What are some stronger moves I can play next time in the King's Indian Defense?

won that game, but I feel like I got lucky. I blundered in this game. I feel that letting white capture my rook on a8 was a blunder

Everything you said was correct.

  Also what if white captured g4 then I have to capture e4 with my knight. White then captures my rook at a8. I don't see any compensation for black for the lost of material.

Again, I agree with your conclusion.

  I also don't see how to continue the attack through this variation.

You can't, because White plays Rc7 and keeps everything under control. Even if you "get" classical ...Bh3 sacrifice he will have Rxc7+ in that setup and your attack is dead. Bishops and knight will easily repel your minor pieces, not to mention that extra rook...
Since it was long time since I played actively KID ( both as Black and White ), I had to check theory as well. You missed the key move 19...Nd7! which stops White queenside action in its tracks, in my opinion. This is also the move theory recommends.

  What could I have done better as black against my opponent?

I think your first mistake, and very serious one, was 19...Bd7?!. I would simply follow theory and respond with 19...Nd7!, stopping White's shenanigans at queenside. His attack is severely slowed down, while you can continue the attack with ...h5. This is the only important moment you can use in this game to improve.

Aside from that, you made some serious blunders he could have exploited. After he took the rook the game was over, but you managed to "come back". In many occasions you gave him a chance for turnover, which is a result of poor combinational skill. You need to practice more, especially when you play this opening, and especially when you play this line. Tactics is everything for Black here! See the comments in the game below to see all the mistakes and suggested improvements.

[Title "Game analysis"]
[fen ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 e5 7.O-O Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.Ne1 Nd7 10.Be3 f5 11.f3 f4 12.Bf2 g5 13.b4 Nf6 14.c5 Ng6 15.cxd6 cxd6 16.Rc1 Rf7 17.Nb5?! ( 17.a4!? ) 17...a6 18.Nc3 Bf8 19.Na4 Bd7?! ( 19...Nd7!? ) 20.Nb6 g4? ( 20...Rb8!?+/= ) 21.Nxa8+- g3? ( 21...Qxa8 22.Rc7+- ) 22.hxg3 ( 22.Nc7!? gxf2+ 23.Rxf2) 22...fxg3 23.Bxg3 Nh5 24.Bf2 ( 24.Bh2!? Bh6 25.f4 Nhxf4 26.Bxf4+- ) 24...Ngf4 25.Nb6 Rg7 26.Nxd7?? ( 26.g4!+- Nh3+ 27.Kh1 Nxf2+ 28.Rxf2 Qxb6 29.Rh2 ) 26...Qxd7?? ( 26...Rxg2+! $8 27.Nxg2 Qg5-+ ) 27.Kh2?? ( 27.g4!+- ) 27...Nxg2?? ( 27...Rxg2!+ $8 28.Nxg2 Qh3+ 29.Kg1 Qxg2# ) 28.Nxg2?? ( 28.Rc7!! Qc7 29.Nxg2+- ) 28...Rxg2+ 29.Kxg2 Nf4+ 30.Kg1 Qh3 0-1

  What are some key ideas in the King's Indian Defense that I missed in this game?

You missed nothing, push ...f5 -> deliver checkmate or die. The concept is easy to grasp :)

The only time you sidestep this pattern is in Yugoslav attack, but that is a different story ( White there goes for fianchetto with g3 + Bg2 ). In that case you prepare exchange sacrifice with ...Rxb2!, but this is off-topic here. If you need further questions about this line post them as a new question.

  What concepts should I grasp from this game I played to become a better chess player and better using the King's Indian Defense?

You can't play this line unprepared, you must know theory of this line very well.

This line is so forced that one wrong move will cost you the game. Already after 19...Bd7?! White stood better! You had no counterplay after that, and if you played ...Rb8 he could simply take your light-squared bishop and destroy every mean of counterplay you have ( the point of this line is to sacrifice that bishop for h3 pawn ). Without your key attacker, your attack would be dead, while he would first bolster his kingside, and then demolish you on the queenside, since you would have no natural kingside counterplay.

Second thing, your tactical skill must be very high, because this line relies solely on that. There are no "hidden gems" it is raw and simple -> mate or die. You missed several times clean win which gave him the chance to win the game. I hope you will understand just how devastating blunders, or even imprecise moves, can be in this line, so please sharpen your tactical skill.

Third, play "clean chess". After 27.Kh2?? you had "clean victory" with 27...Rxg2+! 28.Nxg2 Qh3+ 29.Kg1 Qxg2# yet you decided to complicate with 27...Nxg2?? after which he could have won the game with 28.Rc7!!. Always aim to destroy opponent's counterplay, especially in these positions. If you have a queen and pawn versus rook, give the queen for the rook and win simple pawn endgame. In this opening, and in this mainline, there is always venom in position and "playing with fire" can backfire, in view of you stalemating the opponent or not seeing some cheap tactics. If you have a forced win, then by all means, win by force!

  When is it the right time to give up the rook on a8 for an attack on the king side?

Only if you are certain that your attack is so strong that it will at least get you perpetual check or will win you back the material. Other than that, forget it!

SUMMARY:

Well played, keep sharpening your tactical skill and learn theory to the last book move. Always aim to win the easiest way because this line is minefield and you never know when you will allow your opponent to play some crazy intermediate move that will give him magnificent comeback ( or maybe you will blunder a cheap tactical shot ).

If you have further questions leave a comment. Best regards.


Eduard Gufeld was a Ukrainian Grandmaster, who died in 2002. He was a noted expert on the King’s Indian Defense, and wrote two books on it. He won many brilliant games with the KID, and the “Gufeld Bishop” was when the Bg7 came alive, and got great scope, on the a1-h8 diagonal to become a “monster” piece (one that dominated the board, and was hard to oppose)…often on d4.

Here are references to the naming of the Bg7 as the “Gufeld Bishop”.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/chess/article756910/

http://www.debestezet.nl/catalog/images/PDF/Art%20of%20the%20kings.pdf

http://seagaard.dk/review/eng/bo_misc/ba_the_search_for_mona_lisa.asp?katid=bo&productid=1..

Now, here are a few games with the “Gufeld Bishop” in action.

In the first, Gufeld, uses a nice tactic to come to d4.

 [Event "Kiev Avantgard-ch"]
 [Site "Kiev"]
 [Date "1960.??.??"]
 [Round "3"]
 [White "Sakhanovich, YV."]
 [Black "Gufeld, Eduard"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [ECO "E82"]
 [PlyCount "48"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3 O-O 6. Be3 b6 7. Qd2 c5 8. d5 Re8 9. Bd3 e6 10. Nge2 a6 11. a4 exd5 12. exd5 Nbd7 13. O-O Ne5 14. Ng3 Nxd3 15. Qxd3 Ng4 16. Bf4 (16. fxg4 Rxe3 17. Qxe3 $4 Bd4) 16... Bd4+ 17. Kh1 Nxh2 $1 18. Nge4 (18. Kxh2 Qh4#) 18... Nxf1 19. Rxf1 Qh4+ 20. Bh2 Bf5 21. Qd2 Bxe4 22. Nxe4 Rxe4 23. fxe4 Be5 24. g4 Re8 {And after black trades everything off on h2, Re4 will leave black up two pawns, and more will follow.} 0-1

In the second, the Bishop is unopposed, and when black finally rips open the f-file, it is the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

 [Event "Goodricke op 03rd"]
 [Site "Kolkata"]
 [Date "1992.??.??"]
 [Round "2"]
 [White "Agarwal, Brajesh"]
 [Black "Gufeld, Eduard"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [ECO "E84"]
 [WhiteElo "2260"]
 [BlackElo "2490"]
 [PlyCount "44"]
 [EventDate "1992.01.??"]
 [EventType "swiss"]
 [EventRounds "11"]
 [EventCountry "IND"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 O-O 5. Be3 d6 6. f3 Nc6 7. Nge2 a6 8. Qd2 Rb8 9. g4 b5 10. Ng3 e5 11. d5 Nd4 12. Bxd4 exd4 13. Nce2 d3 14. Qxd3 bxc4 15. Qd2 Nxg4 16. fxg4 Rxb2 17. Qf4 Rxe2+ 18. Bxe2 Bxa1 19. Bxc4 Bc3+ 20. Kf2 Be5 21. Qf3 Qh4 22. Be2 f5 0-1

And in the last, he used the nice tactic with e4, then maneuver Ba4, pinning the Nb3 to the queen, so he could trade it off, and gain control of d4 again.

 [Event "Tbilisi"]
 [Site "Tbilisi"]
 [Date "1985.??.??"]
 [Round "?"]
 [White "Azmaiparashvili, Zurab"]
 [Black "Gufeld, Eduard"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [ECO "E94"]
 [WhiteElo "2460"]
 [BlackElo "2470"]
 [PlyCount "72"]
 [EventDate "1985.??.??"]
 [EventType "tourn"]
 [EventRounds "9"]
 [EventCountry "URS"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Be2 O-O 6. Nf3 e5 7. d5 Na6 8. O-O Nc5 9. Qc2 a5 10. Bg5 h6 11. Be3 b6 12. Nd2 Bg4 13. f3 Bd7 14. Rfe1 Nh5 15. g3 f5 16. exf5 gxf5 17. f4 Qe8 18. fxe5 dxe5 19. Bxc5 $6 {Gaining the pawn structure, but poorly judging how strong the Bg7 would become. King safety is always the number one priority in chess.} bxc5 20. Nb3 f4 21. Qd1 Nf6 22. Bd3 Ng4 23. Ne4 Qh5 24. Re2 f3 25. Rf2 Nxf2 26. Nxf2 e4 $1 27. Bxe4 Ba4 $1 {Gaining d4 permanently.} 28. d6 c6 29. Qd2 Bxb3 30. axb3 Bd4 31. Bxc6 Qh3 32. Bd5+ Rf7 33. Bxf3 (33. Bxf7+ $4 Kf8 $1 {And mate on g2 is unavoidable.}) 33... Rxf3 34. Qxd4 Rxg3+ (34...cxd4?? 35. Nxh3) 35. hxg3 Qxg3+ 36. Kh1 Qf3+ (36...cxd4? 37. Rg1 {Black still wins, but has to think about the passers...this is just easier.}) 0-1


Should the Laws of Chess have an overseeing board independent from FIDE?

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

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

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


Are there any current studies on the physical effects of playing chess?

I found a study from 2015 that seems to go into a lot of various aspects of chess and how it affects us physically.

"Biochemistry and Psychology of Chess and Classical Physical Exercise:Concurring or Conflicting Evidence?"

I am going to block-quote their "Abstract", which gives an overview, but you might want to read the full paper, which is only 10 pages long. It is fairly interesting.

  Abstract

  Chess is a competitive sport in the classical meaning of the word. One
  of the most important factors for chess and sport competence is the
  accumulated time of training. In order to obtain a high level of
  competence, chess layers and athletes alike must spend up 10 years of
  specific training.

  In chess and classical sport energy needed for brain activity is first
  derived from glycogen stores in brain, muscles and liver and later
  from adipose tissue. Both, chess and classical sport rely on shared
  energy from glycogen and fat.When  the  brain  needs  additional
  energy,  muscles  and  liver  share  energy  with  the  brain.  When
  muscles  need additional energy, brain complies with the request of
  muscles. Energy expenditure, O2 uptake and CO2 production during chess
  games are similar to those obtained during a marathon. Mental and
  physical fatigue begin with similar metabolic states: deprivation of
  glycogen. During competitive chess, athletes must be in good physical
  condition.

  Mental profiles of chess players and other athletes correlate with
  processes such as attention, conflict control,memory, motivation and
  recognition.

  In chess there exists no gender-specific excellence; glycogen
  availability, however, is less developed in female chess players.

