In the Damiano Variation of Petrov's Defense, should white play d4 or f4? Here is the opening in question:

[FEN ""]

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

White has the advantage no matter which pawn is moved next, 6. d4 or 6. f4 (there is no way to keep the knight, but after the exchange white is up a pawn). However, in the interest of knowledge, which pawn is better to push?

If white plays 6. f4, the line continues 6... dxe5 7. fxe5 and now white has two powerful central pawns while black has none. This also allows white to play the strong 8. e4 potentially creating a pawn duo in the center, although black can prevent this with 7... c5.

However, this also ditches the f-pawn, severely weakening the kingside position and violating the "rule of thumb" to avoid pushing the f-pawn (and losing it to boot). This makes castling kingside a lot less attractive and could allow black to mount an effective attack if white does so. (It also provides black with a weakness to take advantage of before the king has castled, the e1-h4 diagonal and the king's lack of protection in general, if white decides to castle queenside.)
If white plays 6. d4, castling kingside becomes more feasible again. Black has to move the queen out of the way before castling (or black can just fianchetto, but this still wastes a turn moving the g-pawn), losing a tempo (black will probably want to castle soon to avoid having the king attacked down the nice and open d file).

This move has its disadvantages too, though. The pawn on e5 is, for all practical purposes, an isolated pawn (moving the f-pawn would negate any possible advantage of playing 6. d4 instead of 6. f4). This makes it very vulnerable to attack (ex. 7... Nc5 practically forces 8. Bf4). And just as 6. f4 violates the common "rule of thumb" to avoid pushing the f-pawn, 6. d4 violates the guideline to capture towards the center with pawns.

I ended up playing 6. f4. Black subsequently blundered away the queen and resigned soon after... but I'm still curious about this position.

Am I missing anything in my analysis? Which move is better overall for white? Could white have played better in any previous moves?

White has the advantage no matter which pawn is moved next, 6. d4 or
  6. f4 (there is no way to keep the knight, but after the exchange white is up a pawn).

My initial reaction is pretty much the same as yours. You'd have to be a very poor player to even think of playing this as black. However, we are both wrong! Much stronger players than me play it as black and even win sometimes.

One of these is Austrian IM Friedrich Volkmann.

Here are 3 of his wins.

First against a stronger opponent

[FEN ""]
[Event "EU-ch 4th"]
[Site "Istanbul"]
[Date "2003.06.05"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Nedev, Trajko 2518"]
[Black "Volkmann, Friedrich Karl 2435"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 Nxe4 4. Qe2 Qe7 5. Qxe4 d6 6. d4 dxe5
7. dxe5 Nc6  8. Bb5 Bd7 9. Nc3 Qb4 10. Bc4 O-O-O 11. a3 Qa5 12. Bf4 Bb4
13. O-O Bxc3 14.  bxc3 Be6 15. Bd3 Qxc3 16. Rab1 Ba2 17. Rbd1 Kb8
18. Rfe1 h6 19. Bg3 Rd4 20. Qe2  Rhd8 21. f4 g6 22. Rc1 Bc4 23. Bf2 Rxf4
24. Be3 Nd4 25. Qd1 Rh4 26. Bf2 Rh5 27.  Re4 Be6 28. Rb1 Nc6 29. Qf3 b6
30. Rc4 Bxc4 31. Qxc6 Rxd3 32. cxd3 Qxd3 33. Rc1  Rh4 34. h3 Rf4
35. Re1 Rxf2 36. Kxf2 Qd2+ 37. Kf3 Bd5+ 0-1

Against a much weaker opponent

[FEN ""]
[Event "ICS Anniversary op"]
[Site "Fics Internet"]
[Date "2002.01.15"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Alaimo, Riccardo 2158"]
[Black "Volkmann, Friedrich Karl 2414"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 Nxe4 4. Qe2 Qe7 5. Qxe4 d6 6. d4 dxe5
7. Qxe5 Qxe5+  8. dxe5 Bf5 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. cxd3 Nc6 11. O-O O-O-O
12. f4 Nb4 13. Nc3 Bc5+ 14.  Kh1 Nxd3 15. Ne4 Bd4 16. Rb1 f6
17. exf6 gxf6 18. Bd2 Rhe8 19. Nc3 Nf2+ 20.  Rxf2 Bxf2 21. Rd1 Rxd2 0-1

Against a slightly weaker opponent

[FEN ""]
[Event "EU-chT (Men)"]
[Site "Leon"]
[Date "2001.11.14"]
[Round "8.2"]
[White "Haznedaroglu, Kivanc 2328"]
[Black "Volkmann, Friedrich Karl 2414"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 Nxe4 4. Qe2 Qe7 5. Qxe4 d6 6. f4 dxe5
7. fxe5 f6 8.  Bc4 Qxe5 9. Qxe5+ fxe5 10. d3 Nc6 11. Be3 Nd4
12. Kd2 Nf5 13. Bf2 Bd7 14. Nc3  O-O-O 15. Rae1 Re8 16. Bf7 Re7
17. Bd5 c6 18. Be4 b6 19. Rhf1 g6 20. Kc1 Bh6+  21. Kb1 Rf8
22. Bf3 Ref7 23. Ne4 Kc7 24. c3 Nd6 25. Ng3 Bh3 26. Bg1 Nf5
27. Be4  Nxg3 28. Rxf7+ Rxf7 29. hxg3 Bf5 30. Rf1 Kd6 31. Kc2 Ke6
32. Rf3 Bxe4 33. dxe4  Rxf3 34. gxf3 Bf8 35. b4 h5 36. Kd3 g5
37. Bf2 Be7 38. a4 h4 39. g4 c5 40. Kc4  cxb4 41. cxb4 h3
42. Bg3 a6 43. b5 a5 44. Kd3 Bc5 45. Ke2 Kd6 46. Kf1 Be3
47. Ke2 Bf4 48. Bxf4 exf4 0-1

After those games I'm not so sure that it is a blunder. The statistics still favor white by something like 40% white wins to about 20% black wins, so it looks like a better opening for white but psychologically I can see how it would be good for black. Black gets the kind of position he knows and is comfortable with while white thinks he is playing an idiot and so is maybe more likely to play badly.


Caro-Kann Defense: Advance Variation, Botvinnik-Carls Defense I seem to keep losing games as white in this opening. What systems is good for white and what are the developing ideas before the middlegame for white after 4. dxc5?

[FEN ""]
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. dxc5

I play the Panov attack:

[fen ""]
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 ( 5... Nc6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Nf3 Be7 8. c5 O-O 9. Bb5 Bd7 10. O-O ) 6. Nf3 Be7 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. Bd3 Nc6 9. O-O O-O 10. Re1

I scored multiple victories with this line and it's easy to play. In the first variation, you have an isolated pawn and you're looking for a kingside attack by creating a battery with the Bishop and Queen on the b1-h7 diagonal, and you play a3 in order to prevent the Knight from harassing you light-square bishop and rook on open files. In the second variation (5...Nc6) you need to prevent Black from playing e5. So you need to control it more, or trade your light square bishop for the knight on c6 to control it more and try to create a passed pawn on the queenside by pushing b4 at the right time.


How does the JaVaFo engine work and how random are the pairings? In most official FIDE tournaments, the JaVaFo engine is used to pair the players according to some FIDE-defined rules. What are those rules and how random are the pairings (i.e. can I reproduce them locally)?

What are those rules?

The rules are defined in the FIDE document C.04.1 Basic rules for Swiss Systems.

C.04.1 Basic rules for Swiss Systems
The following rules are valid for each Swiss system unless explicitly stated otherwise.
a The number of rounds to be played is declared beforehand.
b Two players shall not play against each other more than once.
c Should the number of players to be paired be odd, one player is unpaired. This player receives a pairing-allocated bye: no opponent, no colour and as many points as are rewarded for a win, unless the rules of the tournament state otherwise.
d A player who has already received a pairing-allocated bye, or has already scored a (forfeit) win due to an opponent not appearing in time, shall not receive the pairing-allocated bye.
e In general, players are paired to others with the same score.
f For each player the difference between the number of black and the number of white games shall not be greater than 2 or less than –2.
Each system may have exceptions to this rule in the last round of a tournament.
g No player shall receive the same colour three times in a row.
Each system may have exceptions to this rule in the last round of a tournament.
h 1 In general, a player is given the colour with which he played less games.
h 2 If colours are already balanced, then, in general, the player is given the colour that alternates from the last one with which he played.
i The pairing rules must be such transparent that the person who is in charge for the pairing can explain them.

Rgearding:

how random are the pairings?

They must be completely non-random. According to C.04.2 General handling rules for Swiss Tournaments

The Swiss Pairing Systems defined by FIDE and not deprecated (see C.04.4) pair the players in an objective, impartial and reproducible way.
In any tournament where such systems are used, different arbiters, or different endorsed software programs, must be able to arrive at identical pairings.


Can black make any progress in this end game? I have been analyzing this endgame for a while now, but I can't seem to make any progress. The engine evaluation is -2.5, but I'm wondering if this is one of those weird evaluations that is wrong because black can never win.

Black to move

8/8/8/1q4p1/p6k/B1R4P/K7/8 b - - 0 1

It does look like a fortress. After 1...Qe2+ 2.Bb2 Qd2 White can wait with Ka2-b1-a2 or Bb2-a1-b2 depending on where the queen sits.

Black cannot bring the king to d4 because of discovered checks, so the best try seems to be to travel to d5 and play a3 when the pieces are Qd2, Bb2, wKb1. Then Rxa3 Kc4 prevents the rook from coming back to c3 because of Qxc3 simplifying to a winning pawn ending.

Alas, White still can play Bc1 Qg2 Re3 Kb4 Ra3 and wait with Ra3-e3-a3.

I believe it is a draw.


How could I have improved my attack in this game? I won the game easily because my opponent left a rook hanging in the end. I believe I missed opportunities to build a stronger attack, but I am not sure how I could have done so.

[FEN ""]
1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Qe7 3.Nc3 Qxe5 4.e4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Qe7 6.Bd3 Qb4 7.O-O Be7 8.e5 Ng4 9.Nd5 Qc5 10.Nxe7 Qxe7 11.Re1 O-O 12.h3 Nh6 13.Nd4 Qh4 14.Re4 Qe7 15.Bxh6 gxh6 16.Qh5 d5 17.Re3 f5 18.Rg3+ Kh8 19.f4 Nc6 20.Nxc6 bxc6 21.Qxh6 Qe6 22.Qxf8+ Qg8 23.Qxg8#

Nf5 would win the queen one way or another because of the threat Qg4+, Qg7++. For instance 16. Nf5 Qe6 17. Qg4+ Qg6 18. Ne7+

Other than that, when you are attacking and the opponent's pieces are undeveloped or discoordinated you really want to open files and not create a closed position. Therefore 17. exd6 e.p. or even better 18. exf6 e.p. seems natural. Then white will bring a rook to e7 and black should be lost soon.


What happens if a player mistakenly thinks they have been checkmated? A quote from Wikipedia:

  The objective is to 'checkmate' the opponent's king by placing it under an inescapable threat of capture.

