaluating. An engine rated only 2200 may have an advantage in a concrete tactical position, despite its vastly reduced search depth compared to an engine like Stockfish. But in a positional structure you have experience with, you may have the advantage.

3) Don't go too far out of your way to play differently though. If you get carried away with this, you'll only be playing the opponent and not the game. One reason Kasparov ran into trouble against Deep Blue was that he figured a computer wouldn't make a calculation mistake. If you yourself are around 2000-2200, you already have a decent chance of scoring against a 2200 player.


Why is it rare to see unusual "special" opening preparation by trailing player late in a match? Taking the recent Anand-Carlsen match as an example, I know that grandmasters spend incredible amounts of time in opening preparation, and Anand's play to refute certain lines of the Berlin defense was impressive.

But once reaching game 10, 11, or 12 and desperately needing a win, why don't players make an effort to force the game off into some opening line that the opponent almost certainly hasn't prepared for? Not into some fringe or unorthodox opening, but into solid openings that are just much less familiar for the opponent.

Much the same way that an American football team must spend at least some small amount of time practicing "trick" plays, like on-side kicks or throw-back passes, or much like a football (soccer) team might practice very special free kick formation for late in a game when a goal is needed very quickly -- shouldn't it be normal to prepare for a championship match by spending at least a small amount of time studying some very different openings that the opponent has not faced recently or does not appear to be as strong in?

I'm not endorsing these as candidates for specifically Anand v. Carlsen, but I might have expected to see some different variations of Sicilian, or to see Dutch Defense, Benoni Defense, or to see Reti opening, and to play in lines that don't transpose easily to positions that are similar to the main lines played (Grünfeld, Berlin, etc.).

I'm not saying Anand's openings were the problem in the match -- he often played well with great opening prep and blundered later on.

I am just asking why it is so uncommon to see players deviate to some "special preparation" in late stages of a match when they are trailing and need a win.

Wouldn't that be one of the scenarios that they prepare for specifically prior to the match starting? "What if I find myself down 1 point late in the match and my opponent has shown clear strength in the most frequent openings from the match? How will I steer the game into unknown territory?"

It happens, but there's a reason why it doesn't happen often, and, when it does, why it doesn't work.

First off, there's a psychological reason not to do it; it's uncomfortable. If the match is going badly for you, it's natural for you to fall back on familiar weapons: positions that you know how to play better than any others. When you do that, when you stand on familiar ("home," if you will) ground, you feel more secure and play better than if you're in less familiar territory. And when you play better, you're more likely to score better.

Also, there's the unknown. When you're down by a point late in the match, a single failure ends your chances. And, when you decide to divulge radically from your "normal" game approaches for this one game, you don't know with certainty how well your opponent can play those positions. So you divert time away from preparing to play comfortable positions even better than you currently play them (after all, no one plays their comfortable positions perfectly, there's always room for improvement) to learning how to play a completely different position passably well. And, when the day of the game dawns and you uncork it, you find out your opponent actually likes to play those positions, just never gets the chance to because opponents haven't so far let that happen. And down go your chances of leveling the match in a flaming crash.

Romantic notions like risking everything on one wild roll of the dice don't occur naturally to the vast majority of top chess players, because the tendency to do so keeps them from making it to the top, except in the rarest of circumstances.

A GM once told me chess was a little like tennis; "sometimes the only thing you can do is hit the ball back over the net and try to give your opponent another chance to make a mistake."

You're far more likely to see a player pull divergences like that that early in a match than late, such as Fischer pulling out 1.c4 to open Game 6 of the 1972 match (that match was for 24 games, so G6 there would have been like G3 of Carlsen-Anand). If it doesn't work, then the player still has the energy to save the draw if possible, and time to recover from the failure if not.


Confused about timing of cxd5 and dxc4 in the Queen's Gambit Declined (QGD) Recently I've been playing the Queen's Gambit Declined as my primary response to a d4 opening by white. While analyzing past games with engines, I've realized that as the game progresses, there's a point when suddenly whoever plays cxd5 and dxc4 gets a huge advantage. For example, maybe there's position rated -0.6, then it becomes -1.1 on black's turn recommending the pawn exchange, and if black doesn't play it, it suddenly becomes +0.2 for white to take the pawn.

This advantage is seemingly more valuable than developing pieces and seems to drastically change the position. Though it is is important to note the white fianchettoed their bishop on g2, making the position similar to the Catalan, noted by Alexander Woo in the comments section.

Something else I noticed about the position is that if black loses their d pawn, the engine doesn't really care, but if white loses their c pawn, the engine's rating of the position drops from -0.2 to -0.8.

It seems that somehow, before a point in the game, playing this exchange is highly unfavorable, but at a random moment, it becomes very favorable, such as when I develop my queenside knight in any way, the engine suddenly recommends the pawn exchange, which doesn't seem like it does anything.