  In chess and in classical sports, the brain, spinal cord, nerves and
  muscles cooperate in complete harmony. The brain commands everything:
  in chess the figures, in sport the cellular receptors (baro-,
  lactate-, gluco-, metabo-,chemo-, thermo-, respiratory-) “send”
  signals via eyes or metabolic changes to the brain. The brain then
  decides,what to do: in chess, the player moves a figure; in sports,
  muscles react according to demand.

  Physical exercise or chess must be defined by a motor activity
  completely controlled by the central nervous system (CNS) in
  combination with a specific competence. In chess as well as in
  physical exercise, physical stress prepares brain to cognitive
  stimulation.

  With respect to biochemical, physiological, neuronal and psychological
  aspects, chess is equals classical physical exercise and must be
  recognized as sport.

Here is another article, "7 Surprising Health Benefits of Playing Chess", that lists various benefits that can are certainly physically related, and cites the sources.


How important is castling? How much is it worth?

Yes there are some numbers that can (sort of) represent the value of castling.

If you let Stockfish or any other strong engine analyze the starting position, it will generally come to the conclusion that White has roughly a +0.50 advantage. But if you use an opening book (1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Rg1 Ng8 3. Rh1 Nf6 4. Ng1 Ng8 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Rb1 Ng8 7. Ra1 Nf6 8. Nb1 Ng8) which lets Black castle but not White, the advantage actually flips around, and the starting position advantages Black.

Check these games out:

Stockfish-Xiphos. The starting position, except White can't castle while Black can. Stockfish's starting eval at depth 31/48 is -0.20. (Yes Stockfish wins anyway, but it is Stockfish, the strongest conventional engine in the world, playing)
Xiphos-Stockfish. The reverse game. Xiphos plays 1. Nc3 evaluating the position as 0.00, while Stockfish is -0.84 at depth 36/52.
AllieStein-Stockfish. Played from the opening position with both sides able to castle. AllieStein gave 0.43 advantage to White at depth 18/57.
Stockfish-Alliestein. The reverse game, Stockfish gave White a 0.47 advantage in the opening position at depth 38/59.


Old Indian defense variation: 1. d4 d6 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 : how should White respond?

The best reply for white and most usual in that position is Nf3, just finishing development and trying to castle kingside.

A normal continuation could be :

 [FEN ""]
  1. d4 d6 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. Nf3 e5 5. e3 Bg4 6. Be2 Be7 7. O-O O-O *

Black should play e5 sooner or later or he will not gain control of the center and space for his pieces


This depends on the rules you are playing under:

In blitz chess with very short time control, an illegal move, such as putting your king into check, usually loses.

In Fide rated tournament games only the second illegal move loses, so he would just have to put the bishop back and make a different move with the bishop (such as taking your queen …).

In olden times there was the rule that you'd have to take back an illegal move and make a king move instead, as a way of punishment, because quite often making a king move would just be a loss of time.
I think this is a good compromise for casual games.

I remember an anecdote about this old rule:
Two masters were playing and after 2…Qd5 white wanted to attack the queen with 3.Nc3. But he fumbled the piece and played 3.Bc3 instead.

The king move punishment unfortunately led to immediate mate …

rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qd5 3.Ke2 Qe4#


After 1...Rxd5 2.cxd5, both queens are attacked. They either both get captured, or (if black moves his to safety) neither is. So black lost the exchange.
After 1...Qxd5 2.cxd5 Nxe2, white has lost a knight.
Cxd5 seems the better capture to me on general grounds (repairs white structure a bit, makes pawn c5 weaker) but that's far less important than the full rook difference between 1...Rxd5 and 1...Qxd5.


How to force the computer to play another move on Chess.com?

Judging from the position, you were not playing the strongest computer level. Weaker levels simulate human blunders by deliberately making weaker moves.

Why not just go back a move? There should be an undo button.


Are the best engines better than the best humans?

The engine alone is just one factor; the number of CPU's used, memory, etc. makes the engine stronger. The same engine on an Intel 286 will not be nearly as strong as on the Cray Titan supercomputer, for example.

Also, the number of cores makes a difference too. For example, Houdini 3 can take advantage of 32 cores if available. But from the list below, which gives the PC configuration along with the Elo rating, it is clear that the best engine on these PC's is even much stronger than the best chess players.

Houdini 3 64-bit 4CPU, 3254 Elo
Critter 1.6a 64-bit 4CPU, 3177 Elo
Rybka 4 64-bit 4CPU, 3168 Elo
Stockfish 2.2.2 64-bit 4CPU, 3167 Elo

(source)

This is why you do not see GM's play against computers any more (no GM wants to end up with 12-0 match result, even if it is against a computer).

So, yes, we humans are no match to computers in chess any more, it is a lost case. But we still have the game GO where humans are much stronger than computers (still). So it is not all lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Go

PS: I was sitting in the theater in London watching the game where Kasparov lost to the computer in the 25 minutes chess game, I think this was in 1996 or so. Kasparov was really upset after the game. He rushed out of the theater surrounded by 10 or so of his entourage, and he did not look happy at all. This was what, 15 years ago?, I took many pictures of the match, since this was the first time I saw Kasparov in person. Here are 2 pictures from my personal collection:

update:

I found 3 more pics that are better quality. Thought to post them. I think this event was the first time Kasparov lost to a computer in an official game. This was in 1994, not 1996. I found a newspaper reference to this event

"THE WRITING is on the board for human domination of chess after
 the world champion, Garry Kasparov, was knocked out in the first round
 of the Intel Grand Prix by Pentium Genius 2, a remarkable piece of software
 enhanced by a new super- fast processor.

 With each player restricted to 25 minutes' thinking time, the computer won
 the first game with 8 minutes to spare.....
 .....
 He stayed at the board this time, hitting his head and pulling at his hair...."

So these pics are from the above game !


Draws, castling rights, and the FIDE's 2014 rulebook revision

My interpretation of the rules (which in this aspect I believe to be correct) is the same as yours. Although the example you provide with castling rights is conceptually a little more challenging, the problem is exactly the same as the one arising when the "en passant" rule is allowed on the first move:

[Title "White to open, illustrating sect. 9.2"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[Result "1/2 - 1/2"]

1. e4 e5 2. d4 Nf6 3. d5 c5 {First time this position happens.} 4. Qf3 Ng8 5. Qd1 Nf6 {Second time this "position" happens, but now white cannot take the pawn en passant, thus making actually this the first time this position happens.} 6. Qf3 Ng8 7. Qd1 Nf6 {Second time this position happens. This is not yet a draw.} 8. Qf3 {EDIT: As the OP pointed out, technically this is the first time a threefold repetition occurs in the game.} Ng8 9. Qd1 Nf6 {Now this is a draw.} 1/2 - 1/2

However, nowadays the FIDE rules are very clear and misinterpretations on this subject should (fortunately) no longer be a problem. Article 9.2 now covers both cases, and reads:

  9.2
  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):

  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, or
  has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.

  Positions areconsidered the same if and only if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same. Thus positions are not the same if:

  at the start of the sequence a pawn could have been captured en passant.
  a king or rook had castling rights, but forfeited these after moving. The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved.

So, your (our) interpretation is the correct one, and there is no other possible alternative interpretation.


Representing Moves found via BitBoards, applying them, and removing them

This is a very deep subject, but here's a few basic thoughts that might get you going.

A bitboard consists of 64 bits. If you designate one corner of the board as the most-significant bit and the opposite corner as the least-significant bit, you can store a bitboard in a single 64-bit integer.

For example, suppose A1 is the LSB and H8 is the MSB. We will fill up the 64-bit integer moving left-to-right (A-to-H) and then down-to-up (1-to-8). Your sample turns into:

0000000000000000000000000100000000100000000000000010000001000000

and this 64-bit integer represents the possible "landing" locations of a knight located at A6. In C this could be stored like:

long long knight_a6 = 0x4020002040;

We can do this for every possible location of the knight, in the same order that we filled out the bitboard (left-to-right, down-to-up). In other words:

A1: 0000000000100000010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
A2: <bitboard for a knight at A2>
...
B1: <bitboard for a knight at B1>
...
H8: <bitboard for a knight at H8>

This will take up 64 entries * 64 bits each = 512 bytes of space. Now we can determine the possible landing locations of a knight at any location, just by looking at the corresponding entry in the table. In C it could look something like this:

long long knight[64] = { 0x0020400000000000,
                         <bitboard for a knight at A2>,
                         ... };
long long knight_a6 = knight[40]; /* A6 = index 40 */

These are all static bitboards: they're just there for your convenience when programming. But you'll probably also want some active bitboards that represent the state of the game. For example, you'll probably want a bitboard that represents where all the pieces are. At the start of the game ranks 1, 2, 7, and 8 are full, so the bitboard looks like this:

1111111111111111000000000000000000000000000000001111111111111111

Or in C:

long long game = 0xFFFF00000000FFFF;

So what can you do with bitboards? Well, for starters you can determine if a piece (say, a knight at A6) is attacking another piece. To do this you perform a logical AND between the game bitboard and the static bitboard for the attacking piece. Let's say the game looks like this:

00000000
00k00000
N0000000
00000000
00000000
00000000
00000000
000000K0

The white king is on G1, the white knight is on A6, and the black king is on C7. The game bitboard would look like this:

0000001000000000000000000000000000000000100000000010000000000000

Let's see if the white knight is putting the black king in check. First, we look up the white knight's "landing" bitboard as described earlier.

0000000000000000000000000100000000100000000000000010000001000000

Now we AND that bitboard together with our game bitboard.

    0000001000000000000000000000000000000000100000000010000000000000
AND 0000000000000000000000000100000000100000000000000010000001000000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010000000000000

The result is not all-zeroes, so the selected piece is attacking something. Here's it is in C:

long long game = 0x200000000802000;
long long attacker = knight[40]; /* A6 = index 40 */
if (game & attacker != 0)
{
  /* The knight at A6 is attacking something! */
}

The next step is to see what he's attacking. There are multiple ways to do this: you could see where the 1 appeared in the ANDed bitboard and find the corresponding square, or you could keep a bitboard for every different type of piece. Let's leave it at that for now though.

Next let's see how pieces can be moved. We'll remove the black king from the board for simplicity.

00000000
00000000
N0000000
00000000
00000000
00000000
00000000
000000K0

Bitboard: 0000001000000000000000000000000000000000100000000000000000000000

Looking at the knight's landing bitboard we can see there are four one's, so four possible moves. Let's take the first one - so we'll erase all the other zeroes in the bitboard for now.

0000000000000000000000000100000000000000000000000000000000000000

To move the knight, we erase him from the game bitboard, and then AND the game bitboard with the knight's move bitboard.

       0000001000000000000000000000000000000000100000000000000000000000
ERASE  0000000000000000000000000000000000000000100000000000000000000000
       ----------------------------------------------------------------
       0000001000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
OR     0000000000000000000000000100000000000000000000000000000000000000
       ----------------------------------------------------------------
       0000001000000000000000000100000000000000000000000000000000000000

The new gameboard looks like this:

00000000
00000000
00000000
00000000
0N000000
00000000
00000000
000000K0

Now, there are a lot of things brushed over in this answer:

How do you track what kind of piece is at each location?
How do you distinguish between white and black?
How do you distinguish between captures and normal moves?
How do you determine which squares are "shielded" behind another piece?
How do you handle pawns, which move in a different way than they capture?
How do you handle the initial pawn move and capture en passant?

Not all bitboards are the same, either. What if we filled out the bitboard in a fancier order than just going left-to-right, bottom-to-top? Maybe there's some other way to assign squares to bits that makes certain checks or moves faster. The way we've written it is just the simplest to picture.

Again, this is a very deep subject, but hopefully this at least explained some of the basics about how bitboards are used.


In which article did Nigel Short retract from having played online vs Fischer?