Suppose two players (A and B) play the game using the old fashioned way (no computer involved). If player A has player B's king checked from two positions.  Player B only knows how to block one of those two attacked positions. But there is a way for Player B to make a single move and block both attackers. What would be the proceeding of the game next? Should player A show player B how to do it? Or does the game end with player A winning even through this is not a checkmate?

If player B is checked in two different ways, then there is by definition no way for player B to block both attackers with a single move. The only way to get out of double check is to move the king.

If there's a square for player B's king to move to that is safe, then he can get out of the check. If player B simply doesn't see it, then in a friendly game player A can certainly show player B where to move his king. In a competitive game player A should probably just let player B lose on time or forfeit by making an illegal move.

If there's no square for player B's king to move to that is safe, then it is in fact checkmate. Player A wins.


High quality resource for Exchanged Slav defense? I am preparing the Semi-Slav defense with David Vigorito-Play the Semi-Slav ( Quality Chess, 2008 ). The exchange line is covered well, but recently GMs try to steer clear from dull ...Bf5 lines and try ...e6 + ...Qb6 formation, leaving bishop on c8 and "suffering" for the extra pawn they get with ...Qxb2. This gives excellent chances to dodge the boring, drawish lines and to sharpen the game. Also, in the book there was an opening novelty Kramnik launched in a line I am very interested in. Since then theory must have advanced a lot in Exchange Slav, so I am asking if there is any modern high quality resource ( for players 2400+ ) that covers this line?

Let me preface this by saying that I have not kept up with new publications in about a year, but there was nothing that I knew of before that.

My educated guess is that the only real "modern high quality resource ( for players 2400+ ) that covers this line" is going to be GM games. Here are my reasons for that:

1) Vladimir Kramnik-the most influential figure in chess opening theory over the last 15 years-played a significant novelty in this line. This means that other players, from the top level down to lower GMs (which is about the lowest you can go and still have the games be considered part of Theory without further examination) have probably taken to copying him and extending the line. Even if you did find a comprehensive book published 8 months ago by some mid-level GM, there could well be some game between two 2600s from 2 months ago which changes the outcome of a variation. A prepared opponent will surely know about that and the book will not.

2) You are at a level where, since you already have a solid foundation in the line, you are probably better off looking at the games that a book would present to you and drawing your own conclusions. People like Vigorito who are about your strength and publish books are basically doing the exact same thing you could be doing-applying computer analysis to positions, recognizing the ideas, and memorizing/writing down the result. People that play for a living and create theory will be more concerned with protecting novelties and using them to win games (thereby giving them to you for free) than adding them to a book to see a tiny bump in circulation.

I am not saying that there are no groundbreaking books by top players. Avrukh's repertoire series for White was incredibly well-researched and included dozens of novelties. Victor Bologan has written 3 influential books on various lines. These books are rare, though, and a large majority of theoretically-relevant openings do not have resources of similar quality. You can construct better opening knowledge by doing your own research.


Can anyone analyze my game and mistakes? I've been learning chess for a while, and I’ve tested my skills in online chess. I make lots of blunders in my games, but people who I ask can't seem to see them, including myself.

Here is a recent game of mine that I wish for analysis on so I may improve my skills.

[Event "4444 vs Anonymous"]
[Site "multiplayerchess.com"]
[Date "2015.08.10"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "4444"]
[Black "Anonymous"]

[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. d3 Bc5 3. Ne2 d6 4. Nbc3 f5 5. d4 exd4 6. Nxd4 fxe4 7. Bb5+ c6 8. Ba4 Bxd4 9. Qxd4 Nf6 10. Bg5 O-O 11. O-O h6 12. Bb3+ d5 13. Bh4 Be6 14. Qb4 b6 15. Rad1 c5 16. Qb5 Qd7 17. Qxd7 Bxd7 18. Nxd5 Kh8 19. Nxf6 gxf6 20. Rd6 Bc6 21. Bd5 Bxd5 22. Rxd5 f5 23. Rfd1 Nc6 24. Rd7 Nd4 25. Be7 Rfe8 26. Bf6+ Kg8 27. Rg7+ Kf8 28. Rh7 Kg8 29. Rg7+ Kf8 30. c3 1-0

Black lost on time, ending the match.

[Title "Game analysis"]

[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. d3 Bc5 3. Ne2 { I prefer Nf3 here, it is more active} d6 4. Nbc3 f5 5. d4 exd4 6. Nxd4 fxe4 7. Bb5+? {Waste of time, Black easily defends while consolidating extra pawn} c6 8. Ba4 Bxd4? {Relinquishing bishop pair, playing twice with the developed piece, improves opponent's development} 9. Qxd4 Nf6 10. Bg5 O-O 11. O-O (11.O-O-O!? $40) 11...h6? (11...d5 $15) 12. Bb3+ d5 13. Bh4 (13.Bxf6!? Qxf6 14.Qxf6 Rxf6 15.Nxe4 Rf8 16.Nd6 $14) 13...Be6 14. Qb4? (14.Nxe4! dxe4 (14...Nxe4?? 15.Bxd8 +-) 15.Bxe6+ $16) 14... b6 15. Rad1?! (15.Nxe4!) 15...c5 16. Qb5 Qd7 17. Qxd7 Bxd7 18. Nxd5 Kh8 19. Nxf6?! (19.Nc7+- ) 19...gxf6 20. Rd6 Bc6 21. Bd5?! (21.Bxf6+) 21...Bxd5 22. Rxd5 f5 23. Rfd1 Nc6 24. Rd7 Nd4 25. Be7 (25.c3) 25...Rfe8 26. Bf6+ Kg8 27. Rg7+ Kf8 28. Rh7 Kg8 29. Rg7+ Kf8 30. c3+- {White has decisive advantage. He will penetrate with the rooks on the 7th rank and eventually mate Black.} 0-1

If you do not understand symbols behind moves, go to this link.

Some advices:

Improve your opening repertoire, what I saw is very risky -> it might cost you in the future if you continue to open this way;
Work on tactics, that Nxe4 blow was obvious;
Find a book/online tutorial/... on basics of opening play -> you wasted tempo several times without any good reason to do so;
Generally speaking, you played well for your level of skill -> keep improving, you have good prospects in becoming good player.

If you need further help leave a comment. Best regards.


Is e5 an usual move in positions like this in the King's Indian? I have played a game this morning where I reached the following position:

[fen "r1bq1rk1/1p1nppbp/p2p1np1/2pP4/2P1P3/2N1BN2/PP2BPPP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 1"]

I was playing with White. In this position my opponent played e5 which is a very bad move because I can take the pawn en passant and then take the d6 pawn which is unprotected.

I went on to win the game and afterwards I was talking to him and he told me that he thinks that it is an usual move and that taking on d6 is not supposed to be good.

I checked the position with my computer and it gives White an advantage of +2 after taking the d6 pawn. I assume that he forgot his analysis and mixed different lines.

I don't usually play the King's Indian so I'm wondering, are there any lines where Black can play e5 in a position similar to this one and then is bad to take on d6?

I'm just interested in positions which arose from the King's Indian where Black has already played c5.

In KID positions like this with pawns on c5 and d6, knight on d7 I have never seen e5 without either Re8 or Qe8 first. e5 in this position is just a blunder,


How to move knights so that black moves first? From move 0, what shortest-possible sequence of moves could be played so that the pieces are arranged exactly as standard board setup (with allowed swapping of same-color knights), but it is black's turn to move?  Is it even possible?
I thought about it and conjectured white would have to make an odd number of knight moves, and black would have to make an even number of knight moves. I think this is impossible when the knights need to end up where they started, or even swap with each other (because even though this is an odd number of moves for one knight, the other knight would also have to make an odd number of moves). Am I correct? How can it be proven?
I also guess that this is a famous or at least previously explored problem. Maybe it's trivial.

It's impossible. Knights require an even number of moves to reach a square of the same color as where they started, or correspondingly an odd number of moves to reach the opposite color. Both sides need to make an even number of moves to reach the starting position.


Why 5...h6 in the Tartakower Queen's Gambit Declined and not in the Orthodox Variation? Why is the Tartakower Variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined almost always predeced by 5...h6, while in the Orthodox defense an early ...h6 is almost never played by Black?

2 main reasons:

The orthodox defense typically goes for a ...c6 structure and avoids ...b6 + ...c5. This makes Bxf6 a more viable option for White due to the more closed nature of the game. So, ...h6 could just end up wasting a tempo by nudging White to make a somewhat favourable exchange. Note that it's fine for you to play Bxf6 against the Tartakower too, it just works better against the orthodox.
The orthodox could see Black doing the maneuver Nbd7-Nf8-Ng6 (especially if White goes for a Carlsbad by exchanging on d5). This requires control over the g6 square if White has a Qc2+Bd3 battery set up. If Black has already played ...h6 and then plays ...Ng6, White wins a pawn with Bxg6 fxg6 Qxg6.


Can a rook put an opponent's king in check as a result of castling? Earlier in my game I had moved my king 1 space to right of its original position. Later in the game, after my opponent castled he placed his rook correctly which resulted in the rook being directly across from my king on the other end of the board with no pieces in between. He then stated I was in check. Is this a legal check since he actually moved his king first in the castling action, or should he only be able to call a check after my next move? In other words, can he check me from a castling move since his king did not originally have me in check?

Yes, of course he can; you're indeed in check. Imagine if checks didn't exist--then on the next move, if your king hasn't moved, he could just take your king with his rook.


Does a typical pawn endgame from Classical Caro-Kann lead to a draw? Below is example of a Caro-Kann endgame - Evelev - Epstein - with White having a pawn on h5, and both sides with majority on each side of the board. While the game below ended as a draw, I wonder if White could have tried something more aggressive in that structure.

  [FEN "?"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. Nf3 Nd7 8. h5
Bh7 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Qc7 11. Bd2 Ngf6 12. Ne4 e6 13. O-O-O O-O-O 14. g3
Nxe4 15. Qxe4 Nf6 16. Qe2 Bd6 17. c4 c5 18. Bc3 cxd4 19. Nxd4 a6 20. Kb1 Qb6
21. f4 Bb4 22. Bxb4 Qxb4 23. Nf3 Rxd1+ 24. Rxd1 Rd8 25. Ne5 Rxd1+ 26. Qxd1 Qe7
27. Kc2 Nd7 28. Nxd7 Qxd7 29. Qxd7+ Kxd7 30. Kd3 Kd6 31. Kd4 b6 32. b4 Kc6 33.
Ke4 f6 34. Kd4 Kd6 35. Kd3 Kc6 36. Ke4 Kd6 37. Ke3 Kc6 38. Kd4 Kd6 39. Ke4 Kc6
40. Kd4 Kd6 41. Ke4 Kc6 42. Kd4 1/2-1/2

First of all: position above is a DEAD draw. Only a heavy blunder can change this. No other chances, no more tricks.