Could someone who is experienced with or knows a bit of theory please explain to me when this move should be played, its purpose, and its effect? I've checked a few online guides but they only talk about the early moves in the opening and none really elaborate on the purpose and timing for the pawn exchange here.

[Here](https://lichess.org/8PIQ8KUh/black is an example game I played of what I'm talking about.

Please ignore my horrible attempt of a kingside attack but the engine starts fixating on the pawn exchange for either side at move 6 for both white and black.

In the various standard variations of QGD, the answers to this question are somewhat different, but you should keep in mind Black's main goals.  Black's main problem is that they don't have enough good places for all of their bishops and knights.  The worst piece is the light-square bishop, but the other minor pieces are also problematic.  Hence Black's main goal in the latter stages of the opening are first to exchange off some minor pieces and second to free up the light-square bishop in some way.

Let me start with the Tartakower (1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Nf3 h6 6. Bh4 0-0 7. e3 b6)  In this variation, Black tries to put the light-square bishop on the long diagonal.  Naturally, black wants to play dxc4 so that the d5 pawn isn't blocking their own bishop.  White doesn't want to allow this, so the standard continuation is 8. cxd5 Nxd5 9. Bxe7 Qxe7 10. Nxd5 exd5.  The light-square bishop is now free, and Black has managed to exchange one pair of bishops and one pair of knights, but white has managed to prevent Black from putting their bishop on a dangerous open b7-g2 diagonal.  (This argument also applies to the Capablanca variation of the Orthodox.)

Next consider the main line of the Orthodox (1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Nf3 0-0 6. e3 Nbd7 7. Rc1 c6 8. Bd3 dxc4 9. Bxc4 Nd5)  In this variation, Black is achieving the exchange of a pair of bishops and a pair of knights by moving their knight to d5.  They need to move their pawn out of the way in order to achieve this.  However, they delay taking this pawn until White has moved their bishop.  The point is that this bishop now has to move a second time to retake the pawn, wasting one move.  White delays moving the bishop as long as possible, and Black delays taking the pawn as long as possible, but it turns out White runs out of other useful moves before Black does.

In the Lasker (1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Nf3 h6 6. Bh4 0-0 7. e3 Ne4 8. Bxe7 Qxe7), one plan for white is to retake on c3 with the b pawn and exchange off the pawn on c4.  This in effect exchanges the b pawn for the e pawn and gives White more pawns in the center, at the cost of giving Black pieces more space.  There are some variations with 9. Rc1 that see the pawns stay around for a while.  On the other hand, if White plays Bd3, Black can take the pawn and force White to move their bishop a second time.


Are aggressive attacking and tactical playeing the same? What's the difference? Both look same to me.

They are related, but probably not the same. If you play an opening like the King's Indian you are probably an aggressive, attacking player, but you may rely more on the understanding of the position than on tactical tricks.
Similarly, there are certain types of position where accurate calculation is required but with defensive purposes.
Aggressive and attacking are probably harder to distinguish, though!


Why is there a minimum rating gain when you win? Fide has a rule saying that if one player is rated more than 400 points higher than his opponent, their difference should be set to 400 when calculating rating gain/loss. That means no matter how weak the opposition is, a GM (or anyone) will receive minimum 0.8 rating points for winning. What is the reason behind this?

To me it just seems like a giant weakness in the rating system, making any strong GM able to get as high rating as he wants just by playing weak opponents. Wouldn't it be better if the gain approached 0 when the difference increased (like the basic formula for calculating rating actually does)?

EDIT: As most of the answers don't really seem to get the point, I will add an example which points out the problem:

One of the top 10 players in the world (say Magnus Carlsen), wants to increase his rating to 3000. He has a good friend who has 1200 in rating, and who is willing to play a match of 200 games (2 each day for 100 days) against him. His friend will of course play his best, so this is by no means considered cheating.

According to https://wismuth.com/elo/calculator.html, Magnus will have way more than 99 % chance of winning a single game, but for simplicity, let's say he has 99 % chance of winning a game (which is an understatement). If we then forget about draws (for simplicity), Magnus would be expected a score of 198/200. That means a rating gain of 0.8*198 - 9.2*2 = 140 rating points. That is if he scores as expected. And he used less than 1/3 of a year, and is extremely close to 3000 already. What if he does it again? (And again?) Even if he plays really poorly and loses 5 and draws another 5 out of the 200 games, he will gain 85 rating points. That is by scoring FAR below expected.

If there was no rating difference cap, playing an expected result (say 198/200), would by definition give a rating gain/loss of 0. So who came up with the idea of making a loop-hole for any top GM to become extremely high rated?

Of course it would be looked at as bad sportmanship to do something like this, and I doubt any of the top players of the world would consider doing so, but that doesn't justify the possibility being there. In a serious sport with a serious rating system there shouldn't be these kind of loop-holes.

Can anyone find any arguments justifying this rule?