I thought it was in New In Chess where he was writing a column for a long time,
but according to chessbase.com it was in Telegraph:
https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-third-coming-of-bobby-fischer-


How is a player rated who has similar results against a wide range of players?

The Elo system treats every player as if his expected score against for example -200 -100 0 100 200 points stronger players would be 24 36 50 64 76 percent. If your real expected score deviates from this assumed distribution it just means that the Elo rating doesn't describe your strength very well.

In a way that is actually the norm and the culprit is the huge drawing range in chess. Stronger players on average slightly underperform against weaker opposition afaik, because drawing with white is just a little too easy.

In your special case the players rating would fluctuate depending on his opposition without his actual strength changing all that much. If he manages to get a steady diet of 1800-2000 opponents his rating would rise above 1800, if his opponents are between 1600 and 1700, his rating would stay in that range.

This doesn't actually mean much and it isn't particularly unusual. It's only relevant in team matches or if you need to maximise your rating to be eligible for titles or something.


What's PlayMagnus age 10 Magnus' true elo?

It's important to note the PlayMagnus app is running the Glaurung chess engine. The Glaurung chess engine is the forerunner of Stockfish. It's roughly about the same level as Shredder/Junior (link), both former winners in the computer chess championships. Very far away from the modern Stockfish but also far stronger than your chess.com's rating. You won't stand a chance unless the engine artificially plays bad chess. Unfortunately, there is no good way to make an engine play weaker while human-style chess. Lot's of different techniques, but nothing is satisfactory.
However, the PlayMagnus group has professional chess programmers working full-time to tune the engine for each age group. While I don't know their internal benchmark, the fact that they're pushing the app out means they're satisfied with the performance. Magnus Carlsen at age 10 was about ELO 2000 (from Wikipedia), so that'd be the target ELO. A tuned-down engine will not be playing consistently at human-level ELO 2000, but it should be closed given after so many years of professional development.
A very roughly ELO 2000+ (computer engines tend to biased up) is what you should expect. That's consistent with your observations.


Once you provide the email file to Cmail/XBoard, you need to switch to 'Edit Game' mode, in the Mode menu in order to record a move. Also, I had to switch out of 'Edit Game' mode in order to mail the move.


Is my positional pawn sacrifice justified?

Word of advice regarding the screenshot of lichess you had posted in the OP: Whenever you're checking with an engine, try to limit the number of best variations to 1-2 lines, as the more variations you choose the more distributed the allocated resources of the engine become and the less accurate the displayed evaluation.

Black here is clearly better thanks to the dominant central control, the bishop pair (both developed too) and the extra piece white develops for you with their Qb5+ check. So even before Bxd5, as things stand, black has the lead in time (development) and in space. Therefore, white's best bet is to at least try and win a pawn, in order to claim some sort of compensation.

  However, I am unable to see why the pawn sacrifice is justified for a
  small lead in development which White can finish in at most 2 moves
  with Nf3 and O-O.

If this was really the case then indeed white would be safely getting away with the snapped pawn, but therein lies the problem: if white plays it correctly, their best bishop retreat option is to e4 and not g2, and although black has lost their castling right they've gained a huge initiative on the kingside starting from g5 (aimed for g4) to boot the knight to a passive square and launch the kingside pawn avalanche. Let's just see some of these variations:

 [title "Analysing variations after 11.Bxd5"]
 [fen "r2qk2r/p2n1ppp/1p2bb2/1Q1pp3/8/3P2P1/PP2PPBP/RN2K1NR w KQkq - 2 11"]
 [startflipped "1"]

 1.Bxd5 a6 {our aim is to boot the queen away from the defense of the bishop} 2.Qb3 Nc5 3.Bc6+ {intermezzo check: only move to not lose material immediately} Kf8 {the king is even well placed on f8 as there are literally no foreseeable threats against it.} 4.Qd1 Rc8 5.Bg2 {a poorer choice than Be4, as the continuation shows white will be losing material very quickly if black's e-pawn is not blocked} (5.Be4 {white's best chance, to maintain the position somewhat closed and block the e-pawn} g5 {important positional move, to aim for g4 as quickly as possible exploiting the bishop and knight's awkward placement on e4-f3. With the knight booted away from f3, black is ready to launch an all out attack on the kingside with h5-g4 if white were to castle} 6.Nf3 g4 7.Nfd2 h5 8.O-O h4 {next to our bishops, our rook on h8 is perfectly placed to assist in the attack. The conversion from here is technically simple, and as soon as white retreats with Bg2 we have e4 ready. So there's no easy consolidation for white's king.}) e4 6.Nc3 (6.dxe4 Qxd1+ 7.Kxd1 Bxb2 {wins trivially}) exd3 {white's center and king safety are becoming further comprised, white has 5 active and well posted pieces in an open position against a king stuck in the center.} 7.Nf3 (7.exd3 Nxd3+ 8.Kf1 Bxc3 9.bxc3 Bc4 10.Ne2 Qf6 11.f4 Nxf4 12.gxf4 Qxf4+ 13.Ke1 Re8 14.Bf1 Qf3 15.Rg1 Qxc3+ 16.Kf2 Qe3+ 17.Kg2 Bxe2 {and the win is trivial from here.}) dxe2 8.Qxd8+ Rxd8 9.Kxe2 Bc4+ 10.Ke1 Nd3+ {and black wins trivially as further loss of material is unavoidable thanks to the comprised king position}

So you see, black is comfortably cashing in their lead in development and space in all the variations ensuing from Bxd5, and converting them into winning positions. And in most cases, the moves sort of play themselves considering how natural black's initiative and attack are as we saw in the diagram. Thus, all in all, we consistently come to the conclusion that the pawn sacrifice starting from Nd7 is perfectly sound. I encourage you to practice playing these lines and the ones we haven't considered yet against the computer.


Theoretical relationship between Caro-Kann exchange and Queen's Gambit exchange

Soltis' Pawn Structure Chess is a good book which treats all the common pawn structures that arise from popular openings. Its focus truly is on the pawn structures themselves and typical plans associated with them, rather than on the particular opening move-orders by which they arise. And the structure described in your question is treated in section "C. The Orthodox Exchange Formation," located in the chapter devoted to the Queen's Gambit family of structures. Soltis writes:

  Kmoch named [this formation] after the exchange systems (cxd5 / ... exd5) in the orthodox (read "normal") variation of the Q.G.D. It also occurs with colors reversed in the Caro-Kann (1 e4 c6  2 d4 d5  3 exd5 cxd5  4 c3 and ... e6) and some rarer openings.

The Kmoch reference here is to the book Pawn Power in Chess, which also gives a short account of this structure, in the form of annotations to the game R.Byrne-Eliskases (1952). Kmoch has further discussion of this structure in his chapter on pawns and rooks; see pp. 100-103 of the Dover edition.


Why did Alekhine decide to move his king to c3 before playing b3?

He probably wanted to make the time control which is usually on the 40th move before making any comittal decisions.


Linux: is there any engine that could play your game like Shredder?

Shredder 12 runs natively on Linux.

http://www.shredderchess.com/chess-software/linux.html


How do the best centaurs compare to the best computers?

Two years ago, top GM Nakamura played a match against one of the top engines, Stockfish. In the first two games, he was assisted by a very strong engine, rating about 200 points lower than Stockfish. Still, this wasn't enough to win, he even lost this part of the match 1,5 - 0,5. More details, including games, can be found here.

Of course, a human assisting a computer player will be stronger than the same computer player alone, but this gives you an idea of how little we (human players) are able to add at the moment.


White has a very simple strategy to win this position -

Prevent the g-pawn from being captured for free by the Black king (the Black rook cannot capture it because it is tied to the defense of the a-pawn promoting on a8. White wins if White can win the h-pawn)
Move the White king over to support the promotion of the a-pawn.
At the right moment, occupy the b-file with the White rook and support the g-pawn from b3. Then White's king can have a safe square on the b-file to promote the a-pawn.

 [FEN "8/5R2/P7/6kp/3K4/6P1/r7/8 w - - 0 1"]

 1. a7 Kg4 (1... Kg6 2. Rc7 Ra5 3. Kc4 Kf6 4. Kb4 Ra1 5. Kc5 Ke6 6. Rh7 Rc1+ 7.
 Kb6 Rb1+ 8. Ka6 Ra1+ 9. Kb7 Rb1+ 10. Kc8 Rc1+ 11. Kb8 Rb1+ 12. Rb7 Ra1 13. a8=Q
 ) 2. Rg7+ Kh3 3. Kc3 Kg2 4. Kb4 Kh3 5. Kb5 Ra3 (5... Rxa7 6. Rxa7 Kxg3 7. Rg7+
 Kf3 (7... Kh3 8. Kc4 h4 9. Kd3 Kh2 10. Ke2 h3 11. Kf2 Kh1 12. Rg1+ Kh2 13. Rg3
 Kh1 14. Rxh3#) 8. Rh7 Kg4 9. Kc4 h4 10. Kd3 Kg3 11. Ke2 h3 12. Kf1 h2 13. Rh6
 Kg4 14. Rxh2)6. Kb6 Rb3+ 7. Ka6 Ra3+ 8. Kb7
 Rb3+ 9. Ka8 Rb5 (9... Rb2 10. Rg5 Rb1 11. Rxh5+ Kxg3 12. Rh8 Kf4 13. Rb8 Ra1
 14. Kb7 Rb1+ 15. Kc7 Rc1+ 16. Kd7 Rd1+ 17. Ke7 Re1+ 18. Kf7 Ra1 19. a8=Q) 10.
 Rb7 Ra5 11. Rb3! Kg4 12. Kb8 Ra2 13. a8=Q


The longest game I've ever found in tournament play is Nikolic - Arsovic, played in Belgrade in 1989. You can watch it here. It ended in a draw after 269 moves in a rook+bishop-vs-rook endgame


It's not a sacrifice, it's a trade after 1. Gxc2 G*b3 and taking the elephant on a3 next.

On the other hand, since doubutsu shogi is strongly solved, you can use an engine/tablebase (e.g. https://github.com/fuzxxl/dobutsu) to set up and see the solution anyway. (I haven't done this, though.)


What's the idea behind delaying capturing the rook (25...Rd2) in Hug–Spassky (1973)?

Why play 26. Nd3?
Is White avoiding the loss of tempo after (26. Qxd2 Qd8) or (26. Qxd2
Rad8)?

No, the idea behind Nd3 is to limit the losses. Black would respond to 26. Qxd2 with Nxf3+ forking the king and queen.
[fen "r5k1/1pq2ppb/4p2p/p1N1n3/P3P3/2P2BP1/1B1rQP1P/R3R1K1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qxd2 (1. Nd3 Rxe2 2. Bxe2 Nxd3 3. Bxd3 {and white has limited the losses}) Nxf3+ 2. Kg2 Nxd2

After the sequence starting with Nd3 white is down a queen in exchange for a rook and a bishop. After Qxd2 white ends up down at least a queen for a rook.


How do TWIC, chessgames.com, chessbase, etc. keep up to date with new games?

There's no official source for that. Someone just has to download the PGN games manually.

It is indeed a prohibitive amount of work, but we are talking about money here. They are not doing the collection for fun, they are trying to sell their services for something else such as paid membership or book advertisements.

Let's take a look at the TWIC homepage. Please note the paid ads by New In Chess. They're offering you PGN download as a business.


Glicko 2- Calculating match-by-match or batch of matches?

What I wanted to know was does it make a difference if you calculate
  the results one by one or as one batch?

According to Professor Mark E. Glickman -

  The Glicko-2 system works best when the number of games in a rating
  period is moderate to large, say an average of at least 10-15 games
  per player in a rating period.

Note the above link also gives Glickman's algorithms for Glicko 2


These numbers are the score given to the position by the engine. In your particular case (screenshot) these are the scores after the respective move is made. But of course you can also evaluate the current position in the same way.