To the question: Those 3. Nc3/Nd2 Caro-Kann variations might lead to a drawish endgames. But it's always a tiny tiny plus for white due to those advanced king-side pawns (some possibilities to sac a piece there or something). If you want to get as much as possible out of the Caro-Kann you should get familiar with advanced variation (3. e5). If you don't want to invest time, I can give you a small advice: In those variations there usually is knight + dark squared bishop vs knight + dark squared bishop (+ queens, rooks ofc). As white, your goal is to exchange your knight for a bishop or exchange your bishop for a knight. Positions after such a trade are often favourable for white. This is a tiny advice but you can try it.

By the way, here is a position that I played a long time ago. Not quite sure about the exact placement of a-b-c pawns, but never mind. It was a dead draw of course:

[FEN "8/1p1k1pp1/p3p2p/P1p1P2P/2P2PP1/3K4/1P6/8 w - - 0 2"]

Until my opponent decided to play 1. ... - g6 in order to exchange or create a passed pawn on the h-file if I'd make a mistake. Of course the opponent was low rated, but it shows that black is able to blunder.


Which tie break system would be used in Tata Steel 2015? Which tie break system would be used in Tata Steel 2015?

I didn't find it on the tournament website. I don't know how to get it.

Not sure if this question is still relevant … :)

I have looked up this information on chess24.com's broadcast page for that event. They are usually in direct contact to the organizers and their Information tab is relatively reliable.

According to that page the tiebreak rules were as follows:

Points scored
Direct encounter
Sonneborn-Berger
Most games played with Black
Rating

Keep in mind this is from a secondary source. If you want to be sure, ask the organizers.


When should you charge pawns in front of a castled king? In a situation where both players castle on the same side, is it ever a good idea to charge the pawns in front of the castled king? Are there any rules for when you can do this? I know that generally those pawns shouldn't move. But I am also increasingly finding it useful in my games to break up my opponent's king's defensive structure by pushing up pawns. If I don't see any obvious attack on my position, is it worth it?

Here is an example position from my previous game.

I played h3, stopping a further knight advance and looking at pushing g4 to close off the black's light square bishop. But my deeper idea was always to push those pawns right up to open up black's king. To be honest though, I'm still not sure whether this was a good idea at all.

Generally you should play on side where you have advantage in total firepower (P=1, N=3,...). In case of pawn storm in front of your king, the advantage should be bigger than you usually need. You can start easily minority attack with one extra horsie on the queenside, but you should probably not weaken your king seriously when you are just one knight stronger there.

Edit: To make the rule about firepower complete, I would say your king is somewhere around -8 for these calculations while your opponent's around -3. Takes time to get close to him while your king is already weak.

In this position I would play for b4. Good rule is that bishop g2 is very bad kingside attacker!


What to play as black after Bishop's Opening: 1. e4 e5; 2. Bc4 I keep losing at my chess club to the Bishop's Opening:

[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4

I have no idea what to play after that, any help?

The Bishop's Opening often transposes to the Italian, so black's response depends on which line he wants to play after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4: 3....Bc5 or 3....Nf6. The former allows the Evans Gambit (4.b4), while in case of the latter, black should be ready for 4.Ng5.

According to the GameDatabase of ChessTempo, after 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4, the most popular responses are 2....Nf6, 2....Nc6 and 2....Bc5.

The most popular and probably the most aggressive move is 2....Nf6. Now, white's main options are

3.d3. After 3....Nc6, the game will likely transpose to the Italian after 4.Nf3. Another idea is to try to grab the initiative with 3....c6 4.Nf3 d5.
3.d4, the Urusov Gambit. After 3....exd4 4.Nf3 has several options, e.g. 4....Nxe4, 4....d5 and 4....Bb4+. Moreover, 4....Nc6 transposes to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4.
3.Nc3. Now, black has two good options: 3....Nc6 or 3....Nxe4.

If black wants to play 3....Bc5 against the Italian, then 2....Bc5 against the Bishop's Opening is definitely an option. However, white has the option transpose to the King's Gambit with 3.f4.

If black doesn't want to bother with all the possible transpositions, then he can consider 2....Nc6.

      [StartPly "3"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 (2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 (3...Nf6 4.Ng5) 4.b4) Nf6 (2...Nc6) (2...Bc5 3.f4) 3.d3 (3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Nc6 (4...Nxe4)(4...d5)(4...Bb4+)) (3.Nc3 Nc6 (3...Nxe4)) Nc6 (3...c6 4.Nf3 d5) 4.Nf3


What are the benefits of becoming a chess (player, team or tournament) sponsor? It is probably well known that Magnus Carlsen is sponsored by Arctic Securities. An example of a tournament sponsorship is the Annual Rilton Cup sponsored by the Rilton Foundation. What are the benefits of sponsoring and becoming a partner of a chess player, team or tournament? Additionally, can you think of any more examples of sponsorships in the present and past?

How about this benefit?

  It is probably well known that Magnus Carlsen is sponsored by Arctic
  Securities.

Being well known is the benefit. One minute ago I had not even heard about arctic securities. And now I know, as well as may be thousand of other people watching/reading about the game. Why Vodaphone or whatever is sponsoring football? Do they care, do they have any connection to football? - No.

The idea behind sponsorship is always the same - let people know about you or see your sign.

Answer to Rauan's comment:

I do not want to disappoint you, but there is nothing unique about sponsorship in chess. In business all that matters is money / revenue / stock prices / public awareness.

Why did IBM gave half a million in 1996 to Kasparov for a match with a machine? They did not care about chess, they cared about advertising and stock market price. That's why they cared so much about the rematch in 1997 giving $1.1M for it and offering $0.7M to a winner. Not a lot of chess players who know about the matches, know how this ended up for IBM

  IBM estimated it received $500 million of free publicity from the
  match, and IBM stock prices went up over $10 to reach a new high for
  the company.

I think this is one of the best money investments.


Is this selfmate solvable or fixable? This is a kind of a repost of a fascinating chess problem that appeared yesterday. The original poster got shy or something, and bafflingly deleted his own post, which was beginning to attract some good reputation and interest.

In the mean time, I have found some information which I want to share. So I will pose the question and then give one answer. Feel free to improve!

So: background. It seems that someone showed the original poster a problem a year ago, but the poster couldn't solve it, and wasn't quite sure if there was a solution at all. The problem is a selfmate: White to move has to coerce an unwilling Black into checkmating him. The poster didn't know how many moves it would take. Normally selfmates do have a specific move limit: they aren't like studies.

[Title "White to move and selfmate"]
[fen "kbQ5/pb6/P7/3B4/8/7p/7p/7K w - - 0 0"]

Is there a solution? If there is, what is it? And if there isn't, is the problem fixable?

First the verdict on the posted problem. It has certainly no solution in up to 12 moves (checked by Popeye v4.79). And the author of the Gustav software which specializes in selfmates says that there is probably no regular solution to this problem.

Another expert thinks that if White simply captures everything which moves, he can then push bK over to g3 and force Black to win by h3xg2#. That's like taking a long chess problem and solving it like an regular chess game with no limit to the number of moves. Yes it will work to win but it's not really in the spirit of things. That's not to diminish his ingenious approach, but it's just not what we would consider a solution.

The good news is that this problem turns out to be a recognizable example of the Broecker schema, invented in 1891 by Gustav Von Broecker. The German PDB database contains 36(!) other problems which are all based on the same diagonal opposition of bishops. One early very clear example is the following:

    [Title "Broecker - London Chess Fortnightly 1892 - s#9"]
    [fen "kb4R1/1b6/P7/8/8/7p/6BP/6BK w - - 0 0"]

    1. Rf8 Bc6 2. Re8 Bd5 3. Rd8 Be4 4. Rc8 Bf3 5. Rh8 Be4 6. Bf3 Bd5 7. Be4 Bc6 8. Bd5 Bb7 9. Bc6 Bxc6#

"s#9" is shorthand for "selfmate in 9" - i.e. White moves first and forces an uncooperative Black to checkmate White by Black's 9th move at the latest.

As the original poster had deduced, there is a key relationship between the square of the queen (or rook) on the 8th rank, with the number of squares separating the bishops. Either player must always make them match if they can, and if he fails to, the other player gets a chance to make them match instead.

White wins because he is able to match by moving 1. Tf8 only. Black has many possible lines of play, but the longest he can hold out is 9 moves. One example solution is shown here.

In the original problem, the position is already a "match" with White to play. He is forced to break the match, and Black can always recreate it, so need never lose. It doesn't seem there is any way for White to use the additional power of the queen to change the parity.

However the matrix has proved very rich over the years, as you can see from the database, and I am sure there's more that can still be mined. The longest problem known to be sound is the following:

    [Title "Rotenburg & Trillon - Die Schwalbe 1980 - s#14"]
    [fen "k7/1b4R1/N7/7p/8/7p/6BP/6BK w - - 0 0"]

    1. Rf7! Bc6 2. Re7 Bd5 3. Rd7 Be4 4. Rc7 Bf3 5. Rh7 Be4 6. Bf3 Bd5 7. Be4 Bc6 8. Bd5 Bb7 9. Bc6 h4! 10. Bd5 Bc6 11. Rc7 Bb7 12. Rc1 Bc6 13. Rb1 Bb7 14. Bc6 Bxc6#

Again, here is a sample solution as Black has multiple choices, although White's move is unique at every point.

What's interesting about this one is that Black has a waiting move. This flips the parity, and so normally Black would be able to continue making matches, while White is breaking matches. However, White can flip the parity, by moving to the other side of the main diagonal. This can only be done while ensuring that b7 is never free for bK to enter. Either it must be occupied by bB, or attacked by wR.


When Black opens with Nf6 after e4 - Beginner question I would like to have some analysis in the following setting:
1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5.

Now, what is best for white? The move 3. c4 continues the attack, but can create a "pawn weakness".

1.e4 Nf6 is called Alekhine Defence.
It's an hypermodern opening as it doesn't directly fight for the center but more aim to provoke weakness in White camp and then counter-attack.

Also White has several option, first he can try not to push by playing :
2.Nc3
2.Bc4 as after 2...Nxe4 White get back the pawn with 3.Bxf7 Kxf7 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Qd5+

Still, it's better to take the center :
2.e5 Nd5 and now White has to decide whether or not he will push his pawns, so 3 systems are relevant :

the modern approach, White delays c4 : 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 just finishing his development without giving weakness
3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.exd6 and now Black has a choice between ...exd6 or ...cxd6 depends where he wants to put his bishop f8.
the most agressiv : 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.f4 just taking as much space as possible, I think this is the most critical continuation.


Another chess puzzle I was playing white here, and after Rd6+, Kb5, Rd5+, Ka4, is there any winning move for white?

I think Kb2 will be followed by Rd8 which will be dangerous for white.
In this position, Black is slightly worse. The only leverage for white here is the pressure on the black king and active Rooks.
He should play more active like Rd7 followed by grabbing either the B7 or G7 pawn. Then he can try pushing his passed pawn or try to bring his king into the game(a bit later).
On a side note, he can try exchanging his Pawns to secure a Draw, because it will be challenging for Black to win.