Fide has a rule saying that if one player is rated more than 400
  points higher than his opponent, their difference should be set to 400
  when calculating rating gain/loss. That means no matter how weak the
  opposition is, a GM (or anyone) will receive minimum 0.8 rating points
  for winning. What is the reason behind this?

This is an historical anomaly. Currently, apart from your first ever rating, every game is rated individually. This means that you can never lose rating points by winning a game (LRPBWAG). It wasn't always so.

I don't remember exactly when the change happened, 2008 I think, but before this ratings were calculated per tournament. What happened was that your rating was calculated using your score for the tournament, the average of your opponents' ratings and your expected score against them. This opened up the possibility of winning the tournament but losing rating points because some low rated players in the tournament, who you crushed, lowered the average rating for the tournament so much that even though you scored well against similarly rated players as yourself your rating went down.

The original solution to this was to limit the difference to 350 points. Later this was changed to 400. Now that games are rated individually it could be scrapped.

There was an article on Chessbase 6 years ago discussing this point between Jeff Sonas, Ken Thompson and John Nunn.

Part of John Nunn's contribution is worth quoting -

  The original rating rules had no 350-point rule. It must be remembered
  that in 1970 the rating list was very small and it was never envisaged
  that it would be extended substantially. Only top tournaments were
  rated (and these were invariably all-play-all events) and all
  calculations were done by hand. The 'Losing Rating Points For Winning
  A Game' problem didn't really arise. The top players always skipped
  the first round or two of an Olympiad, and in any case any weak
  opponents would be unrated, so the games simply didn't count.

  But times changed, the rating list expanded and started including more
  and more weaker players. Open tournaments appeared, and the LRPFWAG
  problem started to become significant. I don't remember exactly when
  the 350-point rule was introduced to deal with this, but I believe it
  was around 1980. Later, in 1988 or 1989, Karpov was unhappy about
  losing points when he had won a tournament, arguing that the aim of
  taking part in a tournament was to win it, and if you have achieved
  that then you shouldn't lose points through not having won by a large
  margin. For a time the 'Karpov rule' was in effect, that you couldn't
  lose points for winning an event. This was later scrapped.

  Rating games individually is a fairly recent innovation, and for the
  vast bulk of the lifetime of the Elo system it was done on a
  tournament basis (because it made the calculations easier, especially
  for all-play-all events). The current rule is in a way a hangover from
  the earlier times, but I think there is some logic in it, although one
  can argue over the exact details. Rapidly improving young players, for
  example, can be massively underrated.


When is it a good idea to capture the fianchettoed bishop? According to Simon Williams, from 25:10 and forwards of this stream, his opponents attempt at capturing his fianchettoed bishop with a bishop and queen battery is not a good idea "in these types of positions".

So, thus I ask: When is it a good idea? I usually go for it because I know that many players hate having to give up their fianchettoed bishop.

[FEN ""]
1. d4 c5 2. d5 g6 3. c4 Bg7 4. Nc3 d6 5. e4 Nf6 6. Bf4 O-O 7. Qd2 Re8 8. Be2 e6 9. Nf3 exd5 10. exd5 a6 11. O-O Bg4 12. h3 Bxf3 13. Bxf3 Qc7 14. a4 Nbd7 15. Rfe1 Bf8 16. Ne4 Nxe4 17. Rxe4 Rxe4 18. Bxe4 Re8 19. Re1 Bg7 20. b3 Be5 21. Bxe5 Rxe5 22. Bf3 Qd8 23. Rxe5 Nxe5 24. Bd1 Qf6 25. f4 Nd7 26. Qe3 Kf8 27. Bg4 Nb6 28. a5 Na8 29. Bc8 Qa1+ 30. Kh2 Qxa5 31. Bxb7 Nc7 32. Bc6 Qa1 33. Qf3 h5 34. f5 Qe5+ 35. Qg3 gxf5 36. Qxe5 dxe5 37. d6 Ne6 38. Kg3 e4 39. Kf2 Nd4 40. Ba4 f4 41. b4 cxb4 42. c5 b3 43. Bxb3 Nxb3 44. c6 Ke8 0-1

There are a few points here that make it a bad idea.

First and foremost, white's dark squared bishop in this pawn structure is his good bishop (and it's extremely active). While black's fianchetto'd bishop is also good, it isn't directly influencing the position until the knight on f6 moves (which you'll notice never happens in this game until his opponent mis-steps and trades knights).

Secondly, trading the kingside fianchetto'd bishop is usually good because it leaves black with dark squared weaknesses that white might be able to take advantage of and attack. Notice how Simon Williams calls Qd2 "an aggressive plan." He's already envisioning white trading bishops, and going for a kingside attack. However, in this position, white does not really have any pieces aimed towards the kingside that he can use to attack black's king. And the possible plan of h4-h5 to open up black's king falls flat in the Benoni when black is able to quickly open the center of the board with e6-exd5. If black had already played e5, then it would be entirely different.