Positive values mean that white is better, negative values that black is better, a value of zero means equal. So if you are playing black, you should aim for very small numbers (=negative numbers with large absolute value).

The actual numbers are made up based on many factors. The actual factors and the weight given to them will be different between engines, but all (decent) engines would give most weight to the material. And as you guessed right a value of 1 corresponds to one pawn (see your example where black has one pawn less and the evaluation is around +1).

Some other factors and a very simplified view of how they could be implemented on a computer are:

piece activity; could evaluate the number of all possible moves
king safety; number of defenders around the king
control of the center; number of squares under attack in the center
pawn structure; minus points for doubled pawns or for isolated pawns...

In my experience positions with evaluation between about -1 and +1 still have a good chance of ending in a draw (assuming best play) while starting from 1.5 or 2 the games have a decisive result (assuming best play).


If your goal is to get the highest quality of analysis, then the short answer is "never".

The reason is that if you analyze similar positions within a game, then the existing hash table entries can still be valuable for move ordering and evaluation, because the same positions might be encountered somewhere in the search tree again.

If you switch to a new game, then the hash should be cleared, but in that case Stockfish already does it implicitly when it receives the ucinewgame command. In fact, in Stockfish ucinewgame does exactly the same as setoption name Clear Hash.


Do 5 connected pawns usually win against a rook?

Yes of course, there are more chances for white who has 5 connected pawns to wins instead of black who has a rook. A rook can't check the king all the time and the pawns are always helping each others to get to the final state to get a queen. This problem is usually won by the 5 pawns.


Does Stockfish NNUE have contempt implemented?

I'm not sure if you understanding of contempt is right, but in any case; I just compiled SF12 and it seems you don't have two versions of SF (the standard and the NNUE) but you can set your SF12 to behave standard or NNUE. In the configuration screen for SF12 you can enable NNUE, and also the contempt value.
So the short answer to your question is yes, SF12-NNUE has contempt implemented.


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

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

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

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


Yes, it is obligatory.

From FIDE's Laws of Chess §3.7e (Link):

  e. When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position, he must exchange that pawn as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour on the intended square of arrival.


I took the liberty of consulting with the Syzygy tablebases for a while, and came to the following conclusion: the endgame is drawn. This is far from obvious, but it has to do with the following fortress:
[fen "4Q3/5pk1/7r/6KP/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

Black draws this by shuffling the rook between e6 and h6. Bizarrely enough, as long as the h-pawn remains for white there is no way for white's queen and king to simultaneously attack the rook on h6, which is the key realization behind this fortress. The only thing black needs to watch out for is the fact that if white's queen is threatening to get to f8, then black needs to prevent this by making sure that their king is on g7 to cover the square. However, this is always possible for black to do, since with the black pawn on f7 there is no square on the board for white's queen where it would be covering g7 and at the same time would be threatening to go to f8. I chose to highlight the last part of the sentence, because it is critical. One final note before we move on: this fortress would hold no matter where white's queen and king is placed (as long as the white king stays on the 5th rank and below).
Let us now analyze a few key positions with the above fortress in mind, beginning with the tablebase win that OP found:
 [fen "8/5p1k/6rp/8/3QK2P/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

This position is a win for white if white is to move, and the only winning move is Qc5. Don't ask me why this position is winning if white is to move, I actually don't fully understand it myself and can only say that it is indeed a tablebase win. I would actually recommend going over the winning lines with the tablebases online (https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=8/5p1k/6rp/8/3QK2P/8/8/8_w_-_-_0_1), the way the queen manoeuvres to break black's fortress is quite astonishing.
In fact, place white's king wherever in the rectangle drawn up by a1 and f5, and you find that white is winning every time as long as they are to move in the above position. But things change if black is to move. It is immediately obvious that ...Rg4+ in the diagrammed position would be winning for black, but even if this move were not a possibility (as when white's king is anywhere except for e4), the position would still be a draw.

Question: what is the drawing idea?

 The drawing idea is for black to play their pawn to h5. After this, there is no way for white to make any progress unless the white queen reaches f8. But this is easy to prevent, as black's king will always be able to reach g7 when this is threatened, as mentioned before. Even if white were to eliminate the h5 pawn this would still not be enough, since black would then achieve the fortress I discussed at the beginning of this answer.

Follow-up question (to test how well the previous information has been processed): If white is to move, why is Qc5 the only winning idea?

 This is because Qc5 is the only move that sidesteps the skewer with ...Rg4+ while simultaneously preventing black from achieving the draw by means of ...h5, since white's queen threatens to infiltrate on f8 from c5.

We are now finally ready to deal with the initial position immediately:
[fen "3Q4/5pk1/6rp/6p1/4K3/6PP/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

We note three key points:

The position is drawn if white were to play g4 here. Why?

 This is because black would then shuffle their rook between e6 and g6 indefinitely, and the only way for white to make progress would be to push the h-pawn forward. But this would allow a trade of pawns, and the g-pawn cannot be used to stop the rook shuffle between e6 and g6. Again, all that black has to keep in mind is to avoid letting the queen into f8.

If white were to push h4 in the above position, black has a concrete drawing line. What is it?

 The drawing line is: 1.h4 gxh4 2. gxh4 (the only feasible winning attempt) h5! (and the drawing fortress is achieved for black).

The only way for white to make any progress in the above position is to play either g4 or h4 at some point, since otherwise black will just shuffle the rook between e6 and g6, with no way in for the white king.

Using points 1, 2 and 3, we can say with confidence that the initial position must be a draw, as claimed in the first paragraph.


What is the B+N checkmate position that leads to a longest mate?

Using the syzygy tablebases by just putting some B+N position in, and looking for the note that says what the longest one is, we can find that it's
8/8/8/6B1/8/8/4k3/1K5N b - - 0 1

with a DTM (depth to mate, in plies/half moves) of 65.
This is probably due to the discoordination of all of white's pieces


Why do Super GMs still have to write down their moves at tournaments?

I can think of several reasons:

The players will want to know how many moves have been played in the game (as you often get extra time after moves 40 and 60), how many moves have been played before the last pawn move or capture etc. Currently the players may not consult any other material than the score sheets during a game, but even if the rule was changed, the score sheet is probably the easiest way to access this information.
The electronic boards can be unreliable sometimes. Also, although this probably never happens in Super GM level, problems may occur with illegal moves etc.
There is no pressure to change the rules, or the trouble of changing the rules weighs more than the potential gain. Some players like the old-fashioned way of writing the moves down. Comparing with reason 2, somebody should decide when the electronic boards are good enough to be trusted, and drawing the line is not an easy job.


Open a game window.  On the File ribbon, look for a little UCI written in red just after where it says Remove Kibitzer.  Click on that, then in the dialog that pops up click on the button with three dots, and navigate to wherever you have Stockfish on your system.  The Author and Name will get filled in automatically.  Click on OK, and now Stockfish will appear in the dialog that appears when you click Add Kibitzer.


How to resign when my opponent is not at the board?

I agree with Cleveland that what you did is probably sufficient. One other thing you can always do if you can't find the opponent and are concerned that you might be seen as doing something suspicious is to call the arbiter and announce your resignation to them.


Are there women only tournaments for lower rated players?

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

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

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


What is the fastest way to reach stalemate?

Sam Loyd, a famous puzzle composer, created this 10 move, 19 ply, stalemate game over 100 years ago. I found it via Google, in this post by AndersElborg on chess.com. Most black pieces are blocked, which saves some moves because those pieces don't need to be captured.

[FEN ""]
[StartPly "19"]

1.e3 a5 2.Qh5 Ra6 3.Qxa5 h5 4.h4 Rah6 5.Qxc7 f6 6.Qxd7+ Kf7 7.Qxb7 Qd3 8.Qxb8 Qh7 9.Qxc8 Kg6 10.Qe6


Alternative approaches to chess engine programming

In the beginning years of computer chess, people have actually tried to teach computers chess in the same way as they do with humans, explaining strategic concepts like a healthy pawn structure or the initiative. These attempt were soon abandoned because the method you describe was much more successful.

Recently, there has been another attempt to let an engine teach itself chess via Deep Learning (probably encouraged by the success of Google's Go AI). According to the article I linked to, they were quite successful and managed to reach IM strength.


I think you don't need this. You shift from opening to middle game when your opening book for this line runs out.
The middle-end phase is less relevant in AI, and your algorithm will handle those the same. You could define a line, e.g. when your search depth could be increased over some threshold, because the board has only a handful of pieces left, but I don't think it's an important change.


The goal for Black in breaking the London System is to remove White's dark bishop from the game. This is present in almost every losing London System. Hikaru Nakamura plays the London, and makes it very clear he is not willing to trade his dark bishop - even going so far as to play h3 with the sole intention of hiding the bishop on h2.

To break the London, trap / trade the dark bishop.

Warning: This may contain multiple diagrams to display a progression of attacks and also possible positions

Your Example

With regards to your exact example,

[fen ""]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 c5 4. e3 Qa5

Let me just stop you there. You are down a decent amount in this position, and are looking at dropping a pawn. I understand that you want to get into a game which is not closed, but that is still possible without being hyper aggressive.

My Suggestion

Lets get back to where you have a chance to start being aggressive and make a move which is subtly aggressive. I know it may not seem like it, but e6 here is very strong

[fen ""]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 e6

e6, but whhyy

e6 allows you to begin to exert some control over the dark squares (which are White's weakness as their bishop cannot contest on them). It allows for a responsive aggression. Let us look at a few of the responses available.

...

4. c4

[fen ""]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 e6 4. c4 Bb4+

Nice, White tried to play into the Queen side and you got in a check (potentially White will trade their dark bishop in defense, but don't count on it). More than this, you gained a tempo, and can castle before White can; all while White's kingside is all locked up.

4. e3

[fen ""]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 e6 4. e3 c5

White was trying to keep a closed position but this actually results in a torn open one. Now if White defends with 5. c3 Black can begin to really open this up, and hopefully trade off White's dark bishop. 5. c3 Nc6 will open the board up and still be in Black's favor positionally.

Remove White's dark bishop

Consider this situation:

[fen ""]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 e6 4. e3 c5 5. c3 Nc6 6. Nbd2 Be7 7. Be2 Nh5

White's dark bishop is toast, the game is open, and you have sacrificed neither material nor position. Game on!

Even if you do not choose to be so aggressive here, you have most certainly opened the board up and prevented a closed position.


In the Dutch Defense, why does white play b3 and Ba3?

The main reason is to exchange black's good bishop, and what would probably end up being white's bad bishop after a later e3. Another common way of doing this is Bg5xNf6. This also highlights black's dark-square weakness problem that he will have to watch out for for quite a while.

This exchange on a3 leaves black's other bad bishop on c8 more markedly bad, and the e5 square more weakened. After the exchange on a3, black can, and usually should, gain a tempo with Qe7, and the white Na3 will redirect to Nc2-e1-d4 (or sometimes via Nc2-b4-d3) to further control e5.

This scores well in my database at 67% for white, but many of the games are between players of disparate ratings. At the higher levels, it seems that black can hold equality, so I would say that if you are stronger, there is no need to avoid it, but if you are weaker against a good positional player, you might want to try to get in Qe7 earlier to make Ba3 harder, but white still has a4 then. I am not sure you can really, and totally avoid it if that is the plan white chooses.


Answering my own question for documenting what I use. I will keep this answer updated as I discover more ways.

lichess This is the simplest and cleanest way I found. Just copy pgn text and paste. It generates a nice little shareable link. Very nice interface to playback the moves. As a bonus, it also provides automatic (stockfish) engine analysis identifying the inaccuracies, mistakes, and blunders for the whole game. (usually within few seconds!)
Chess Pastebin is okay. It is good for games with minimal or no analysis. But the interface is cumbersome for games with a lot of analysis.
Chess Microbase is good for storing many games.
[NOT WORKING NOW] ChessPost is nice and simple. Particularly useful for the purpose the question mentions.
PGN4Web provides a good interface for a broad number of applications.