Is there a double-forced mate position? A usual forced mate position is where the winning player can play in a way that ensures checkmate, no matter what (legal) moves the opponent makes (unless the game ends due to a non-play reason, i.e. resignation, draw accepted, time ran out.)
What I'm asking about here is what I'll call a double-forced mate:  A position where checkmate is ensured no matter what (legal) moves either player makes.
With this rule alone we can find a position such as this, where white has only one legal move, resulting in checkmate.  Let's call this type 1.
Type 1:
[FEN "K1k5/1q6/P7/B3N3/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. axb7#

The only option is axb7#. However, this isn't too satisfying as a "double" forced mate, as there was only a single possible move to continue.  We can explore positions that have multiple possibilities, but still ensure checkmate absolutely.
Type 2:
[FEN "k7/2QQQQQQ/KQ1QQQQQ/QQQ1QQQQ/QQQQ1QQQ/QQQQQ1QQ/QQQQQQ1Q/QQQQQQQ1 w - - 0 1"]

White has many legal moves, but every one of them results in an immediate checkmate.  Still, I feel this question isn't quite answered, as in a true double-forced checkmate, both players should play a role. (Also, this position clearly isn't possible from a standard board start. And even if it were, it doesn't seem that it could be achieved without first creating a stalemate.)  Let's finally look to type 3.
Type 3:
The true double-forced mate: A position where checkmate is ensured no matter what (legal) moves either player makes, however there is at least some line where both players make a move. Meaning not every legal ply in the start position is an immediate checkmating move.
Do you know of (or can you find) any such chess positions of (type 3) double-forced mate?  Or can you prove that this is not possible?
Also, share if you have any interesting or more plausible examples of type 1 and 2.

Indeed, there are many possible positions in which all mates are forced on the first ply. Since you ask not for that, I shall provide examples with more than one move by both sides.
Here is the known, and overall, length record for both sides having multiple legal moves since you said that a single line "isn't too satisfying."
[Title "Alexey Khanyan, Tim Krabbe's Website Diary Entry #267 2008, Mate In 11 Moves/22 Plies"]
[FEN "4Q2Q/4r3/4n1n1/1bbK1krn/RR1RR1RR/2qn1R1n/4n1nN/Q3Q3 b - - 0 1"]
[startflipped ""]

1... Ng2f4+ 2. Rfxf4+ N2xf4+ 3. Rgxf4+ Nh3xf4+ 4. Rhxf4+ Ndxf4+ 5. Rxf4+ Nhxf4+ 6. Rxf4+ Ngxf4+ 7. Rxf4+ Nxf4+ 8. Rxf4+ Kxf4+ 9. Qee5+ Qxe5+ 10. Qaxe5+ Rgxe5+ 11. Qxe5+ Rxe5+ 12. Qxe5#

Source: Diary Entry #267
Additionally, I know of this simple problem that illustrates it with either playing giving mate.
[Title "Eugene B. Cook, The Chess Amateur 1926, Mate In For White And Black"]
[FEN "Bk6/1P6/1P3p2/8/8/2P3p1/6p1/6Kb w - - 0 1"]

Lastly, be sure to check out a funny mutual zugzwang position in this CSE question by the user @Peter, in which both sides are forced to let the other mate them!


Looking for sound files from a VERY old version of Chessmaster Live I've been searching (for a long time) for some sound files to a chess program from way, way back (early 90's).  There was an online version of Chessmaster called Chessmaster Live.  I'm sure it is a long shot, but does anyone have a copy of this program or know where I might find it so that I can get the sound files?

The sound files are basically the sounds that are made as one moved a piece, captured, castled etc.

Let me suggest another way.

You are assuming that the game had sounds in the form of files that are reusable. This may not be the case.
But why not start searching for files yourself with search terms like mp3 chess pieces (or chess pieces sounds or sound effects chess moves, or other variations)? These will lead to e.g.:

Soundsnap board game sounds (not free)
Sound Hills Chess Pieces and Board sounds (not free)
Pond5 Chess piece sound effects (not free)

The rest is left as an exercise to the reader ;-)

I found that chess.com actually has a question about this as well.

Any of these may good enough for you.


Is there a name for this attack against Sicilian defense? Sometimes against Sicilian Najdorf (or french) defense I play like this:

[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5 7. Nf5 Bxf5 8. exf5 d5 9. Bg5 d4 10. Ne4 Be7

My plan in this opening is somehow playing like Yugoslav attack, specially by opening an open line in queen side and pushing pawns into the king side of black and going for O-O-O, but I usually fail against players with rating in my range in normal game but usually I win against player with similar rating to me in blitz game by use of this handmade opening.

Question: Is there a name for this opening? Is it a very weak opening? and more important than this, if I don't want to play passive against e5 in different variation of Sicilian (e.g, when my knight is at d4) what should I do?

P.S: Maybe Be3 seems to be silly, but my intention is motivating to pushing e5 (by black), to use open line of f7 by my white bishop later in the game. Many players are thinking about possible fork pawn, or they see weakness in my move and they do e5.

6. Be3 against the Najdorf Sicilian is called the English Attack.

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

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3

6. Be3 is no weak move! It is a strong move and has been played by World Champions like Kasparov, Kramnik and Anand.

In your game, after 6...e5 you played 7. Nf5. But 7. Nf5 is known to be a weak move, becaue Black has the strong reply 7...d5. One sample variation is as follows -

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

   1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5 7. Nf5 d5
   8. Bg5 d4 9. Bxf6 gxf6 10. Nb1 Qb6 11. Nd2 Qxb2

You mentioned that you would like to put more pressure on Black's kingside, but in the English attack you cannot do that immediately. Note that the Najdorf Sicilian is a very robust opening and it's not easy to immediately put pressure on Black's kingside (as I briefly also mentioned here). In the English Attack, the pressure is slowly built up with a sequence of moves like f3 and g4 as this line demonstrates.

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

   1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5 7. Nb3 Be6
   8. f3 Be7 9. Qd2 O-O 10. O-O-O Nbd7 11. g4

You should go through some of the games provided on the link I gave you to see how this attack works.


How can I train myself in pawn endgames? I'm looking for a chess program which offers to play pawn endgames to improve myself.
For example, can I force Fritz 13 to play pawns endgames? If so, how can I achieve this?

Any chess-playing computer program that allows you to set up positions can be used. And yes, Fritz is especially suited for this.

You have several options:

Set up the position yourself (using board/position set up). Choose any position that you want to get better at. Save that position and play against the computer.

1a. I used to do this for simple pawn endings. I'd play both colors until I figured out some aspects of the pawn ending.

1b. I'd often set up one side with an advantage (say an extra pawn) and see if I could win easily. (Since the computer plays well, this is not easy to do in practice.)
You can start collecting some endgame positions, from a book or from around the web, create a small endgame learning database for yourself, and practice.
In this video (be sure to watch) Nigel Davies recommends Silman's Complete Endgame Course (I find most things by Silman to be very good.)
Finally, if you don't mind spending a little, "Fritz Endgame Trainers" (DVD or software add-ons) that ChessBase sells are quite good. (Just buy one at a time, and be sure to read the reviews to see if it is at the right level for your needs.)

Hope that helps.


E6 Pin in Classical Dutch In a classical dutch setup, if white doesn't fianchetto and instead moves bishop c4 then it pins the e6 pawn. I don't really want to go into the stonewall even though that's the recommendation of the engine. Is there any variation or move that can get me out that is NOT the stonewall?

[FEN "rnbq1rk1/ppppb1pp/4pn2/5pB1/2BP4/4PN2/PPP2PPP/RN1Q1RK1 b - - 0 1"]

The pin of the e6 pawn doesn't seem important at all in this position.  In fact, it is hard to see what White is trying to accomplish with Bc4.

By "going into Stonewall" I guess you mean .. d5, and that is certainly tempting, seeing as White will have to lose a tempo just to put his Bishop on another not-great square.  For an alternative, consider .. Nc6, getting ready for b6 and Bb7 deploying your light-square Bishop beautifully with action on the central squares d5 and e4.  Also, after .. Nc6 the d5 idea will never work for White due to .. Nxd5! and White's g5 Bishop is hanging.


How to stop Stockfish analysis? I am using Chessbase 13. I would like Stockfish to stop analyzing until I make it  start again. What happens now is that I make it stop, and as soon as I go on to the next move, it starts analyzing again. Mounting and unmounting the engine is slow. Is there a way to do that?

Actually, nevermind about my question, because I have just found an answer myself. Just click on stop, and then click the lock button. To start again, just click on the lock button to unlock it.


Deducing brilliant sacrifices Is it possible to deduce brilliant sacrifices by analyzing a match's PGN along with the corresponding evaluation score after each move? If not, what other non-visual information would be needed to be able to deduce when a player made sacrifices to help his cause?

It would be easy to detect sacrifices- if the material count in the position suddenly drops, but the computer evaluation position doesn't drop a lot, and the material isn't restored within a short number of moves (to avoid simple exchanges being considered sacrifices), then it would be a sound sacrifice. This would miss out on a lot of unsound sacrifices or sacrifices that computers don't understand, however- there are many cases of this with fortresses etc. Detecting brilliant sacrifices would probably be even harder.


Question about knight vs. 3 pawns endgame In the following puzzle, 5. Kb6 is considered better than 5. Kc7. Doesn't Kc7 force Black to sacrifice his knight (sooner)?

[FEN "8/3n4/8/1P3k2/1P6/4K2P/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... Nb6 2. Kd4 Ke6 3. Kc5 Nd7+ 4. Kc6 Ne5+ 5. Kb6 Nd3 6. Ka5 Kd7 7. h4 Nf4 8.
Ka6 Nd5 9. h5 Nxb4+ 10. Ka5 Nd5 11. h6 Nf6 12. Ka6 Kc7 13. Ka7


What is a good plan for Black when White surrenders the center? rnbq1rk1/ppp1ppbp/5np1/2Pp4/3P4/2N1PN2/PP3PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQ - 0 6

In the above position, White has ineffectively surrendered control of the d5 square with 1. c5?. All of his pieces are not developed onto the queenside and he is unable to make use of his space advantage.

Would a good plan be for Black to play ...a5, preventing b2-b4 (which supports the c-pawn) and Bg4, Nd7, Re8, c6, Qc7, and eventually e7-e5?

In positions like this (while the a1 rook is undefended), a typical plan  is to play immediately 1...b6 and reply to 2 b4 with 2...a5, the idea being that white cannot defend the b4 pawn with a3.

In order to analyze the consequences of this plan, I'd check the following:

bxc5, dxc5 would give black's bishop the long diagonal and should be preferable for black
cxb6 axb6 (or cxb6) does not seem so clear to me, because the light squares on the queenside get weak. Assessment might depend on whether black can take advantage of the half-open a file and/or can put his queenside pieces to good squares without giving white too much play on the light squares.

...b6 2. b4 a5 3. b5 Does not look attractive for black

So it seems that black does not get anywhere on the queenside, which leaves the pawn break with e5 as the most reasonable alternative. The idea would be to either open the long  diagonal for the bishop (if white captures on e5) or to create a weak pawn on d4 (if black captures exd4, exd4).

There is not much white can do to prevent black from playing e5 sooner or later. The next white moves are pretty much predictable (develop pieces, castle, push pawns on queenside...). The question is how black wants to prepare e5.