Lastly, notice that when the pieces start to get traded off, BLACK offers to trade this bishop for white's (41:20ish). The reason here is that the position has transformed largely into an endgame, and Simon Williams discusses how he wants to get the classic good knight vs bad bishop endgame. All of white's pawns are stuck on light squares, impeding his minor piece's mobility. Whereas black has a few important dark squares his knight can jump to in the center of the board where it influences everything (e5 and d4 in particular, possibly c5 if white plays b4 cxb4).

Usually the fianchetto'd bishop is strong because the h8-a1 diagonal has a lot of juicy targets it can aim at from a distance. In this game, the diagonal never really meant anything.


Why is it a good idea to retreat the bishop into the pawn chain in this variation of the Caro Kann? I am reading a book about the Caro-Kann defence.
In this position the author suggests playing 5...Bd7. (Although they assert that Bg6 is not a bad move either). In fact, the whole idea of playing Qb6 early instead of e6 is so that the bishop can retreat to d7 in case of g4.

I find this very confusing. The point of playing the Caro-Kann instead of the French defence is to not have a bad bishop at the price of having to "waste" a tempo with c6.

But in this position not only did black "waste" a tempo with c6, they also had to move the bishop twice AND back inside the pawn chain.

So my question is: why would black want to do that? Why isn't this just a much worse position in a French-like structure considering that ...c5 will come in two moves instead of one, the bishop is inside the pawn chain, and white has got the move g4 for free which might be useful later?

rn2kbnr/pp2pppp/1qp5/3pPb2/3P2P1/2N5/PPP2P1P/R1BQKBNR b KQkq - 9 5
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nc3 Qb6 5. g4

The immediate point of Bd7 versus Bg6 is to prevent White from playing 6 e6 which could give Black's King a lot of trouble.

Generally, Black cannot entirely avoid White's g4 anyway (it's always a move to keep in mind in the advance variation).
However, the question is: Does that move actually help White in the long run? Yes, it gains the short-term advantage you mention (free tempo + space), but at the same time it also comes with the long-term disadvantage of fracturing White's kingside pawn structure. Black can then try to play around this and later free the Bishop via e8 & f7-h5 (after that pawn has moved to f6 to attack White's center).


Chess strategy versus positional chess If one master writes a book on chess strategy (example here) and another writes a book on positional chess (example here), are they writing more or less on the same subject?

Do other major chess languages (if you happen to read any) like Russian, German, Spanish and/or French likewise circulate distinct terms for chess strategy and positional chess?

Usually in English, synonyms will bear some gradation in meaning, so a minor distinction to separate the two terms in question is expected. However, are the two synonymous at all? Suppose that the publisher had swapped the titles of the above two linked books. Would the swap have confused anyone?

See also:

Chess strategy defined
What is positional play in chess?

As I have understood it on Spanish yes, there is a difference. Strategy is a top level term for almost everything in chess that is not tactics.
Take in consider the definition you provide for strategy also creates a separated field for endgames:

Chess strategy can be defined as the creation of long term plans that will dictate your next several moves. In order to achieve these plans, you can argue that the chess player will resort to either positional, tactical or endgame devices.
Blog post about Chess Strategy.

Endgames are also strategy, but usually they are not positional.
Conversely, positional chess use to take place when pieces are on the board, either at opening either at middlegame.


Statistics on rejected draw offers I am wondering if there are any statistics on rejected draw offers (say of GM games). Namely, what are the following percentages of the following results when a draw offer is declined:

The side that offered the draw offer wins.
The side that declined the draw offer wins.
The game ended as a draw.

Technically there is a fourth result: the game has not ended yet at this moment. We may ignore this case for simplicity. For game with multiple draw offers, we may only consider the first draw offer.

By the way, this statistics may be useful in determining whether it is wiser to accept most draw offers or not. If the side that offers the draw wins more than the side that declines the draw offer, it might be wiser to accept a draw offer in an even game. (Here I am assuming that almost all GM's will not offer a draw if he/she has a clear disadvantage.)

The simplest answer is "No" because draw offers are not retained. By that I mean that although the players may record draw offers on their scoresheets, that information is thrown away when the games are transcribed and saved.

In all events where norms are possible the organizer has to send the records of the games in electronic (pgn) format to FIDE. When the game inputters input a game they do this by using a program like Chessbase or Scid vs PC which gives the ability to enter a game using the mouse. Many of you will be familiar with doing this with your own games.

Adding extra information like draw offers is very time consuming and not a requirement. Hence no game inputters do this. The information is lost. The only time this information survives is when a game is annotated, perhaps by one of the players, using the original scoresheet, but this applies to only a tiny minority of GM games.


What is chess style? People talk about chess stylet.  Obviously, some players such as Tal or Shirazi sought out highly tactical positions but is there anything more to it than that?  The only alternative to being a tactician appears to be a positional player.  Are there other dimensions of style or is that it? I suspect there are other dimensions.  For example Petrosian, Carsen and Karpov are more positional players but their styles were quite different. Similarly, Spassky is a tactical players but quite different from Tal.