I think you are too obsessed with ratings in general. Try to not think about your and your opponents' ratings and just focus on playing a good game.

Ratings only get important:

if you want to get a title such as IM, GM
if you want to be invited to some (usually high level) tournaments
for prestige, e.g. if you want to teach chess for money

In any case you are very far from these and the only effect your rating currently has is that it affects pairings in (some) swiss tournaments. But if you play much above your rating, winning the first few rounds you would soon be paired to stronger opponents anyway.

A rating of 1166 is rather low and if you do improve your chess you will automatically also improve your rating. For example if you play at a level around 1800 you should be able to gain around 50 rating points in a tournament. (this rating gain will slow down as you get closer to 1800, unless you increase your playing strength further).


Evaluate without calculating.

Source: The wisest things ever said about chess by GM Soltis

So yes, we should evaluate a position before selecting candidate moves and calculating concrete variations. Considering whether the opponent's king is safe will help you decide whether you should look for a mate in N type move, which is very different to capitalising on a space advantage.

From Tune your chess tactics antenna: know when (and where!) to look for winning combinations by Emmanuel Neiman, he recommends the following steps to selecting a move.

Global vision: think of this as walking past a game and your first impression being 'white is winning' or 'it's about equal'
Analysis of the position: This is where you look at king safety, material, space etc.
Looking for the theme: is there the potential for a pin, fork, back rank mate etc. in the position?
Looking for candidate moves: based on steps 1-3, generate a small list of candidate moves (usually 2 or 3)
Calculation of variations: work out the candidate moves as far as you can, and evaluate that final position

I would argue that steps 1-3 fall into the category of evaluating a position without looking ahead.


Let's use Stockfish to find out the moves for this position

[fen "N7/P3pk1p/3p2p1/r4p2/8/4b2B/4P1KP/1R6 w - - 0 34"]

The FEN string is: "N7/P3pk1p/3p2p1/r4p2/8/4b2B/4P1KP/1R6 w - - 0 34". You should copy-and-paste my commands to experience yourself.

Load the position by "position fen ..." and then use "d" to print the position. Please note that "d" is a Stockfish-only command.

tedwong@:~$ stockfish
Stockfish 6 64 by Tord Romstad, Marco Costalba and Joona Kiiski
position fen N7/P3pk1p/3p2p1/r4p2/8/4b2B/4P1KP/1R6 w - - 0 34
d

 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 | N |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 | P |   |   |   | p | k |   | p |
 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 |   |   |   | p |   |   | p |   |
 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 | r |   |   |   |   | p |   |   |
 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 |   |   |   |   | b |   |   | B |
 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 |   |   |   |   | P |   | K | P |
 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 |   | R |   |   |   |   |   |   |
 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

Fen: N7/P3pk1p/3p2p1/r4p2/8/4b2B/4P1KP/1R6 w - - 0 34
Key: 4E025494EA4A7523
Checkers:

Ask the engine to think for 30s and set the number of principal variations to 3.

setoption name MultiPV value 3
go movetime 30000

You'll see a bunch of engine outputs. In particular, you should something like:

info depth 5 seldepth 5 multipv 1 score cp -5 nodes 1540 nps 54 tbhits 0 time 28098 pv a8b6 e3b6 b1b6 a5a7 e2e3
info depth 5 seldepth 5 multipv 2 score cp -8 nodes 1540 nps 54 tbhits 0 time 28098 pv a8c7 e3a7 c7b5 h7h6 b5a7
info depth 4 seldepth 5 multipv 3 score cp -10 nodes 1540 nps 54 tbhits 0 time 28098 pv g2f3 a5a7 a8b6 a7a3
info depth 5 currmove g2f3 currmovenumber 3
info nodes 1618 time 30049
bestmove a8b6 ponder e3b6

Here, Stockfish gives three possible lines: Nb6, Nc7 and Kf3. The lines are sorted in terms of the advantage for the side to move.

Let's check what if your friend blunders a rook by Ra1... We expect Stockfish to report ...Rxa1 with a winning advantage for Black. I use http://analysis.cpuchess.com to make the move and get a new FEN.

[fen "N7/P3pk1p/3p2p1/r4p2/8/4b2B/4P1KP/R7 b - - 1 34"]

The new FEN is: "N7/P3pk1p/3p2p1/r4p2/8/4b2B/4P1KP/R7 b - - 1 34"

position fen "N7/P3pk1p/3p2p1/r4p2/8/4b2B/4P1KP/R7 b - - 1 34"
go move time 30000

You should see something like:

info depth 25 seldepth 38 multipv 1 score cp 692 nodes 34732679 nps 1391812 tbhits 0 time 24955 pv a5a1 a8c7 e3a7 g2g3 a1a3 g3g2 a3a5 e2e4 a7b8 c7d5 f5e4 d5c3 d6d5 h3c8 b8e5 c3d1 a5a2 g2f1 e5h2 c8b7 e7e6 d1e3 a2b2 b7a8 b2b5 f1f2 h2f4 e3d1 b5c5 a8b7 c5c2 f2e1 f7f6
info depth 25 seldepth 38 multipv 2 score cp 62 nodes 34732679 nps 1391812 tbhits 0 time 24955 pv a5a7 a1a7 e3a7 g2f1 d6d5 h3g2 e7e6 h2h3 f7e7 a8c7 a7b6 c7a6 e7d6 a6b4 b6d4 b4c2 d4c5 f1e1 g6g5 g2f3 d6e5 e2e3 f5f4 e1e2 f4e3 c2e3
info depth 24 seldepth 38 multipv 3 score cp -480 nodes 34732679 nps 1391812 tbhits 0 time 24955 pv e3a7 a1a5 a7d4 a5a4 d4e3 a8c7 e3b6 c7d5 b6c5 e2e4 e7e6 d5c7 f7f6 a4a6 f6e5 e4f5 e6f5 g2g3 c5d4 h3f1 h7h6 c7e8 d4c5 a6a5 e5e6 e8c7 e6d7 c7d5 c5d4 g3f3 d4e5 f1b5 d7e6 d5f4 e6f7 a5a8
bestmove a5a1 ponder a8c7

As can you can see the evaluation drops to "cp 692". It was "cp -5" before our move. Therefore the move Ra1 must have been a gross blunder.

Please read the UCI specification for more details.

Your job will be:

Connect an engine to your favourite programming language. You can do it by inter-process communication. There are lots of examples on Google.
Issue UCI commands like how I did.
Parse the commands. You might want to use like a string tokeniser.
Make a move (like how I did with Ra1) to get an evaluation of the move.


What is the maximum number of promoted pawns ever achieved in a competitive game?

In Tim Krabbe’s chess records, Krabbe gives a game where the Black player promoted four of their pawns, the most one player has ever gotten in a professional game, and only one where it has happened. It is also notable for being one of few games with 6 promotions.

The game can also be viewed here at ChessDB.com.

[Title "Alena Kubikova-Vaclav Novy, 9th Open, Czech Republic, 2003"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3  g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2  Nc6 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. O-O-O Rc8 11. Bb3 Ne5 12. h4 h5 13. Kb1 a5 14. Bg5 Rc5 15. g4  hxg4 16. f4 Nc4 17. Bxc4 Rxc4 18. e5 Bc6 19. Nxc6 Rxc6 20. exf6 exf6 21. Nd5  fxg5 22. hxg5 Rc5 23. Nf6+ Bxf6 24. Qh2 Re8 25. Qh7+ Kf8 26. gxf6 Qxf6 27. Qh8+  Ke7 28. Rde1+ Re5 29. Qxf6+ Kxf6 30. fxe5+ dxe5 31. Kc1 Kg5 32. Rh7 f5 33. Rxb7  g3 34. Kd2 Kg4 35. Rb3 f4 36. c4 e4 37. c5 e3+ 38. Kd3 Rd8+ 39. Ke4 g2 40. c6 e2  41. c7 Rc8 42. Rc3 f3 43. Ke3 Kg3 44. Rc5 Re8+ 45. Kd2 Kf2 46. c8=Q Rxc8 47.  Rxc8 g1=Q 48. Rxg1 Kxg1 49. Rc1+ Kf2 50. b3 g5 51. a3 g4 52. b4 axb4 53. axb4 g3  54. b5 g2 55. b6 g1=Q 56. Rxg1 Kxg1 57. b7 f2 58. b8=Q e1=Q+ 59. Kc2 Qe2+ 60.  Kc3 Qe3+ 61. Kb4 f1=Q

Regarding informal OTB games, however, 5 promotions is the most that I currently know of from this game.

[Title "Manuel Matto-Anastasia Mossiaguine, Gibraltar Chess Festival, Gibraltar England"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. Bc4 Bb4 5. d3 O-O 6. a3 Ba5 7. Bd2 d6 8. h3 Bd7 9. b4 Bb6 10. Bg5 h6 11. Be3 Bxe3 12. fxe3 a6 13. O-O Qe7 14. Qe1 Ne8 15. Nd5 Qd8 16. Qg3 Nf6 17. Nxf6 Qxf6 18. Nh4 Qe7 19. Ng6 Qe8 20. Nxf8 Qxf8 21. Rxf7 Qxf7 22. Bxf7+ Kxf7 23. Rf1+ Kg8 24. Qg6 Kh8 25. Rf7 Rg8 26. Rxd7 b5 27. Rxc7 Nb8 28. Qxd6 Kh7 29. Qxe5 Kh8 30. Rxg7 Rxg7 31. Qxb8+ Kh7 32. Qb6 Rg6 33. Qxg6+ Kxg6 34. Kf2 Kf6 35. d4 Ke6 36. Kf3 Kf6 37. Kf4 h5 38. g4 h4 39. c3 Kg6 40. Ke5 Kf7 41. Kd5 Ke7 42. Kc6 Kd8 43. Kb6 Kc8 44. Kxa6 Kc7 45. Kxb5 Kd6 46. c4 Ke6 47. Kc5 Kf6 48. Kd5 Kg6 49. Ke5 Kh6 50. Kf5 Kg7 51. Kg5 Kf7 52. Kxh4 Kg6 53. e5 Kf7 54. d5 Ke7 55. c5 Kd7 56. b5 Kc7 57. a4 Kb7 58. a5 Ka7 59. e4 Kb7 60. a6+ Kc7 61. b6+ Kd7 62. c6+ Ke7 63. d6+ Kf7 64. Kg5 Kg7 65. e6 Kh7 66. Kf6 Kg8 67. g5 Kf8 68. h4 Ke8 69. h5 Kf8 70. g6 Kg8 71. h6 Kh8 72. a7 Kg8 73. b7 Kf8 74. c7 Ke8 75. d7+ Kf8 76. e7+ Kg8 77. e5 Kh8 78. e6 Kg8 79. e8=N Kh8 80. e7 Kg8 81. a8=R Kh8 82. b8=B Kg8 83. c8=R Kh8 84. d8=N Kg8 85. Ng7 Kh8 86. Be5 Kg8 87. h7+ Kh8 88. Nf7+


Idea behind e-pawn sacrifice in Open Sicilian: Najdorf, Freak Attack (6. Rg1)?

I think that a lot of the answers to your various questions about "why this or that" come down to the fact that it is just very unexplored theory, and the black players are just using their best judgment, probably mostly on-the-fly since Rg1 is so rare. I have just 18 games in my database after 9...Bxe4, and 7 of those games were played by white players below master level. That is not a lot of practical practice.

As far as white having a lesser Elo-rating, I assume that I have most of the same games as you (I use Mega 2020), and for the most part, the rating differences are not that great, so I do not consider it a big deal. 5 of the 11, white out-rated black, and the other 6, black out-rated white. Only one had a huge disparity with a 2500 white player vs. a 2100 black player.