... a5 is probably a good idea because it hinders white's natural plan of pushing the queenside pawns

c6 vs Nc6: the pawn on c6 would protect d5 which could be important after white captures dxe5; The knight on c6 looks a bit unnatural, particularly if white manages to create a pawn storm. On the other hand from c6 a knight could put pressure on the d4 pawn.
Bg4: with all white pawns on dark squares, this bishop could be strong. You might not want to exchange it too soon.
Re8: probably a good square for the rook

Taking into account all this and potential tactics such as white sacrificing a pawn on c6 (if black plays Nbd7), etc, I believe the best options are:

Re8, Nc6, e5
Re8, c6, Nbd7, e5
c6, Nfd7, e5 (but black might delay his development too much here)

ALl of these could be combined with Bg4 depending on how much you value bishops vs knights. Personally I'd go with the Re8, c6, Nbd7, e5 plan


Classical Chess Opening Repertoire I decided that I want to learn classical chess.  Although I'm rated in the 1400's, I want to really gain a strong understanding of basic ideas and principles in chess and improve my tactical ability.  Thus, I want to generally go for open games.  I also don't want anything theory-heavy or complex.  Just nice, simple, classical/traditional openings and/or openings that involve playing with the innitiative or defending against the innitiative that will are good for learning and also viable at the top level.  So the opening repertoire I'm going with now is:

As white:

1.e4

Versus Sicilian Defence: Alapin Variation

Versus 1...e5, Four Knights Game (regardless of 2...Nc6 or Petroff)

Versus French Defence: Tarrasch Variation which will either lead to the Rubinstein Variation or 3...Nf6, after which I'll try to get into the Nunn-Korchnoi Gambit

Versus Pirc/Scandinavian/Caro-Kann/Alekhine/Modern: I'll just play relatively main lines and/or develop by opening principles.

As Black:

1...e5

Versus King's Gambit: Decline with 2...Bc5
Versus Danish Gambit: Accept and defend the best I can (after I get destroyed, I'll probably look up how to do it)
Versus Italian Game: Giuoco Piano
Versus Scotch Game: Main Line with 2...Bc5
Versus Spanish Game/Ruy Lopez: Classical/Cordel Variation with 3...Bc5
Versus Ponziani: Dish out that relatively brief line I learned yesterday from the FCO so I don't get destroyed again
Versus Four Knights Game: Play symmetrically and/or develop with opening principles

Versus 1.d4, TRADITIONAL QUEEN'S GAMBIT DECLINED - not the Lasker Variation, but the one where you fianchetto the light-square bishop.

Is this a good learning repertoire?

That opening repertoire looks good to me. However, I must warn you about over-focusing on opening theory at your rating level.

Right now I am going through a phase where I am focusing on other areas besides opening theory.  Some of the old masters, such as Lasker, didn't even bother with it.  Although I'm not sure if he would get away with that today.  I do think that a lot of lower-rated players focus too much on opening theory.  In most of your games, opponents aren't going to be playing the books moves, so it may actually be a waste of time to learn a bunch of opening theory. Instead it may be more beneficial to REALLY learn a solid set of chess principles, and even more importantly patterns.


Convert Stockfish analysis output to pgn It seems that there is no way to direct see Stockfish’s analysis in pgn when it evaluates a position. I am looking for a way to convert the SAN or LAN format into a PGN. Maybe it will work in Python. Does anyone know of a way to do this conversion?

If you're in chessbase you can right click on Stockfish (where it displays its lines of evaluation), and press "Copy to Notation".


Does the pawn's initial double square move have a special name? Does the pawn's initial double square move have a special name, akin to how special capturing move that the pawn has is called en passant?

No, it's a standard move. By definition, pawns are pieces which can move 1 square forward or 2 on the first move, and can capture diagonally. These actions don't have special names as they're easy to define, but en passant requires a bit more explanation (as most pawns never do it in any particular game).


Did the 2018 World Chess Championship feature any theoretical novelties in the Sveshnikov Sicilian? I am interested in how the Sveshnikov theory developed in the last decade, and one of the biggest events heavily featuring it was the WCC match in 2018. Very few books on the opening were published since then.
Did the match contribute something to the opening theory of the Sveshnikov?
Links to articles or annotated games are very welcome, as well as references to books or other material covering the novelties.

Carlsen introduced 8... Ne7 (after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5) instead of 8...Nb8. He played this in round 12 and then again in game two of the tiebreak. The line was known before but not played at the highest level and therefore not considered a serious approach by black.
You can find the analyzed games here at chess.com. 12... h5 is given as novelty in this line.


Pressing the clock using the same hand you use to move the pieces I participated in a club and went to training. The guy who played against me is right-handed, so he placed the clock on the right. I'm left-handed, so I play with the left hand and press the clock with my right hand since it's closer. It's not very convenient to press it with my left hand, as it's too far.
I was told that in tournaments, I have to press the clock with the same hand I use to move pieces. This is very annoying; is it a real rule? And can I place the clock on the left side? Why does the right-handed player get to place the clock on his right and not the other way around?

The numbers refer to rules in the FIDE laws of chess.

  6.2. A player must press his clock with the same hand with which he made his move. It is forbidden for a player to keep his finger on the clock or to ‘hover’ over it.

The rule that you have to press the clock with the same hand that you use to move the pieces is there to prevent players from pressing the clock before they have completed the move: if one is in such a time trouble that this rule matters, he/she would very probably, perhaps unconsciously, press the clock before he has clearly released his hand from the piece if this rule was not enforced. Nobody wants to see their opponent's hand over the board when their clock is running and they need to make a move quickly.

Often, the player with the black pieces is allowed to decide which side of the board the clock is on. Technically, the arbiter may place the clock on the side of the board where he sees it better [rule 6.5]. Often the player with the black pieces may choose on which side of the board he sits on, amounting to the same. (But this is no longer a rule in the Fide laws; some tournaments may not allow even doing that, for example because of carefully adjusted digital boards; in these cases the clock is almost always on the queenside (black's right hand side and white's left hand side).


Which gambits have been most successful? Besides the Queen's Gambit (which isn't really a gambit anyway), which gambits have been most successful as far as winning percentage and usage at high levels of play?

According to these statistics from 4 million games, the Marshall Gambit of the Semi-Slav defense is the most successful with 58.4% wins. I only counted gambit openings that had more than 1000 occurrences in the database.

The least successful gambit appears to be the Latvian Gambit with only 41.1% wins.

Note that since the database does not discriminate against older games, the statistics may not necessarily reflect the possible outcome of an opening if it were played today.


Question on chess commentary in written form I'm new to English chess notation and have never read or heard chess commentary in a broadcast or publication form.
I'm trying to decipher the following commentary

ICGA's footnote to caption:
ACM CCC, Washington DC, Round 4, Dec. 5th, 1978: ECO C48, Four Knights. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Nd4 5. Bc4 Bc5 6. Nxe5 Qe7 7. Bxf7+ Kf8 8. Ng6+ hxg6 9. Bc4 Nxe4 10. O-O Rxh2!! {cf. the photo} 11. Kxh2 {hastening the loss} Qh4+ 12. Kg1 Ng3 13. Qh5 {ineffectual delay} gxh5 14. fxg3+ Nf3# {perhaps uniquely blocking a check, giving a double check and mating simultaneously; "the most beautiful combination created by a computer program to date... computer chess witnessed the start of a new era." (Levy and Newborn, 1991)}.

I think I have figured out the series of moves in paired notation. But what does the parenthesized part (e.g. {hastening the loss}, {ineffectual delay}, etc.) exactly refer to? Are they a part of commentary (spoken during the match) or additional information that has been added afterward?

The  comments in braces means that the move before had the effect noted in that set of  { }s  .  It is just annotating the game to explain the moves.

It may have been spoken during the match if it were broadcast,  but it was definitely  printed in the game summary later at the link you provided to bell labs.

The !!  means that the move was excellent, often unexpected, and winning.

In this case the #  means mate.


Is there a name for fork-protected pieces? Sometimes the reason a piece should not be captured isn’t the recapture, but rather the threat of a fork because the capturing piece would find itself in just the wrong spot. The 1926 game between Stepanov and Romanovsky is full of this after 20. … R×f3+.

Is there a name for the situation where a piece is protected by the threat of a fork?

I agree with asdf regarding the idea that there isn't a name specifically attached to indirect protection of a piece stemming from a fork.

However, in general, pieces that are protected by any tactic, including forking, are said to be "indirectly defended."

As far as a name for the piece being indirectly defended, one might call it a "bait" piece, as it baits the opposing player to make a dubious move. In a specific opening line, there is a somewhat famous "poisoned pawn" - a pawn that looks like it can be taken without fear, but makes things positionally difficult in the long run. Thus, an indirectly defended piece might also be called a "poisoned" piece.


What are the scales of the numerical evaluations of the strongest engines based on? Different engines have different scales for their numerical evaluations (for example, Houdini's evaluations are usually much lower than Stockfish's evaluations). This is because different engines use different units in their evaluation functions.

.

The Fritz 12 instructions manual says:

  Chess engines evaluate positions with the help of a numeric value. The evaluation is expressed in pawn units, always from the point of view of White. If the program is displaying a value of +1.30, this means that it considers the white position to be better by the equivalent of 1.3 pawns. If White is actually a pawn up, then the additional 0.3 is the result of positional considerations (mobility, deployment of pieces, king safety, pawn structure, etc.).

This means that Fritz 12 evaluations are calibrated so that +1.00 is equivalent to being 1 Pawn up. (I'm not sure if this is still true for Deep Fritz 14 though...)

.

ChessBase says:

  Houdini 4 uses calibrated evaluations in which engine scores correlate directly with the win expectancy in the position. A +1.00 pawn advantage gives a 80% chance of winning the game against an equal opponent at blitz time control. At +2.00 the engine will win 95% of the time, and at +3.00 about 99% of the time. If the advantage is +0.50, expect to win nearly 50% of the time.

This means that Houdini 4 evaluations are calibrated so that +1.00 is equivalent to having 80% chance of winning the game.

.

So I already got the answer to my question for Fritz 12 and Houdini 4. I would like to know the same thing for other engines (for as much engines as possible), preferably strong engines like Stockfish, Komodo, Gull, Critter, Rybka, Hiarcs, Junior, Shredder, etc...

There is nobody in the world can answer you confidently. It requires deep source-code level understanding of the engines. However, some of the engines you mentioned are close-source, which means it's simply not possible to get an answer for all engines.

However, I can answer about Stockfish, which I have studied. Stockfish doesn't attempt to optimize evaluation score just to make it consistent to what a human thinks. Stockfish has a framework for parameter tuning (SPSA) but the overall purpose is to increase strength. The score reported from Stockfish is no way consistent and tuned to what a grandmaster expects. Stockfish tends to report a score larger than Houdini in absolute term. This means, Stockfish is less conservative and therefore a stronger engine than Houdini.

Think like this, in a position where you have two chocies, one a simple draw that exchanges all pieces and the other is a queen vs three minor pieces. Both scenarios are considered theoretically drawn. Houdini would have reported zero or close to zero for both scenarios. While this is theoretically correct, the scheme doesn't encourage the engine to try harder for the queen vs thee minor pieces scenario where the engine has better chances to outplay a weaker opponent.