ChessPersonality.com lists the following chess styles, listed with a great player who exemplifies that style and opening recommendations:

Professional
Romantic
Surgeon
Technician
Anaconda
Assassin
Barbarian
Champion
Escape artist
Genius
Grinder
Mad scientist
Magician
Mastermind
Natural
Prodigy

Each style varies according to where players typically sit on the following spectra:

Attacking - positional play
Aggressive - solid
Intuitive - calculating
Emotional - calm


Blunder checklist for strong playrs I find myself having to use checklists of really simple stuff (like going over all captures, checks, threats, tactical themes, changes after a move) quickly in order to avoid very basic oversights from happening. Having to resort to this is of course quite discouraging, and I'm asking myself if the necessity to do so disappears as one grows stronger. So, do strong players (let's say rated 2200 and above) use such checklists?

Disclaimer: Every person has their own way of approaching these situations, but I think my experience is similar to the experience of most other (stronger) players.

In an implicit way everyone uses a checklist as you do. Weaker (or more unexperienced) players, maybe need to mentally go through all the points in order, whereas stronger (or more experienced) players are able to do so automatically at every move. When my opponent moves a piece, I automatically check which of my squares and pieces are now attacked and create a threat to me. Similarly I also check which squares are now less defended and if that opens an opportunity for me. Similarly I check for king's safety, tactical motives and other opportunities. This is however not explicitly checking if there is, for example, a fork attack pending, but more the realization that two pieces are in a position where a fork attack might happen (regardless if it is currently possible or not).

Nevertheless I sometimes take some time to evaluate the whole situation on the board. This includes tactical motives but rather focuses on strengths and weaknesses of my position and my opponent position, ideally leading to a plan that can later be executed. Here I often fall back to a checklist, looking for common features such as weak pawns, inactive pieces or open lines and diagonals.

As advice for you, there is no shame in trying to avoid blunders. If you have to look explicitly for tactical motives, then do it. With time you will get used to the most common patterns and find them more easily and quickly. Maybe you will also be able to find these patterns "by heart" (that is without having to look for them).  But even if not, your opponent will never know and your strength doesn't come from the way that you look for blunders, but how effectively you can identify them.


Can a grandmaster still win against engines if they have a really long consideration time? Can a grandmaster still win against engines if they have a really long consideration time? For example, say that Stockfish gets 20 minutes and the GM receives days, if not weeks.

Are there asymmetric time controls where a GM can still beat Stockfish? Certainly, as long as you give Stockfish little enough time. I think the time you give to Stockfish is almost more important than the time that the GM gets. At 20ms I would favor the GM even at tournament time controls.
A few years back I played a handicap game against Komodo where I played some blitz time control (maybe 5+0 or so, I don't quite remember) and Komodo had 1 second, which should work out to roughly 20 ms per move and I think back then I could actually win that game. Since then engines have progressed so modern Stockfish is probably 300 rating points stronger than the Komodo from back then, but on the other hand I am more than 300 rating points below a GM so I would think the GM should have chances even if they blitz, nevermind at tournament time controls or longer. As it turns out engines aren't really made for 20 ms per move games so they don't perform very well there. Now if you give the engine a second per move things may be very different.
As a fun experiment you can just try yourself, give yourself sufficiently much time against Stockfish and give it a go, see how it goes.


Game played by day or week Currently I aking me about How many games by day or week, need a beginner to improve their game.

I asking that because I read a beginner player need to play 80% and study 20%, but How much is this 80%?

There's no magic number, especially since your definition of "improve" could be different from anyone else's.

I play about 5-10 rapid games per day, and have a few ongoing correspondence games at any time. Then again, I'm not a beginner, and if you're truly a beginner I'd say keep playing games as long as you're enjoying it. No need to keep grinding out more games if you're not having fun. For one, you'll not learn as much, and what's the point of playing a game if you're not enjoying it? Also there's no reason to stop if you've hit the day's "magic number" of games.

Most important is analyzing your games after the fact. If you're reading a chess book (i.e. How to Reassess Your Chess, etc), after you're done with a game go back through the moves and see if you're following the guidelines the author laid down. See what you could've done better. See what you did well.

Saying you'll play 100 games a day to get better won't likely make you better if you're not enjoying it, and aren't following a study plan.


How to beat the Scandinavian Defense? As a person(~2170 uscf) who has recently started playing the scandinavian defense(Qd6), and has played against the scandinavian defense on the white side, I find it hard to get any sort of meaningful edge as white and often pretty much equalize with black. Yet in the top level, it's rarely seen in classical chess. Thus, it seems that there should be particular variations in the Qa5, Qd6, and Qd8 scandinavians that put it out of business. What are these lines?