Obviously, the main idea is to get a lead in development where black has barely even started developing the kingside. The latter part of that sentence is the key. In addition, it seems to me that sometimes, it can also be hard to get that development going. For example, I think that instead of trading the Bf1, that a quick Bd2 and 0-0-0 may be even more dangerous, highlighting that inability to develop.

As to why the bishop goes back to b7, I think that it is much more natural. The bishop going to g6, while solid, could still come under attack by h4-h5. It is too early to tell, and most strong players would probably be weary of that. With the bishop on b7, it controls a lot of squares, and it almost forces white to trade the light-squared bishops since on d3, the white light-squared bishop will surely be blunted by the natural g6. Trading off a potential attacker in this position is, clearly, desirable.

There is a lot of room for analysis in this opening.

 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Rg1 b5 7. g4 Bb7 8. g5 Nxe4 9. Nxe4 Bxe4 10. Qg4 Bb7 (10... d5 11. Bf4 {This developing move, stopping e5, is probably best.} (11. f3 Bg6 {And while solid, the kingside is still far from being developed, and the Bg6 may still become a target.})) 11. Bg2 (11. Bd2 g6 12. Bc3 e5 {If this is the computer's best suggestion, then I really like this as white.} 13. O-O-O {May even be more dangerous.} exd4 $4 14. Bxd4 Rg8 15. Bg2 Nc6 16. Bf6 Be7 17. Rge1 $18) 11... Qc7 {Trying to keep control of the h1-a8 diagonal.} 12. Be3 g6 {This is where I would rather have this on c3, really giving the black king nowhere to go.} 13. O-O-O Bg7 {And black has a solid pawn, but the position is very open, and tactical in nature.}


How should rooks be developed in the opening?

That's actually not very surprising.  In many openings, the rooks don't participate until fairly deep into the middlegame.  You touch on the reason in your question - the rooks have to wait until all the other pieces are out of the way in order to develop.

The specific strategy for rook development will depend on the position, but generally speaking, the rooks belong on the open and half open files in the middlegame.  In the endgame, rooks belong behind passed pawns.  Also in the late middlegame and endgame, rooks are very useful on the 7th rank (and to some degree the 6th rank as well).

In most openings, the rooks for white will usually come to d1 and e1.  Obviously that's a huge generalization, so don't take that as gospel truth.  Larry Christiansen has said that "when in doubt [about which rook to move], play the 'a' rook to d1".  The other rook (usually coming from the f file after O-O) should either stay on f1 or move to e1.

One last comment - often the best way to make use of the rooks is to double them so that they can invade into the enemy camp.  Usually your rooks aren't going to reach the 7th rank in the middlegame because there are too many minor pieces still on the board, but they can still be very useful when doubled and on open files so that they threaten to invade into the opponent's position.


Are 'Conveyor Belt' Chess variants studied?

It's not studied to my knowledge. This is my first time hearing of such a variant.


I happened to find the position in an old book: on page 87 of "The Basis of Combination in Chess" by J. du Mont.  The diagram is shown with the names "Rubinstein vs N.", without date and place. Probably a game in a simultaneous exhibition.  The book was first published in 1938 and Dover reprinted it in 1978.


Yes, one-on-one simultaneous competitions exist. For example, you can find them in correspondence chess. One modality is as two game matches, where you play your opponent with white in one game and with black in the other. Similarly for friendly matches between federations of different countries, with two games for each board.
There are also several websites where you can play simultaneous matches. Have a look at the answers to the question Is there any website where I can play simultaneous chess against many opponents?.


How does competitive chess affect players' mental health?

if there are certain talented players who should not become competitively active cause of their mental health status

On the contrary, there are many chess players, successful and otherwise, who get relief from their mental problems by playing chess. Fischer and Bloodgood are probably at the extreme end of mental disturbance but there are many at all the levels below that.
Victor Kortchnoi, in his famous world championship match with Karpov, is another famous example at a lower level of mental disturbance.

others who could become successful only under the supervision of a mental health practitioner

Again, I think you have it the wrong way round. Without their mental health problems many strong GMs wouldn't be that strong.


What's the problem with 5. Nxe5 in Spanish Exchange?

After 5. Nxe5, black has two ways to recover the pawn.

The first is 5... Qd4, forking the knight on e5 and the pawn on e4. White cannot defend both so has to move his knight, after which black takes on e4 with check and has a fine game.

The second is 5... Qg5, forking the knight on e5 and the pawn on g2. White again has to move his knight, leaving black free to take on g2 and gain a tempo attacking white's rook.


What is a good size chess board for an eight-year-old?

Larger pieces and board may help to keep a better overview for a beginner. As soon as his interest in chess becomes more serious, he will start to be careful with the board, so I wouldn't pay too much attention to the weight of the figures, most sets aren't heavy enough to withstand mechanical force (unless you choose marble pieces).

I'd recommend around the 14" or larger, keeping in mind though that as long he's not actively playing the set could just be one more toy cluttering the shelves in his room.


How does the JaVaFo engine work and how random are the pairings?

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.


Overall:
The game was pretty drawish, leaning towards the black side, it was up to whose endgame was better. However, at the end, you took too much risks and lost due to that.

[FEN ""]
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2016.09.11"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Bright"]
[Black "Ogbe"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C64"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.Bxc6 $6 {Minor comment: c3 and O-O are the moves that are studied, this throws away all advantage.} dxc6 5.O-O Bg4 6.d3 Ne7 7.Bg5 f6 8.Be3 Bxe3 9.fxe3 O-O 10.Nc3 Ng6 11.h3 Be6 12.Qe2 Qd7 13.d4 b5 14.b3 {Notice the weaknesses, save them and exploit them later in game. This is an example when you exploit them immediately[%draw full,c3,red][%draw full,b2,red] [%draw full,a3,red]} 14...Rad8 ( 14...b4 15.Na4 a5 16.c4 bxc3 17.Nxc3 )15.Rad1 exd4 $1 16.exd4 Nf4 17.Qe3 Nxg2 18.Kxg2 Bxh3+ { [%draw arrow,g2,f2,green]} 19.Kh2 Bxf1 20.Rxf1 Qg4 $2 {I suggest you start opening the board and exchanging pawns} ( 20...Qe6 {[%draw arrow,e6,a2,red][%draw arrow,a7,a4,red]} 21.Rg1 a5 22.Ne2 Rfe8 23.e5 fxe5 24.Qg5 Qe7 25.dxe5 Qxg5 26.Rxg5 Rd5 ) ( 20...Rfe8 21.Rg1 a5 22.Ne2 a4 ( 22...Qf7 {[%draw arrow,f7,a2,red][%draw arrow,a5,a4,red]} 23.Nf4 a4 24.Rg3 axb3 25.cxb3 Ra8 ) 23.bxa4 Ra8 24.axb5 Rxa2 25.bxc6 Qxc6 26.Qb3+ Qe6 ) 21.Rg1 Qh5+ 22.Kg2 f5 $2 {Defend. Be careful of counter-atacks} 23.e5 f4 24.Qe4 Rf5 $4 {White can easily win this [%draw full,c6,red][%draw full,c7,red][%draw full,a7,red][%draw full,h5,red] [%draw full,d8,red]} ( 24...b4 25.Ne2 Rd5 26.c4 Ra5 $14 ) 25.Kf2 Qh3 $18 {Pieces are too disconnected[%draw full,h3,red] [%draw full,c7,red] [%draw full,c6,red] [%draw full,a7,red] [%draw full,d8,red]} 26.Qxc6 g5 27.Qe6+ Kf8 28.Rxg5 1-0

Edit: SE somehow has errors when flipping it, I suggest not flipping it, or un-flip it at moments where there are arrows/highlighted squares(not much in this analysis)

Clearer PGN for users who can't render the board:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.Bxc6 {?! Minor comment: c3 and O-O are the moves that are studied, this throws away all advantage.} 4...dxc6 5.O-O Bg4 6.d3 Ne7 7.Bg5 f6 8.Be3 Bxe3 9.fxe3 O-O 10.Nc3 Ng6 11.h3 Be6 12.Qe2 Qd7 13.d4 b5 14.b3 {Notice the weaknesses, save them and exploit them later in game. This is an example when you exploit them immediately}
14...Rad8

( 14...b4 15.Na4 a5 16.c4 bxc3 17.Nxc3 )

15.Rad1 exd4{!} 16.exd4 Nf4 17.Qe3 Nxg2 18.Kxg2 Bxh3+ 19.Kh2 Bxf1 20.Rxf1 Qg4{? I suggest you start opening the board and exchanging pawns}

( 20...Qe6 21.Rg1 a5 22.Ne2 Rfe8 23.e5 fxe5 24.Qg5 Qe7 25.dxe5 Qxg5 26.Rxg5 Rd5 )
( 20...Rfe8 21.Rg1 a5 22.Ne2 a4

( 22...Qf7 23.Nf4 a4 24.Rg3 axb3 25.cxb3 Ra8 )

23.bxa4 Ra8 24.axb5 Rxa2 25.bxc6 Qxc6 26.Qb3+ Qe6 )

21.Rg1 Qh5+ 22.Kg2 f5{? Defend. Be careful of counter-atacks} 23.e5 f4 24.Qe4 Rf5 {?? White can easily win this}

( 24...b4 25.Ne2 Rd5 26.c4 Ra5{+=} )

25.Kf2 Qh3{+- Pieces are too disconnected} 26.Qxc6 g5 27.Qe6+ Kf8 28.Rxg5 1-0


Chesscademy Tactic: Is my alternative as good as the right answer?

The problem is that 5. Qxh5 isn't check, so Black has time for some back rank tricks (instead of capturing the rook on f6):

[FEN "r1r4k/1p5R/3b4/4q3/B3P1Q1/1n1P3P/6P1/5R1K b - - 0 1"]

1... Kxh7 2. Rf7+ Kh6 3. Qh4+ Qh5 4. Rf6+ (4. Rh7+ Kxh7 5. Qxh5+) Kg7 5. Qxh5 Rc1+ 6. Qd1 Rxd1+ 7. Rf1 Rxf1#


This is hit or miss.

No one can really know what puzzle your thinking about, so please don't down vote wrong attempts.  People shouldn't be penalized for trying to help.  It's only through trial and error we're going to help you find your puzzle.

Is this your puzzle:
HERE?


Why does chess tempo fail at random; what is the biggest free database online that is reliable

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

https://database.chessbase.com/

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

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

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


Every move has pros and cons. Move a pawn, for example, and you gain space, and control squares; but you also weaken squares. The trick is to accurately determine if you will be able to use your pros better than your opponent can use your new-found weaknesses against you. Always remember that a “weakness” is only a weakness if your opponent can get at it, and use it against you.

In this position, 17…Rfb8 is also a very good move, but Stockfish definitely prefers c4. After 17…c4, Fischer decided that the immediate pressure on b2 was more important than making the bishop worse. In addition, when the Nd3 moved to f4, from there, it really could only trade itself off for that bad bishop in most situations. As in the game, because white did not take immediately on e6, the bishop went to f5, and deprived the white rooks of the b1 square, and thus, a method of defending the pawn on b2.

It was almost inevitable that white would lose a pawn. As it was played, after 21…g5, white felt compelled to give up the piece altogether seeing the variation 22. Nh5 Ne4 23. Rc2 Qb4 paralyzing white.