On the other hand, Stockfish, by being less pessimism, will have no trouble finding the queen vs minor pieces scenario. This is one of the reasons Stockfish has been proven a stronger engine than Houdini in all rating list.

In short, the score reported from Stockfish and lots of other engines is meaningless. They just guide the engine to make the best decision but it doesn't mean much other than that. Houdini's evaluation has been tuned, most likely for marketing purpose - you sell an engine better if it meets the users' expectation. But meeting a chess user expectation doesn't mean it'll make the engine play better, as Stockfish has proven, it makes the strength worse.

Therefore, there is no such thing as scaling in chess engine scoring. Some engines do, like Houdini, but this is just a trick to make you buy it. Chess engines don't need a scaling scheme to play strong.


Why is the Scheveningen Sicilian almost never seen nowadays at top-level chess? It seems to me that, although we see lots of Sicilians, especially Najdorfs, Tajmanovs, and Kans, the once popular Scheveningen variation (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 -- or 2...e6 and 5...d6) recently lost a lot of its popularity at top level chess. Nobody seems to play it any more even at club level chess. Is there a clear reason for that?
[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6

As far as I know the theoretical reason for this is the Keres attack. (As stated by Jan Gustafsson in one of many live commentaries.)

[Event "Tata Steel"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee NED"]
[Date "2013.01.23"]
[EventDate "2013.01.12"]
[Round "10"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Pentala Harikrishna"]
[Black "Yifan Hou"]
[ECO "B81"]
[WhiteElo "2698"]
[BlackElo "2603"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. g4 h6
7. h4

In fact this line is even entered by white a tempo down, via the h3-Najdorf, so it seems to be just very comfortable for white.

That being said, Hou Yifan still plays the Scheveningen with black and does so extremely successfully. In fact she won the game from which I took the above opening moves, so white's advantage in the Keres attack is probably nothing that should concern us lesser mortals.


Why aren't early opening moves generally given exclamation marks? As the title above, why aren't early opening moves generally given exclamation marks? I see question marks for obvious opening mistakes from time to time, e.g. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6? or 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Bg4?! But I almost never see exclamation marks for early strong opening moves. For example, after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 should be given an exclamation mark, being obviously a strong move, already challenging Black's center at move 2, or, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5! the Ruy Lopez being considered the best way to challenge Black's center already at move 3, and so on...

Wikipedia says the following:

Exclamation points ("!") indicate good moves—especially ones which are surprising or involve particular skill. Hence annotators are usually somewhat conservative with the use of this symbol.

(emphasis mine). 2. c4 is the most played move after 1. d4 d5, therefore it doesn't receive an exclamation mark.


King's Gambit, Wagenbach Defense 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 h5 Has this gambit (6.Ng5!) been played? (I only found games with 6.Ne5.) Is it any good? Is it the refutation of Black's silly 3...h5 (the Wagenbach Defense)?

[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 h5 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng5 f6 7.Bxf4 fxg5 8.Bxg5 Be7 9.Qd2

From my analysis, the line you give appears to be the best way White can play. After 9.Qd2, Stockfish 10 at depth 28 gives roughly +1. So I think it qualifies as a refutation of 3...h5.

I couldn't find any games where 6.Ng5 was played, but I did find a game that reached the same position on move 6 via transposition. The game was from 1788 (!) in the "London Casual Games" between two players named Cotter and Von Bruehl:

[White "Cotter"]
[Black "Von Bruehl"]
[Event "London Casual Games"]
[Date "1788"]

[fen ""]

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ng5 h5 6.d4 {Transposing to the diagram you gave} f6 7.Bxf4 fxg5 8.hxg5 (8.Bxg5 {Is stronger, following your line}) d5 9.e5 Bf5 10.Bd3 Ne7 11.O-O Bg7 12.Bg3 Rf8 13.Bh4 Qd7 14.Nc3 a6 15.Qe2 Nbc6 16.Bf2 O-O-O 17.Na4 Bxd3 18.Qxd3 Nxe5 19.Qb3 b5 20.dxe5 bxa4 21.Qc3 d4 22.Qd3 Qb5 23.Qa3 Ng6 24.b3 Bxe5 25.bxa4 Qc6 26.Rab1 0-1.


clubs -> tournaments? I live in Maharashtra, India, and can't find any tournaments (that don't take a lot of entry fee) to participate in, and I really want to. There are some clubs near me, though. What I wanted to ask is that will chess clubs notify me regularly about tournaments (I want to participate in ANY tournament I can, that doesn't cost TOO much in entry fee, and is not TOO far from me) that I can participate in?

Yes, chess clubs usually inform their players about tournaments organized in the vicinity. Anyway, you can ask any particular club about its policy before joining it.


How to exercise an opening variation with a chess engine? I am reading an opening book in King's Gambit, and been writing down the lines to study later. But I wish there was a chess engine, that goes for those lines so I can play against them. I want to play the book lines against the engine so I don't forget them later. And the engine responds with the book lines back. Do you have any suggestions on how to make such a bot? For example a bot that looks up the favored variations and plays them otherwise plays a Stock-fish's best move.

Chess engines use an opening book during the opening. The standard way of doing what you ask is to build your own opening book and point the chess engine to that so it uses your book and not the previously supplied one.
When you are done just switch back.


What is the main purpose of the Evans gambit? When I see the Evans Gambit, I don't see the point of it, maybe because I am a beginning player.  It seems that after:

[FEN ""]

1. e4  e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Bc5
4. b4  Bxb4
5. c3  Bc5

Since the bishop can go back to c5, it seems we are just back to the beginning and white has already lost a pawn.  After watching some videos on this, I have seen that white can build a strong attack if the queen moves to b3 which can then backup the bishop on c4 and eye the a1-h8 diagonal, and the critical f7 square.  Is this it's main purpose (especially if it is accepted)?  If it is, why is it accepted more than declined?

Black's choice of where to put the Bishop on move 5 is awkward, and any choice will give White some compensation:

5... Ba5 would give White the possibility of Ba3 at some point to cut off the King from castling and the Bishop won't be very useful after White castles out of the pin on c3.
5... Bc5 allows 6. d4, taking control of the center with tempo after which White can develop quickly and try to attack.
5... Be7 is rather passive and blocks a square for the g8-Knight, and White can develop very naturally and aggressively.

The reason White is better off than before move 4 is that the c3-pawn supports d4. d4 is very strong especially when White can gain a tempo on the Bishop.

Declining it with 4... Bb6 is not unheard of, but 4... Bxb4 is generally considered more challenging.


How do I become chess world champion? If I play better than the current world champion, Carlsen, and I am able to win him - how would I do to become world champion as fast as possible? Would I have to go through long tournaments or is it enough to consistently beat the world champ?

If that is the case, I wonder why Vassily Ivanchuk isn't the world champion?

The rules for becoming world champion have changed over the years and might very well change in the future.

With the current rules, in order to become chess world champion, you have to beat the reigning world champion in a match over 12 games and potentially (if the score is 6-6) additional tie-break games. The next match will be in 2018. Rules for this FIDE World Championship Match are found in the FIDE Handbook

In order to qualify for this match for the world championship you have to win the Candidates Tournament. The following qualify for the next Candidates Tournament according to the FIDE Rules and Regulations:

Sergey Karjakin (as runner-up of the previous WC match),
the first two of the FIDE World Cup 2017,
the first two of the FIDE Grand Prix 2017,
the two highest rated players who are not otherwise qualified and who have participated in the FIDE World Cup or FIDE Grand Prix
one player nominated by the organizer with a rating of at least 2725 in 2017

Some more detail regarding the Candidate tournament you can find in this question and answers

What is the quickest way to the Candidate tournament?

If you are just starting out with chess, it will take you many years to reach a level of 2725 (required for the organizer wildcard) or of being among the highest rated players not qualified otherwise (which would be in the 2800 range).

Qualification for the FIDE Grand Prix is also aimed at top level players. If you are interested you can read about it here

There are many ways to get to the FIDE World Cup (see here) including winning continental championships. If you are from a part of the world where chess is not all that popular, qualifying as IM is not impossible. In any case this seems to be the easiest route for getting to the Candidates Tournament.


Why is the Advance Variation considered strong vs the Caro-Kann but not vs the Scandinavian? As title above, why is the Advance Variation in these recent years considered strong vs the Caro-Kann, especially owing to White's early space advantage in the center, but not vs the Scandinavian? In other words, the Advance Variation (especially the so-called Short System, with Nf3, Be2 etc.) is considered a strong way to fight the Caro-Kann. On the other side, after 1.e4 d5, the move 2.e5 is considered weak (or even a mistake) because Black can develop his Bishop to f5, obtaining a "better" version of the Advance French. But isn't the structure with ...Bf5 then very similar to the Advance Caro-Kann (which is considered strong)?

Against a white d4-e5 pawn formation, Black wants to play c5 (see e.g. the French opening). In the Caro-Kann, that will cost two moves (c7-c6-c5), while in the Scandinavian, it's only one move since the pawn is still on c7. That's one tempo, and as @Qudit notes in the comments, in the main line Scandinavian White usually wins a tempo by chasing the black queen around. So it's actually a difference of two tempi, which makes a huge difference, as is often the case in (semi-)open games.


What kind of checkmate pattern is this? I played this game and was wondering, is this a checkmate pattern with a name?

No, it does not have a name. For a list of the names of most common patterns, Wikipedia has a good article here.


Can anyone explain why Re7 is one of the lines suggested by the computer? I was analyzing a game and got stuck in this position by Re7 move. I do not want to mention the player's name. As seen in the diagram Bc5 is misleading, but Bd6 is one of the lines. Bd6 is OK, but Re7 seems inexplicable to me. Please anyone can explain??

Protecting bishop for case Ne4 Nxe4 dxe4 and having f7 covered is also useful. Calm position, no need to hurry.


Does this opening have a name? 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 I've stumbled upon this opening a few times, and I'm pretty sure it must be known, but I couldn't find the name of it in my book:

[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. d4 ...

Is someone familiar with that opening? If this is a common opening, I'd appreciate if you could point me to its pros/cons.

I'm not a pro and still learning chess gradually. Is this an opening in which I should consider progressing?

It is a Scotch Game. It was played a lot more in the 19th century than in the 20th or early 21st.

"Nowadays," it is considered to be too "easy" on Black, because it offers the early exchange of a pair of pawns and knights, thereby freeing Black's game. Also, the White queen ends up in the middle of the board, where it might end up being chased by Black's pieces.

White does have a microscopic advantage in ending up with a king pawn in the center. Also, the queen in the middle of the board hampers the development of Black's kingside.

For those who like to develop queens early, this is a good game. The exchange of one pair each of knights and pawns greatly reduces the chances of the white queen's being trapped.

What is the best way to free your queen as soon as possible?


Checkmate in 7 moves? In the below chess position, the chess.com computer analysis says that there is a checkmate in 7 moves for Black, but I can't find the way. Can you help me find the solution? White's last move was Rxe7, which chess.com says is a blunder, allowing for the mate in 7.