Here are some lines. They seem to be the mainlines from the master database on Lichess. White is not winning, but the opening phase went White's way.
...Qd6
 [fen ""]
    1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qd6 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nf3 (5...a6 6. g3 Bg4 7. Bg2 Nc6 8. O-O O-O-O
    9. h3 Bh5 10. Bf4) c6 6. Ne5 Nbd7 7. Nc4 Qc7 8. Qf3 {note that this move prevents ...b5!!} Nb6 9. Bf4 Qd8 10. Be5 (10. h3 Qxd4?! 11. Rd1 Qc5 12. Be3 {is very good for White}) Bg4 {if not played now, White will prevent it with h3 and then O-O-O} 11. Qg3 {Black has to defend his g4-bishop now, as it is hanging after Bxf6}

...Qa5
[fen ""]
1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nf3 c6 6. Bc4 Bf5 7. Bd2 e6 8. Nd5 Qd8 9. Nxf6+ gxf6 (9...Qxf6 10. Qe2 {with O-O-O next}) 10. O-O

...Qd8
[fen ""]
1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qd8 4. d4 Nf65. Nf3 Bg4 6. h3 Bxf3 (6...Bh5 7. g4 Bg6 8. Ne5 Nbd7 9. Nxg6 hxg6 10. g5 Nh5 11. d5 {with a huge clamp, Black has problems to make purposeful development}) 7. Qxf3 c6 8. Be3 e6 9. Bd3 Nbd7 10. O-O-O


What are the origins of the words 'zwischenzug' and 'zugzwang'? I've heard chess analysts use the words Zugzwang (being forced to make a bad move) and Zwischenzug (making an intermediate move which improves the outcome of the next move) in commentary.

Does anyone know how these German words found their way into the chess vernacular?

Chess historian Edward Winter has a page listing the earliest known occurrences of various chess terms in English, relying mostly on citations from the OED, though for these two terms he has slight improvements on those. For Zwischenzug the earliest known use is in Chess Strategy and Tactics, by Fred Reinfeld and Irving Chernev from 1933. For Zugzwang the earliest known use is in the February 1905 issue of Lasker's Chess Magazine.

As to why these terms caught on in English, I'd say the main factor, at least for Zugzwang, is that German is good at packing a lot of meaning into a single compound word in ways that English isn't. In fact, though Zugzwang was used as early as 1905 in English, Winter indicates in another article specifically on Zugzwang that usage of that term wasn't common in English chess literature until the appearance of the English translation of Nimzowitsch's My System. He notes that the translator, Philip Hereford, wrote in his introduction that Zugzwang was the only word he left untranslated

  "mainly, because the single word conveys an idea, or complex of ideas, which can only be expressed in English by a circumlocution."

Sure enough, if you try to think of another way to say "Player A is in Zugzwang," you do find yourself needing to be much wordier, like "Player A is compelled to move, to his own disadvantage."

The same reason doesn't seem as important for Zwischenzug though, as it's no easier to call something a Zwischenzug than to call it an "in-between move," the literal translation of the term. I don't know, sometimes language is funny I guess.

Speculative update: Here's an off-the-wall guess. As Winter notes, the first use of Zwischenzug in English was in 1933. And he also thinks that the English edition of My System, which was shortly before in 1929, is what brought the use of Zugzwang into widespread use. So maybe that simply made it "fashionable" at the time to use a similar term like Zwischenzug as well. Chess players are already sort of like that, with openings coming into and out of fashion over time.


Opening Moves: Pawn Chains and Countering Attacks What is it called when your opponent opens with their pawns in a zigzag formation, leaving the front line defended by the back? (Pawn Chain) Also what is the best way to counter this move?

It is, indeed, called a "pawn chain". It does not have any other special designation. There is no single best way to counter any specific pawn chain, as it is much more complex than that. Here is a bit on that.

Pawn chains, and where you attack them, is the basis for all opening play. Where the pawns on both sides clash is called a pawn break. Knowing where your pawn break is, and which one is feasible, is the difference between having a freer game for your pieces, and being smothered to death.

Part of that is also knowing if you should extend the pawn chain, and thus, change the point of attack for your pawn break.

  [FEN ""]
  1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Nge7 6. Bd3 Nf5 7. O-O Be7 8. Bc2 c4? 9.b3 b5 10.a4

Here extending the pawn chain, intending b5-b4, is too slow due to the undefended rook on a8. The q-side is about to open up much to white's favor.

You have to realize that changing the pawn break, and moving it up one file, while usually great in principle, it also is much slower, so especially if your pawn break is on the q-side, and your opponent is breaking on your k-side, his could become much more dangerous much more quickly.