I do not know if you are reading “My 60 Memorable Games”, but this is game 34 in that book, and the game was titled, “Hanging pawns unhung”. Lastly, it is interesting to note that Fischer thought that the best move was 19. Nxe6 getting rid of the “bad” bishop, giving the variation: 19. Nxe6 fxe6 20. Bg4 Ra6! 21. b3! cxb3 22. axb3 Qxb3 23. Qe7 Nf8 24. Ra3 Qb4 25. Qxb4 Rxb4 26. Be2 Ra7 27. Rfa1 a4 28. Bd1 “with good drawing chances”, but 21…Qb4! Stopped the queen from taking up the active position deep in the black camp, and threatens cxb3 with a strong passed pawn, since it exposes an attack on the hanging Bg4. Per Stockfish Qxb4 is forced, and is probably close to lost in my opinion due to the incredibly weak white queenside.

 [Event "Interzonal-05"]
 [Site "Stockholm"]
 [Date "1962.03.04"]
 [Round "22"]
 [White "Bertok, Mario"]
 [Black "Fischer, Robert James"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [ECO "D59"]
 [PlyCount "62"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Be7 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bg5 O-O 6. e3 h6 7. Bh4 b6 8. cxd5 Nxd5 9. Bxe7 Qxe7 10. Nxd5 exd5 11. Be2 Be6 12. O-O c5 13. dxc5 bxc5 14. Qa4 Qb7 15. Qa3 Nd7 16. Ne1 a5 17. Nd3 c4 18. Nf4 Rfb8 19. Rab1 (19. Nxe6 fxe6 20. Bg4 Ra6 $1 21. b3 $1 {Fischer's !} cxb3 (21... Qb4 $1 {Not letting the Qa3 get active.} 22. Qxb4 axb4 {And white is in huge trouble.}) 22. axb3 Qxb3 23. Qe7 Nf8 24. Ra3 Qb4 25. Qxb4 Rxb4 26. Be2 Ra7 27. Rfa1 a4 28. Bd1 $15) 19... Bf5 20. Rbd1 Nf6 21. Rd2 g5 22. Nxd5 (22. Nh5 Ne4 23. Rc2 Qb4 {Winning positionally.}) 22... Nxd5 23. Bxc4 Be6 24. Rfd1? Nxe3! 25. Qxe3 Bxc4 26. h4 Re8 27. Qg3 Qe7 28. b3 Be6 29. f4 g4 30. h5 Qc5+ 31. Rf2 Bf5 0-1


I think in Yermolinski's "The Road to Chess Improvement" he says that he decided to follow "the most common advice one can find in the works of Alekhine and Botvinnik , which can be put into simple words - study your games". Of course Yermolinski takes it much further saying that "study your games" means to do a thorough analysis of each of your games even going as far as to write full annotations for them.

The closest I find in Botvinnik quotes is:

  I claim that nothing else is so effective in encouraging the growth of
  chess strength as such independent analysis, both of the games of the
  great players and your own

This can be found in several quote sites - http://chess-quotes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/botvinnik.html is one such example.


Chess as a De Jure National Sport or Pastime

According to the committe behind the Olympics, it is considered a sport. However, I don't think any country is actively participating in it.

Per Wikipedia:

  Chess is recognized as a sport by the International Olympic Committee (IOC); since June 1999 FIDE has been the recognized International Sports Federation. As a member of the IOC, FIDE adheres to its rules, including, controversially, a requirement for doping tests. The prospects of chess becoming an Olympic sporting event at some future date remain unclear. The use of the name "Chess Olympiad" for FIDE's team championship is of historical origin and implies no connection with the Olympic Games.


When you play 1.e4, you should have a plan against:

d5 - Scandanavian
Nf6 - Alekhine's
d6 - Pirc
c6 - Caro-Kann
g6 - Modern
c5 - Sicilian
e5 - King's Pawn
e6 - French
Nc6 and other garbage.

I would say you can go for a King's Indian Attack setup against all of them except the Scandanavian and the King's Pawn openings. You just need to know where to place your pieces based on your opponents opening choices and what pawn structures you want to achieve against them.

So, Scandanavian and 1...e5 it is not so great against. Everything else you can make do with minor tweaks. I like 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 and if 2...Nf6 3.Bb5+ lines in the Scandanavian. White gets easy development and Black's pices sort of get in each others way a bit.


Benefits of studying annotated grandmaster games

Tal vs Botvinnik 1960 is very good as Tal is quite verbose in commentary and what he was thinking about during the game. In addition to the benefits you mentioned, the annotations help you understand what strong players think about in different positions and how they approach the game. Particularly useful is the strong player's positional understanding and ideas in the middlegame. If you happen to play the same openings as those in the annotated games, then you also may get some insights in typical motifs of the opening.


There is no mention of excluding the regular starting position in Appendix F. of the FIDE Laws of Chess, so it's really Chess960 and not Chess959. I can imagine that there are chess programs or websites which do exclude the regular starting position, but this is against the official rules.


Did any authors ever try to adopt Hans Kmoch's pawn structure terminology?

I was asking myself who else tried to use Kmoch's terminology; I never find in my books other authors using most of his terms (only some of them).

I am probably the only guy who thinks that the terminology is useful. We all are used to works like "candidates", "Luft", "Zugzwang", "passed pawns", "pawn chain". We could also say that these terms are not completely necessary, as we could always describe what zugzwang or a passed pawn is. Since we are used to these terms, we are happy to use them. We are able to save time when we can use specific terms (instead of explaining them all the time).

The problem is not Kmoch's neologisms, but the fact that he proposed all these terms in one single work. If these terms would be proposed by several authors during decades and slowly adopted by other chess author, we would today use terms like "sneakers" (an unfree pawn or fake that may become a passer through a sacrificial combination) or "wedge" (two converging chains reaching into enemy territory) without thinking about them as neologisms.

New terms are often used in specialized areas, for example in science, to facilitate communication. If you take a dictionary with biological or medical terms, you will probably perceive them as unnecessary - until you begin to work with biology or medicine.


Looking for online Swiss pairing software

You could try this free service: https://swisssystem.org/

It’s simple and easy to use. It works fine on mobile devices. The maximum player count is 200.


When and where is it a good idea to make a pawn break in a closed centre position?

Opening a file for your rooks is one good reason to play a pawn break. Although, you should make sure that opening that file doesn't help your opponent's pieces more than it helps yours. As for breaking through near your most advanced pawn, this isn't really a rule that has to be followed closely. But the idea behind it is that once your advanced pawn becomes unblocked, it can push forward into the enemy position. Maybe this will allow it to become a passed pawn. Or, it could open lines for the rest of your pieces to break through. This may be more dangerous for your opponent than if you had broken through further back on the board.


Most of the games that end in checkmate are where the weak side allows checkmate for whatever reason (he thinks it's a nice win / checkmate, to ruin the publishability of the game, etc), but the strongest example I can think of where a player allowed mate on the board accidentally is Deep Fritz vs Kramnik:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1440796


How would the evaluation of the engine suggested endgame in the Anand vs Carlsen game be determined?

First, despite the big eval, it is still probably equal in the long run with best play. In the games below, the weaker side often weakened the position, making easier for the stronger side to win. When in doubt, it is probably not a good idea to move pawns while defending.

It is of note that Anand, and I am sure this is not accidental here, has the optimal kingside pawn setup with f7-g6-h5. Remember that setup as it makes it hard for white to get a passed pawn, or otherwise attack the black pawns. That black also has an e-pawn makes it better here. I will give a couple of games below without the e-pawn that white managed to win just to show some possible ideas.

Again, it is still likely drawn, but if white were to be able to do anything, it is clear that e7 and f7 are the black soft spots, so any successful plan would involve the rook attacking them, most likely with a king walk to the eight rank somehow. This type of king walk ins not uncommon in some endgames with all the pawns on one side. That said, it is definitely worth playing on here.

I could not find any games with the pawn on e7 (I did find some with the pawn on e3, and colors reversed after, and added the wins below), but I did find a three games with the pawn on e6 that were all drawn, with one by famous players (the other two are not worth showing as one was between lower-rated players, and the other between low 2400s, but in blitz). In the first, you can see Najdorf successfully defend by tying down white to f2 and then advancing his central pawns. Despite the draw, I am a bit skeptical of how black played based on some of the games below.

 [Event "Venice"]
 [Site "Venice"]
 [Date "1948.??.??"]
 [Round "?"]
 [White "Euwe, Max"]
 [Black "Najdorf, Miguel"]
 [Result "1/2-1/2"]
 [ECO "D72"]
 [PlyCount "102"]
 [EventDate "1948.??.??"]
 [EventType "tourn"]
 [EventRounds "13"]
 [EventCountry "ITA"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 d5 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. e4 Nb6 7. Ne2 Nc6 8. d5 Nb8 9. Nbc3 c6 10. O-O cxd5 11. exd5 O-O 12. Qb3 N8d7 13. a4 Ne5 14. a5 Nbd7 15. Be3 Ng4 16. Bd4 Bxd4 17. Nxd4 Ngf6 18. a6 Nc5 19. axb7 Bxb7 20. Qb5 Qb6 21. Rfe1 Rfe8 22. b4 Na6 23. Nc6 Kf8 24. Qc4 Nc7 25. Na4 Qb5 26. Qxb5 Nxb5 27. Nc5 Bxc6 28. dxc6 e6 29. Nd7+ Ke7 30. Nxf6 Kxf6 31. c7 Nxc7 32. Bxa8 Rxa8 33. Ra5 Nd5 34. Rb1 Rb8 35. Rxa7 Rxb4 36. Rxb4 Nxb4 37. h4 h5 38. Kg2 Nc6 39. Rd7 Ne5 40. Rc7 Ng4 41. Kf3 Nh6 42. Kf4 Nf5 43. Ke4 Nh6 44. Rc3 Ng4 45. Rf3+ Ke7 46. Kd4 f5 47. Kc3 e5 48. Kd2 e4 49. Ra3 Nxf2 50. Ra6 Kf7 51. Ke3 Nd3 1/2-1/2

Here are a couple of games without the extra e-pawn just to show some similar games that white won. The first is close to how I imagined trying to win, and the second shows black not defending too well.

 [Event "Warsaw AIG Life rapid 9th"]
 [Site "Warsaw"]
 [Date "2009.12.20"]
 [Round "11"]
 [White "Sergeev, Vladimir"]
 [Black "Lind, Jan Olov"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "A48"]
 [WhiteElo "2428"]
 [BlackElo "2209"]
 [PlyCount "129"]
 [EventDate "2009.12.19"]
 [EventType "swiss (rapid)"]
 [EventRounds "13"]
 [EventCountry "POL"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Bg5 Bg7 4. Nbd2 c5 5. e3 b6 6. c3 O-O 7. h3 Bb7 8. Bd3 d6 9. O-O Nbd7 10. a4 a6 11. Qe2 Qc7 12. e4 e5 13. dxe5 dxe5 14. Rfd1 Rfe8 15. Bc2 Nf8 16. Nc4 Re6 17. Bxf6 Bxf6 18. Bb3 Rd8 19. Rxd8 Qxd8 20. Rd1 Qc7 21. Ne3 Rd6 22. Bd5 Ne6 23. Qc4 h5 24. h4 Kg7 25. g3 Qd7 26. Ra1 Bxd5 27. Nxd5 b5 28. axb5 axb5 29. Qe2 c4 30. Qe3 Rxd5 31. exd5 Qxd5 32. Re1 Nc5 33. Nxe5 Na4 34. Re2 Bxe5 35. Qxe5+ Qxe5 36. Rxe5 Nxb2 37. Rxb5 Nd1 38. Rc5 Nxc3 39. Rxc4 Nd5 40. Rc6 Nf6 41. Kg2 Ng4 42. Ra6 Ne5 43. Kf1 Ng4 44. Ke2 Ne5 45. f3 Nd7 46. Ke3 Nf6 47. Kd4 Ng8 48. Ke5 Nh6 49. Kf4 Ng8 50. Ra7 Nf6 51. Ra5 Ng8 52. g4 hxg4 53. fxg4 Nf6 54. g5 Nd7 55. Ke4 Nf8 56. Ra6 Nd7 57. Kd5 Nf8 58. Rd6 Nh7 59. Kc6 Nf8 60. Kc7 Nh7 61. Kd8 Kf8 62. Rb6 f6 63. Rb7 Kg8 64. Rxh7 fxg5 65. Rh6 1-0