Here is a solution to your question, since you changed the position, with the lines being on a board.

   [FEN "3r2k1/p3Rp1p/6p1/8/3nbP2/P1r3P1/P6P/2B1KR2 b - - 0 1"]

    1... Rxc1+ 2. Kd2 (2. Kf2 Rc2+ 3. Ke1 Nf3+ 4. Rxf3 Bxf3 5. Re8+ Rxe8+ 6. Kf1 Ree2 7. a4 Rc1#) 2... Rc2+ 3. Ke1 (3. Kd1 Nf3+ 4. Rd7 Rxd7#) 3... Nf3+ 4. Rxf3 Bxf3 5. Re8+ Rxe8+ 6. Kf1 Bg2+ 7. Kg1 Re1#


Analysis of a middlegame out of the Queen's Pawn Game: Zukertort Variation What positional considerations must be made in order to come up with a plan for White in this position?
What are the ideas behind the central squares and weaknesses that must be analyzed for both sides?

Position:

 r2q1rk1/1b1nbppp/pp2pn2/2p5/2PP4/2NBBN1P/PP3PP1/R2Q1RK1 w - - 3 12

The position is basically still quite equal, although black has a tiny bit less space to maneuver, so the first order of the day is to develop the Qd1, and bring the rooks to the center. The position is still VERY fluid in the center, so it is impossible to say about one plan that "this is THE plan". Also, a fluid center makes it very hard to develop a kingside attack, even though you have some pieces that are aimed that way.

After developing the queen and rooks, you should either look to double rooks on the d-file, or you may try to expand on the queenside with a3, and b4...if possible. This is hard right now because it may leave c4 very weak, which is why in the main line below, I played b3 instead. You need to watch out for b5 in any similar opening because the Nc3 now hangs.

Another idea is to try to occupy the outpost on e5 with a piece. That is impossible now, but depending on how black plays, it might be possible. That plan is not going to be 100% effective because black can always play c5xd4, reducing white's influence on e5.

Other than development, your main plan is mostly prophylaxis. Black is trying to trade down some to gain breathing room, so you want to play moves that make that tougher to trade pieces, or at least trade fewer pieces. With the potential for open files on the d-file, and e-file (if you played d5, which is another move both sides need to consider on every move for now), it is likely that at least one set of rooks will come off the board. You do not want to trade because you have more good squares for your pieces, and thus, more room to maneuver.

Here is a sample line that white was successful in finishing development, and limiting trades...for now. Now that d5 is no longer possible, black will reposition the Re8 and try to trade material down the d-file. It is still equal per the computer. There are many more lines, and possibilities at this early stage, but hopefully, I have given you enough ideas on how to adapt to any other changes black's play throws at you.

In the end, I suspect that if you have any advantage, it may be a slight endgame advantage where you get one rook on the open d-file, and maybe a minor piece each left...the file being the major plus, along with b6/a6 being targets.

 [FEN "r2q1rk1/1b1nbppp/pp2pn2/2p5/2PP4/2NBBN1P/PP3PP1/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Qe2 Qc7 2. Rad1 Rac8 (2... Rfd8 {Getting ready to immediately liquidate the center is also possible.} 3. d5 $6 exd5 4. cxd5 b5 $15) 3. Rfe1 Rfe8 {This anticipates d5 prophylactically.} (3... Rfd8 4. d5 exd5 5. Nxd5 Bxd5 $1 6. cxd5 b5 $11) 4. b3 (4. dxc5 $6 Nxc5 5. Bc2 Ncd7 $1 6. Nd2 (6. b3 b5 $1 $17) 6... Ne5 7. Na4 b5 8. Nb6) 4... cxd4 (4... b5 $6 5. cxb5 cxd4 6. Bxd4 $16) 5. Bxd4 h6 {But with some play for both sides}


Recording games on the Play Magnus app I've downloaded the Play Magnus app, and want to record the games (the PGN) I play. There is an option like 'Export game as PGN'(something like that) which allows me to copy the PGN to the clipboard while the game is in progress, but I don't seem to be able to save the PGN of the completed game since a different screen comes up. Can someone help me figure out how to copy the PGN of the completed game?

Unless I'm misinterpreting the question, this should be possible:

As soon as the game ends (e.g. "You defeated Magnus!" appears at the bottom, if you win for instance), don't click the arrow at the bottom (this is what I assume is the different screen that comes up) but instead click the list icon in the top right corner. Click "Export game as PGN-File" and the completed game should be copied to the clipboard.


Can you help me with this serieshelpmate problem? I found a different kind of problem, a serieshelpmate. I'm trying to get better by thinking outside of the box and solving different types of puzzles. So I found this one but I'm kind of stuck.
[FEN "1q4Nr/4K2k/8/8/8/8/1R6/8 w - - 0 1"]

Now, Black makes 5 legal moves without a reply from White. After that White gives a mate in 1. How? I am familiar with the rook and knight mate but I just can't see it.
(@NoamElkies found the source, with solution: Robert Pye, Irish Chess Union, November 2018)

I found the solution by noting that

 the rook can cover either one column or row
 the knight already covers f6 and h6, so it's logical to let the rook take care of the g-file
 we need the other black pieces to block the king's escape (but not being able to interpose a check by the rook)

It turns out that this sequence works:

 1... Kg7 2... Rh1 3... Qh2 4... Qh8 5... Rh7 6. Rg2#

You can test it in the Replayer Sandbox; it supports null moves.


What is the origin/history of the traditional piece values? Almost everyone knows the standard rules of thumb: a minor piece is worth three pawns, a rook is worth five pawns, and a queen is worth nine. (I’m aware that this is debated; in particular many theorists think the exchange is worth less than two pawns, but at any rate this is the most famous and well known set of values).

When were these consensus material values first stated? Who came up with them, and how?

In Claude Shannon's paper of 1949, he quotes those values as part of his evaluation function:

  Most of the maxims and principles of correct play are really assertions about evaluating positions, for example: -

  (1) The relative values of queen, rook, bishop, knight and pawn are about 9, 5, 3, 3, 1, respectively. Thus other things being equal (!) if we add the numbers of pieces for the two sides with these coefficients, the side with the largest total has the better position.

  (2) Rooks should be placed on open files. This is part of a more general principle that the side with the greater mobility, other things equal, has the better game.

  (3) Backward, isolated and doubled pawns are weak.

  (4) An exposed king is a weakness (until the end game).

  These and similar principles are only generalizations from empirical evidence of numerous games, and only have a kind of statistical validity. Probably any chess principle can be contradicted by particular counter examples. However, form these principles one can construct a crude evaluation function. The following is an example: -

  f(P) = 200(K-K') + 9(Q-Q') + 5(R-R') + 3(B-B'+N-N') + (P-P')
      - 0.5(D-D'+S-S'+I-I') + 0.1(M-M') + ...

He doesn't cite an explicit reference for these values, but appears to treat them as well-known.  He does cite three obviously chess-related books published from 1937 onwards.

However, Nimzowitsch's My System was first published in 1925, and it is not immediately obvious that specific relative values are assigned to pieces; a text search for "piece value" yields only oblique references to the idea that a rook is so much more valuable than a pawn that the former should not be tied down to defend the latter.  With that said, My System is a textbook about positional play, so could be said to have moved beyond simple material analysis.

Also first published in 1925 was Lasker's Manual of Chess, which starts from the very basics - the form of the board and the rules of moving pieces.  Here, we do find a numerical description of piece value, near the end of the "first book":

  We rivet our attention on the games of the experienced […] and among them certain regularities show very plainly.  […]  Hence, we know that ceteris paribus (all else being equal) knight and bishop are even, either is ceteris paribus worth three pawns, rook ceteris paribus as strong as knight or bishop and two pawns, queen very nearly as strong as two rooks or three minor pieces.

From this prose, we can extract B=N=3, R=5, Q is a little less than 10 (2xR) or 9 (3xB/N).

He then goes on to point out some situations where the qualification ceteris paribus is most definitely not true.  But again, it is not immediately clear from the text whether Lasker was the first to explicitly write these values down, or whether he himself learned them from elsewhere.

A subsequent answer notes that Staunton published a similar set of values in 1847, but essentially quotes Q=10 instead of Shannon's value of 9; these values in turn appear to have been established even earlier.  So we can see that Lasker may have obtained these piece values from Staunton (a very influential figure in chess, so Lasker would certainly have read him) and, before writing his own chess manual three-quarters of a century later, revised them based on his own experience.

It appears that Lasker revised his own values yet again for a later 1947 work, to values somewhat different from Shannon's: B=N=3.5, R=5, Q=8.5.

It is also worth noting that modern chess engines sometimes choose a different set of values entirely, especially when they are self-optimised.  Stockfish uses N=4.16, B=4.41, R=6.625, Q=12.92, which roughly corresponds to devaluing an individual pawn more than anything else.  Nevertheless, the "standard" values appear to have remained reasonably stable through the late 19th century and most of the 20th.


Is there a software that analyses games through voice, telling you about moves and what you should have done, like Power Chess 98? Almost 20 years ago there was a game called Power Chess 98 from Sierra. After every game you played, this sensual voice would analyze move by move telling you what you should have done, etc. It was the best way to learn chess in my opinion.

So my question is: Is there a software/game that has this feature, in other words, a post-game analysis through voice not text?

I don't want to read the analyses, I want to hear it as the pieces are moved in the board, after the game is over of course.

Ubisoft's Chessmaster: Grandmaster edition does that
Using the Mentor > Game Analysis... functionality gives the spoken annotation requirement.
For the example below I went to the Academy section and chose a game from the Database. Then this was sent to the Training mode. Lastly, I used the Mentor menu at the top to analyse the game.
The annotations are narrated by Denny Delk in Chessmaster:

Q: Whose voices are used in Chessmaster?
A: The voice used for Chessmaster (annotation, analysis, and moves) belongs to Denny Delk. The voice for illegal move commentary is Jeanne Reynolds. Their voices have been featured in Chessmaster for several years... since Chessmaster 6000.