Learning about opening pawn structures, and the pawn breaks associated with them, can be learned in the following books:

“Complete Chess Strategy” volumes 1,2 and 3 by Ludek Pachman. (This teaches about many basic plans, and what you are striving for with your pieces and pawns, especially. THIS is what made me a master.)
“Pawn Structure Chess” by Andy Soltis. (This extends the above to specific opening structures.)
“Chess Structures: A Grandmaster Guide” by Mauricio Flores Rios (This is an extension of “Pawn Structure Chess”, and is deeper, and covers more structures. It is outstanding especially if you have already covered “Complete Chess Strategy”.)

Here is a good link with some basics.


Queen's Gambit Declined: Marshall Gambit, how to decline it and keep full equality? I wish to play a specific move order of the QGD as Black, but the problem is that White can throw Marshall gambit at me.

I do not want to play the sharp lines, I need a solid and fully equal position.

I have tried to introduce novelties two times ( I even asked for help here both times ), but both of them failed since I was able to refute them in my home analysis after careful work ( that is why I have deleted the mentioned questions ). Therefore I have given up on trying to improve the opening and am asking for help.

This is the move order I have in mind:

[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e4!?

This is known as Marshall gambit. As I have said earlier, I do not wish to accept it, I need solid quiet positional lines. Something like 4...dxe4 5.Nxe4 Nd7 could work for me, as it is similar to Caro-Kann. The way things stand now, this line is good for White and both of my attempts to improve it have failed, as stated above.

To summarize my questions:

Is there a way for Black to decline the gambit and reach full equality ?
If there is a positive answer to the first question, can you recommend some high quality resources for studying such lines ( books/online resources etc ) ?

NOTE:

I would not mind if in the above mentioned position Black can transpose into another opening, as long as it is solid one.

Thank you for your help.

Best regards.

I don't know really know the theory here, but I can give some pointers. Maybe they are of some use for you or other readers.

The setup with c6/d5/e6 in the first three moves against white's d4 and c4 is called the Triangle; usually black wants to aim for the Noteboom variation (1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3 dxc4 and roll with the queenside pawns).  4.e4 is white's most ambitious and sharp way to attack the Triangle. After 4.e4, you won't see any transpositions to other well-known openings.

If you're not looking for sharp lines, this is a bit of an odd move order to play, because besides the sharp Noteboom there's also this sharp Marshall Gambit to deal with. The Slav and QGD both offer better chances of a solid positional game than the Triangle, I think.

Scherbakov's book The Triangle System won awards and got great reviews; if you're going to play this seriously, that book should be your #1 source.

Black's main option besides accepting the gambit is 4...Bb4; the position looks a bit like a French Winawer (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4) with the c-pawns on different squares. According to Scherbakov, "White does have a few ways to obtain a small edge, but Black's position remains playable." He also explains that play is rather different from normal Slav positions, and then spends 8 pages discussing it.

I general I suspect that as black, guaranteed quiet play and complete equality is a bit too much to expect in any opening. If you want to dodge white's sharpest options, you're going to have to make some concessions.


Why is 5. Nc3 preferred over 5. f3 in the Open Sicilian? The statistics at move 5 seem amazing for White, slightly better than Nc3. I was wondering how White can "get away" with the plan to play c4 before Nc3, achieving even more control of the center. So what exactly is White giving up? Black can try to break through before c4 is played by 5...e5 6. Nb3 d5, but this position does not seem very critical to me, at least less critical than some variations of the Najdorf (I may be wrong).

[fen ""]

1. e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 f3 e5 Nb3 d5 Bg5 d4 c3 Nc6 Bb5

If Black does not play ...e5 we get a cozy setup with Be3, Be2, 0-0, Qd2 and centralising the rooks incoming and Black cannot do much about it.

[fen ""]

1. e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 f3 e6 c4 Be7 Nc3

The move 5.f3 is an interesting one and worth a try for two reasons:

Avoiding heavy theory.
Tricking some Najdorf or Dragon players who are not keen to play the Maroczy bind with c4.

However, Black has a few ways to respond. One response seems very tricky by directly exploiting the weakness created by f3 (and avoiding the Maroczy bind).

[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.f3 e5 6.Nb3 a5!? 7.c4? (7.Bb5 {is better}) Nxe4! 8.fxe4 Qh4+ 9.Kd2 a4 {and Black wins back the piece with some advantage}

Black seems to be fine by playing e5 and d5, without pushing further to d4 as played recently by Giri, Nakamura, Areshchenko.