Source: Ubi.com
Would I recommend the functionality?
No, I would not recommend this functionality of the software, because the annotations are not very insightful in my opinion. I've taken sample commentary in the game below:
[FEN ""]
[Event "Hoogovens II"]
[Site "Lone Pine, CA USA"]
[Date "1975.01"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Böhm, H"]
[Black "Timman, Ton"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "c) U"]
[WhiteELO "2300"]
[BlackELO "2385"]
[WhiteCountry "NED"]
[BlackCountry "NED"]

  1. c3 {A00 Saragossa Opening. A rather passive treatment by White, planning a solid strategy of controlling d4.} f5            {A00 Saragossa Opening. There is some game reference in literature to this position, but it is most unconvincing. The players of the Black pieces were universally the better players, and as the positions evolved, the better player won. Objectively you'd have to say that Black was a bit better even here.}
  2. d4  {Out of Opening Book. f4 would have been in the Saragossa Opening opening line.} Nf6
  3. Bg5            g6
  4. Bxf6 {Pins Black's pawn at e7 with a partial pin and attacks Black's rook at h8.} exf6 {Removes the threat on Black's rook at h8. Black wins a bishop for a knight. Material is even.}
  5. e3             d5
  6. h4             h5
  7. Nh3            Bd6           {Enables the short castle.}
  8. g3             c6
  9. Nf4 {Attacks Black's pawn at g6 and blocks Black's pawn at f5.} Kf7           {Removes the threat on Black's pawn at g6.}
 10. Nd2            Nd7
 11. Bd3 {Clears the way for a kingside castle.} Nf8
 12. c4             dxc4          {Threatens White's bishop.}
 13. Bxc4+ {Checks Black's king. White wins a pawn for a pawn. Material is even.} Kg7 {Moves it out of check.}
 14. Qb3 {Clears the way for a queenside castle.} Qe7
 15. a4             a5
 16. d5             Rb8
 17. O-O            b5            {Slightly better is g5.}
 18. axb5 {Removes the threat on White's bishop, threatens Black's pawn at a5, and isolates Black's pawn at c6 and Black's pawn at a5.} cxb5 {Attacks White's bishop. Black wins a pawn for a pawn. Material is even.}
 19. Bd3 {Slightly better is Bxb5.} a4 {Moves it out of immediate jeopardy and attacks White's queen.}
 20. Qd1 {Moves it to safety.} Bxf4
 21. exf4 {White wins a bishop for a knight. Material is even.} Qd6           {Threatens White's pawn at d5 and blocks White's pawn at d5.}
 22. Qf3            {Removes the threat on White's pawn at d5.} Nd7           {Takes the knight away from the edge of the board.}
 23. Rac1           Nc5
 24. Bb1            Bd7           {Slightly better is Bb7.}
 25. Ba2            Rhe8          {Takes control of the open file.}
 26. Rfe1           Rxe1+         {Forks White's king and White's rook at c1. Black wins a rook. Black is ahead by a rook in material. The game ends in a draw.}
 1/2-1/2

I've never found comments such as "Slightly better is g5" to help in my training.
This is partly because computers are better at pointing out variations (the answer to "what should I have played?") as opposed to natural language descriptions (the answer to "why should I play that?").
This sentiment is also shared by Boris Spassky

From computers you need variations. The evaluation you need to forget.

Source: Attributed to Boris Spassky in The Wisest Things Ever Said About Chess, authored by GM Soltis


Team League North America In Europe, each country organizes a team league, which are known highly competitive like Bundesliga in Germany or Top 12 in France as an example.

Is there similar competition in North America (Canada, US) inside the states?

Yes there is a chess league in the US, but it does not have the sponsorship you see in Europe. Check the USCF website, and this more specific site http://uschessleague.com/


What are the percentage rates for each promotion type? I could not find the database which has this, but I would like to know what percentage of promoted pawns ends up being a queen, rook, bishop, or knight

Here are the percentages for each promotion type according to different sources:
|Promotion type  | ChessBase | TWIC | ICCF |
--------------------------------------------
| Queen          |      96.9 | 97.3 | 96.1 |
| Rook           |       1.1 |  1.1 |  1.7 |
| Knight         |       1.8 |  1.3 |  1.7 |
| Bishop         |       0.2 |  0.3 |  0.5 |

Details:

ChessBase: Percentages from 2006 ChessBase, with 3.2 million games, obtained from Wikipedia.
TWIC: Percentages calculated using my own script from 1.4 million games published in The Week In Chess, issues 920 (Jun. 25th, 2012) to 1358 (Nov. 16th, 2020).
ICCF: Percentages calculated using my own script from 0.8 million games made available by the International Correspondence Chess Federation, from the 1970s to 2018.


Why is offering draw not recorded but giving a check recorded? In recording a game, one typically does not record offering draws (if yes, how and is it required?) while one does indicate that a particular move gives a check by using + (or ++ for double checks).

I am wondering if this is logical. In fact, it is not difficult to tell whether a move gives a check (or a double check) or not but once a draw offer is not recorded, it is virtually impossible to know it by reading the moves.

Both recording checks and draw offers are personal preference, and neither is required in your notation.

I actually do record both checks as "+" or "++", and draw offers as "(d)". I know I am not the only one to note draw offers as I have friends, who do the same. I also record times.

The purpose of the notation is so you, or the arbiter, can play back over the game, and neither notation addition is really relevant for that purpose. I just like to know for my own edification if I go back later.

FIDE rules actually reference draw offers.

  8.1b The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, the times of the clocks, offers of a draw, matters relating to a claim and
  other relevant data.


Rating rise: luck or actual increase in playing strength? The FIDE rating of very active chess players can vary a lot: rating fluctuations of 50 rating points are not unusual.

Is there a way to distinguish whether a rating rise/drop can be explained by random factors, e.g. "(bad) luck", being "in/out form", etc..., or an actual increase/decrease in playing strength?

Does it make sense to say "a rating increase of X over minimum Y games is statistically significant"? If yes, what is the value of X and Y?

Is there a way to distinguish whether a rating rise/drop can be
  explained by random factors, e.g. "(bad) luck", being "in/out form",
  etc..., or an actual increase/decrease in playing strength?

No, would be my answer, at least there is no easy way to distinguish.

The problem is that there are very many factors affecting ratings.

For instance, about 5 years ago FIDE changed the system. I'm not sure if it was lowering the minimum rating, changing the k factors or a combination of these but the net effect was a rating deflation. Talking to a range of players it seems that there was an influx of very underrated juniors into the system. One disgruntled player complained of losing or drawing to juniors who were, in his opinion, as much as 400 points underrated.

Over the following 2 years I noticed a 150 point drop in my rating and anecdotal evidence is that many other older players who have had stable ratings for many years noticed the same kind of drop. Over the last year these same players have reported that their ratings are rising back towards their old averages and attribute this to the system regarding rating of junior players (perhaps with their higher k value) as "settling down". I have to admit I haven't noticed this effect yet ;-), but then I played very few games in the last year. I hope this means I have something to look forward to if I go back to playing a lot more games!

You can also have anomalies due to the average strength of the players you play against. If you play a lot of players who are much, much weaker or much, much stronger than you then this can also distort your rating due to the way they are calculated.

Finally, I would just add that FIDE only attempts to measure my rating "sitting down". My rating "standing up" is at least 300 points higher ;-).


Why are three chess sets needed for Kriegspiel and dark chess? Wikipedia states that three chess sets are needed for Kriegspiel and dark chess. Is that actually true? I can see how having three sets would make things a lot easier, but couldn't the referee simply reconcile the two sets directly, without using a third set? Or am I missing something?

Are three chess sets strictly required in order to play Kriegspeil and dark chess (without having to keep permanent track of the game state in anyone's head)?

I've never actually played Kriegspiel, but I've read a bit about it, and after what I understand it would be like this:

At a very minimum, two boards and one set of pieces are required. As the players only have access to the pieces of their own color, both players can share one set of pieces. However, they need a board each.

However, unless the referee is a very good player, he will probably have trouble detecting everything if he has to look back and forth between the two boards. Therefore, it's better he has his own with all the pieces on it. That adds up to three boards and two sets of pieces.

I can't see any reason to introduce a third set of pieces.


Starting positions in Chess960 where black is definitely worse In article in wiki about chess960, it is stated that:

  It has been argued that two games should be played from each starting
  position, with players alternating as White and Black, since some
  initial positions may offer White a bigger advantage than in standard
  chess. For example, in some Chess960 starting positions White can
  attack an unprotected black pawn after the first move, whereas in
  standard chess it takes two turns for White to attack and there are no
  unprotected pawns

But what are these positions? Is there a comprehensive study of some of them?

I asked myself the same question a year ago.

I found this interesting page: http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/404FRC/opening_report_by_white_score.html#table_start

With statistics for every 960 positions based on 144,300 games played by 123 engines.

Apparently the position that gives the biggest advantage to White is RKNQBBNR with a White score of 63.9%.

Note that on the previous page the standard position has a White score of 56.0%. I once read that the true White score in standard chess is 55.5% for GM games. Since these two numbers are pretty close it would seem that the statistics of the previous page are meaningful and pretty accurate.

Also, someone once told me that if we just inverted Knights and Rooks then White would have a big advantage: NRBQKBRN.
But the previous page actually says that White only scores 47.4% in that position, so maybe he was wrong.

Anyway, I seriously doubt there exists a position where White has an advantage of +0.50 or more. And every single one of the 960 positions are very probably just draws with best play.


Emanuel Lasker and Psychology I have heard many people saying that Lasker used psychology to win. But I have also read a Wikipedia page mentioning recent researches refuting this belief and justifying Lasker's tactics to be quite ahead of his time and something laden with a hidden master plan. I need to know if there exists any such analysis which is available online so that we can know the truth ?

We can't know the truth. Lasker is dead and he's the only one who knows if he really played like that intentionally. We can create an absolutely perfect analysis of his games and still never know if he intentionally played a bad move that happened to work out in a particular game or whether he just made a mistake and didn't get punished for it.

Good moves will beat psychology every time, but even so there exists ample evidence to support the idea that sometimes moves that are less than perfect will win games because they fit in with the psychological moment.

My own opinion? I think Reti invented that as an excuse to cover the fact Lasker was making moves he (Reti) couldn't fathom. Not that Lasker never played the man instead of the board, but that he didn't do it as often as Reti would like us to think he did.


What if you messed up your notation a lot? While playing in an OTB game where both players take notation, it's not uncommon for people to make a mistake here and there. Is there any rule regarding having a lot of mistakes? Furthermore, what if you deliberately make mistakes such as writing in a random move every turn? Is there any penalty for doing this? Perhaps there's a difference between USCF and FIDE rules.

Is there any rule regarding having a lot of mistakes? Furthermore,
what if you deliberately make mistakes such as writing in a random
move every turn?

There is no obvious rule against this. The obvious place to start for FIDE is article 8.1.1:

Article 8: The recording of the moves
8.1.1 In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix C), on the ‘scoresheet’ prescribed for the competition.

You must write the moves down but there is no obvious penalty for mistakes, deliberate or otherwise. Which begs the question - Why bother? Why bother writing the moves down at all let alone why try and not make mistakes?
Well, that is answered obliquely in Appendix C:

Appendix C. Algebraic notation
FIDE recognises for its own tournaments and matches only one system of notation, the Algebraic System, and recommends the use of this uniform chess notation also for chess literature and periodicals. Scoresheets using a notation system other than algebraic may not be used as evidence in cases where normally the scoresheet of a player is used for that purpose. An arbiter who observes that a player is using a notation system other than the algebraic should warn the player of this requirement.

Makes sense. If your scoresheet is needed to settle a dispute or make a claim and it isn't suitable (either because you used the wrong notation or it can't be read) then your claim is likely to fail.
Two examples:

9.2.1 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, when the same position for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):
9.2.1.1   is about to appear, if he first writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move

and

9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, if:
9.3.1 he writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move which will result in the last 50 moves by each player having been made without the movement of any pawn and without any capture

If you don't have a legible, correct scoresheet then you can't demonstrate a 3 fold repetition or 50 moves without a capture or pawn move for a 50 move draw claim.