[fen ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.f3 e5 6. Nb3 d5 7.Bg5 Be6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.exd5 Qxd5 10.Qxd5 Bxd5 {and the pair of bishops offsets the pawn weaknesses.}

Update: If following the good arguments of @Scounged, Black is not afraid to enter the Maroczy bind, there is a favorable version. Black plays 5...Nc6 and if White continues by 6.c4 Black replies with 6...Qb6 disrupting White's play, followed by g6. Here is an illustrative game:

[fen ""]
[title "D'Amore, Carlo (2456) vs. Sutovsky, Emil (2664), EU-chT, 2001"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.f3 Nc6 6.c4 Qb6 7.Nc2 g6 8.Nc3 Bg7 9.Qd3 (9.Rb1 {is probably more promising for White but there is a fun variation} 9...Ng4!? 10.Qd2! (10.fxg4 Bxc3) Bxc3 11. Qxc3 Qf2 12.Kd1 O-O) 9...Nd7 10.Nd5 Qd8 11.Be2 Nc5 12.Qa3 f5! 13.exf5? (13.O-O) Bxf5 14.Nde3 Qb6 15.Nxf5 gxf5 16.Rb1 Nd4 17.Nxd4 Bxd4 18.Be3 Ne6 19.Bxd4 Nxd4 20.Qa4+ Kf7 21.c5 Qxc5 22.Qc4+ Qxc4 23.Bxc4+ Kf6 24.Kf2 Rac8 25.Bd3 e5 26.g4 fxg4 27.fxg4 d5 28.Rbd1 h5 29.g5+ Kxg5 30.Rhg1+ Kf4 31.Rg7 Rhf8 32.Bg6 Kg5+ 0-1


A deceptively simple eight piece endgame I am in the dark about the following endgame, with white to move. May someone with FinalGen (or a powerful engine) give me a response? Is it a White win or a draw?
[FEN "8/1k6/5R2/P7/1KP4p/5P2/8/5r2 w - - 0 1"]

No need for engine analysis, that's a win for White since that parciular a+c pawn endgame is won. White can simply trade the other two pawns with Rh6


Who is Yuri Dojoian, Kasparov's analyst in the 90s? Long time ago I read about this strong GM who was one of Kasparov's analysts in the 90s. The thing is that if I search by "Yuri Dojoian" I only get a few results, only in Spanish media, like this one. I'm almost sure there is another way to write his name, but I have no idea how could it be.

I think the player you are referring to is Yury Dokhoian. According to his FIDE profile and Olimpbase profile he has not played competitive chess since 1994. According to his Wikipedia page he was Kasparov's second for many years and later started working with Karjakin. Chessgames.com has 173 of his games.


Is it the right choice to lose the queen for two rooks? Is it the right choice to lose the queen for two rooks for this situation?

If it is white to move, he should probably play c3, Qb2 and only then Rxb7, not even allowing black the choice to trade the queen for two rooks. I don't see how black can defend against this and the resulting position should be winning for white. Maybe a computer will tell you that immediately taking on b7 is even stronger, but for a human this entails a certain amount of risk, whereas c3,Qb2,Rxb7 keeps complete control.

If it is black to move, he should probably play Kb8 with idea of playing Ka7 and Rb8, defending against c3, Qb2, Rxb7. In that case Rxb7 might be whites best choice and it looks indeed like a strong continuation. Something like 2.Rxb7 Qxb7 3.Rxb7 Kxb7 4.Qb4 Ka7 5.c6 Rb8 6.Qc5+ Ka8 7.Qxc4 Ka7 8.Qc5+ Ka8 9.Qe7 Rc8 would also result in a position where white is in complete control and can push his extra pawns with c4, d5 and maybe intrude with the king h4, Kh2,Kg3,Kf4,Kg5,Kf6.

Not taking the rook after Rxb7 is not really a choice for black. In that case he would just be lost without any counterchances.


Is chess a zero sum game? "Chess is a zero sum game" is a claim you see often, even on this forum.

Game theorists will tell you that it is just obvious. Either the game is a draw, nobody wins or loses, or one side wins and the other loses. A win is equal and opposite to a loss and a draw is worthless. QED.

Economic trade is a classic example of a non-zero sum game. In fact it is a win-win game. If that weren't the case then there would be no trade. Nobody would trade freely if they knew they were going to lose in advance.

When I said chess is a zero sum game in that answer, I wasn't referring to anything involving ratings. Obviously if we include ratings then chess isn't strictly a zero sum game, since the gains and losses aren't always balanced out. But different rating systems are arbitrary, and aren't part of the game of chess itself.

Your question should be "Is the FIDE rating system a zero sum game?"


Additional openings that are Chess Position Trainer compatible I just started playing with Chess Position Trainer and I really enjoy the experience of playing through the "Closed Sicilian” repetoir that comes pre-loaded.  The manual mentions that you can build your own or purchase some through ebooks.

Where can I get additional openings that are Chess Position Trainer compatible and are targeted for beginners 1300?

The manual states:

  After importing a professional ebook you can use the function Re-ordering of Candidate Moves
  (p. 77). This will take care of positions where the author offers alternative moves for a position.
  It only works if the author used move assessments for each alternative though (which is usually
  the case). Then the program will automatically bring them in order!

Chess Position Trainer can be loaded with a PGN file of games in your repertoire. The manual describes how to do this.

The question of how to choose a repertoire is dealt with elsewhere on Chess.StackExchange.com.

Good guidance for how to prepare the PGN file for CPT is in the manual.  The manual is available at the Chess Position Trainer website for free.