And the second:

 [Event "Belgrade Trako"]
 [Site "Belgrade"]
 [Date "1995.??.??"]
 [Round "5"]
 [White "Ostojic, Nikola"]
 [Black "Nestorovic, Dejan"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "D85"]
 [WhiteElo "2465"]
 [BlackElo "2415"]
 [PlyCount "105"]
 [EventDate "1995.03.??"]
 [EventType "tourn"]
 [EventRounds "13"]
 [EventCountry "YUG"]
 [EventCategory "9"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6. bxc3 Bg7 7. Bb5+ c6 8. Ba4 O-O 9. Ne2 c5 10. O-O Nc6 11. Be3 Qc7 12. Qc2 Na5 13. Qc1 Bd7 14. Bxd7 Qxd7 15. Bh6 cxd4 16. Bxg7 Kxg7 17. cxd4 Rac8 18. Qe3 b6 19. Rad1 Rc2 20. d5 Rxa2 21. Nd4 Kg8 22. Rd3 Nc4 23. Qc1 Rc8 24. Nc6 Rxc6 25. Qb1 Rd2 26. Rxd2 Nxd2 27. dxc6 Qxc6 28. Rc1 Qb7 29. Qd3 Nxe4 30. Qd8+ Kg7 31. Rc7 Qa6 32. Qd4+ Nf6 33. Rxe7 h5 34. h3 Qa5 35. Qc4 Qd5 36. Qxd5 Nxd5 37. Rxa7 Kf6 38. Kf1 Ke6 39. h4 Kf6 40. g3 Ke6 41. Ke2 Nf6 42. Kd3 Ng4 43. Ra2 Kf5 44. Rb2 Ne5+ 45. Kd4 Nd7 46. Kd5 Nf6+ 47. Kd6 Ne4+ 48. Ke7 g5 49. Kxf7 gxh4 50. gxh4 Nc5 51. Rxb6 Nd3 52. Rb3 Ne5+ 53. Kg7 1-0

I found two more wins but with colors reversed and with the e-pawn. The first win is by the venerable Yermo, who is a great endgame expert. In this game, you see Yermo try to get a passer with f6, and g5, but when white does not trade, he grabs space instead. Then you see the king walk again hitting the soft spots. This is probably the game you should imitate. If there were a "textbook example", I would probably use this one.

 [Event "Western Pacific op 3rd"]
 [Site "Burbank"]
 [Date "2005.03.26"]
 [Round "3"]
 [White "Kretchetov, Alexandre"]
 [Black "Yermolinsky, Alex"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [ECO "E11"]
 [WhiteElo "2326"]
 [BlackElo "2570"]
 [PlyCount "146"]
 [EventDate "2005.03.25"]
 [EventType "swiss"]
 [EventRounds "5"]
 [EventCountry "USA"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 c5 5. Bxb4 cxb4 6. g3 O-O 7. Bg2 d6 8. O-O Re8 9. a3 bxa3 10. Rxa3 Nc6 11. Nc3 a5 12. Nb5 Na7 13. Nxa7 Rxa7 14. b4  b6 15. Qc2 Qc7 16. Rfa1 Bb7 17. Nd2 Bxg2 18. Kxg2 e5 19. dxe5 Rxe5 20. Nf3 Re4 21. bxa5 Rxa5 22. Rxa5 bxa5 23. Qd2 Qxc4 24. e3 a4 25. Qxd6 Re8 26. Nd4 h5 27. h3 Ra8 28. Ra3 Ne4 29. Qe5 Nd2 30. Qb5 Qxb5 31. Nxb5 Nc4 32. Rc3 a3 33. Rxc4 a2 34. Rc1 a1=Q 35. Rxa1 Rxa1 36. h4 g6 37. Nd4 Kg7 38. Nf3 Ra2 39. Nd4 Kf6 40. Kf3 Rb2 41. Ne2 Ke5 42. Nf4 Rd2 43. Ne2 Rd6 44. Nf4 Rf6 45. Kg2 Ke4 46. Nh3 Kd3 47. Ng1 Ra6 48. Nf3 f6 49. Kf1 Ra5 50. Kg2 g5 51. Kf1 g4 52. Nd4 Ra6 53. Nb5 Rb6 54. Nd4 Kd2 55. Kg1 Rb1+ 56. Kg2 Rd1 57. Ne6 Ke1 58. Nf4 Rd2 59. Kg1 f5 60. Nxh5 Rxf2 61. Nf4 Ra2 62. h5 Kd2 63. Kf2 Kc3+ 64. Kg1 Kc4 65. Ng6 Kd5 66. Nf4+ Ke4 67. h6 Ra6 68. h7 Rh6 69. Ne6 Kxe3 70. Ng5 f4 71. gxf4 Kxf4 72. Ne6+ Kg3 73. Ng5 Kh4 0-1

And IM Tania Sachdev, who was not an IM at the time, being beaten by a fellow IM.

 [Event "Olomouc Proclient Cup"]
 [Site "Olomouc"]
 [Date "2004.07.08"]
 [Round "6"]
 [White "Sachdev, Tania"]
 [Black "Gavrilov, Alexei V"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [ECO "E18"]
 [WhiteElo "2240"]
 [BlackElo "2441"]
 [PlyCount "118"]
 [EventDate "2004.07.04"]
 [EventType "tourn"]
 [EventRounds "11"]
 [EventCountry "CZE"]
 [EventCategory "2"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Be7 6. O-O O-O 7. Nc3 Na6 8. Bf4 d6 9. Rc1 Re8 10. a3 c5 11. dxc5 bxc5 12. Qc2 Qb6 13. Rfd1 d5 14. cxd5 exd5 15. Nh4 d4 16. Na4 Qb5 17. Bxb7 Qxb7 18. Nf5 Nd5 19. Bd6 Bg5 20. Bxc5 Bxc1 21. Rxc1 Nxc5 22. Nxc5 Qb6 23. Nxd4 a5 24. Qb3 Qxb3 25. Ncxb3 Nb6 26. Rc5 Na4 27. Rxa5 Nxb2 28. Rxa8 Rxa8 29. Nb5 Nc4 30. Kg2 Nxa3 31. Nxa3 Rxa3 32. Nd4 g6 33. e3 Kg7 34. h4 Kf6 35. Nf3 h5 36. Ng5 Ra7 37. Kf3 Ke5 38. Nh3 Ra2 39. Nf4 Kf5 40. Nd3 Ra3 41. e4+ Ke6 42. Ke3 f6 43. f4 f5 44. exf5+ gxf5 45. Kd4 Kd6 46. Kc4 Ra1 47. Ne5 Rg1 48. Nf3 Rxg3 49. Nd4 Rg4 50. Nxf5+ Ke6 51. Nd4+ Kf6 52. Kd3 Rxf4 53. Ke3 Rxh4 54. Nf3 Ra4 55. Kf2 Kf5 56. Kg3 Ra3 57. Kg2 Kf4 58. Ng1 Kg4 59. Ne2 Ra2 0-1


My computer likes the cowardly Kd3 putting the king safe, which made me laugh. It's second favourite move was d6 which has more of a point - fight for the center and let the bishop see the f7 pawn directly. Also after d6 then Qd5 would threaten mate on f7.
To my carbon-based eye h6 looks attractive. The cunning point is that the white queen eyes the unprotected black rook on h8. Pawns on e5 and g7 are the only things blocking the queen's gaze. The idea of h6 is to tempt black into playing gxh6.
Here are some sample lines (but check with the computer as the position is very complicated and the silicon monster sees a lot further and a lot clearer than me).
[fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. h6 g6 (1...gxh6 2. d6 {trying to set up the mating threat Nd5, NXc7#} e6 {stopping that plan} 3. Nd5! {anyway!} exd5+ 4. Qxd5 {threatening mate on f7. Stopping it will cost black the queen}) 2. fxg6 hxg6 (2...fxg6 3. e6 {and the rook is lost}) 3. d6 e6 {and white is close to threatening mate with Nf6. Maybe first shift the black knight on g8 with h7.}


How to describe two knights defending each other?

They're connected knights.

As the other answers said, this isn't typically that smart a thing for knights. OTOH, rooks are very often made stronger by connecting them (it allows them to thwart any queen intrusion). Thus you'll more often hear about it being “a good idea to connect rooks now”. But I think I've also heard the term used with knights. Just, knights tend to serve more of a tactical role than solid defense of the back-rank, and they're usually better protected by pawns or bishops, as these don't reduce their mobility in the way mutual knight defense does.

For pawns, the term connected of course means something different, since two pawns can never protect each other mutually.


Is there some method to show attacks and defends and other statistics on board?

You could use Chessbase on a laptop to show games and positions. That would allow you to highlight critical squares and show possible moves with colourful arrows. Here is a description how to do this.


I believe this is the position with White to mate in 3:
[FEN "8/8/4P3/3p4/2p3p1/1pP1kPPp/1P5P/R3K2R w KQkq - 0 1"]

Tim Krabbé and Max Pam exploited a loophole in the rules when they composed this problem in 1972.
There are 3 variations depending on Black's responses with the third variation being vertical castling.

1.e7 Kd3 2.e8=R gxf3 3.0-0-0#.
1.e7 Kxf3 2.e8=R d4 3.0-0#.
1.e7 Kxf3 2.e8=R Kg2 3.0-0-0-0#!.


How to reduce the number of playouts on LeelaChessZero?

I think that you need to add an equals sign(or something) to the parameter, so that it says
--playouts=5.
Anyway, 'Unknown command line' means that you have probably mistyped that command.
I've read the wiki as well, and it didn't specify anything.


What's a good explanation for stalemate being a draw for a beginning chess player?

If you were dominating so much, you should have checkmated him. It's not the fault of the game that your mistakes may mean you don't win.

The appeal of chess comes partly from the fact that it is hard. One of the reasons for that is that there is quite a large drawing margin -- you may have a great position at some point, but there may still be many ways to defend tenaciously in endgames, and a good opponent can make it very hard for you to win even if he does make a big mistake early on.

Those ways include eternal check, the fact that you can't checkmate with a single bishop or knight against a lone king, fortresses, and also many ways to defend based on stalemate.

For instance, king + pawn vs king (where the pawn isn't immediately lost) would be a trivial win for the pawn without stalemate, but with stalemate it's sometimes a forced win and sometimes it's possible to hold a draw. Because you need to see which it is before you trade down to that endgame, that makes the game deeper and harder.

I don't think chess would have become as popular as it is without rules like stalemate. It would be a shallower game.

You just didn't play well enough.


Maximum number of knights populating a chess board so that no knights are attacking one another

14 non-attacking bishops
We may consider the white-square bishops and the black-square bishops separately.
At most 7 bishops can be placed on white squares, namely, at most one bishop on each of the 7 white diagonals parallel to the h1-a8 diagonal. In fact, we can put bishops on the 7 white squares b1, d1, f1, h1, c8, e8, g8.
The solution for black-square bishops is just the mirror image of the solution for white-square bishops. At most one bishop can be placed on each of the 7 black diagonals parallel to the a1-h8 diagonal, and this can be achieved with bishops on a1, c1, e1, g1, b8, d8, f8.
32 non-attacking knights
We can put 32 knights on the board by putting knights on all the white squares or on all the black squares.
One way to see the we can't have more than 32 knights is to consider a knight's tour. If we number the squares from 1 to 64 in the order they are visited by the touring knight, then it's clear that our non-attacking knights can occupy at most one of the two squares 1 & 2, at most one of squares 3 & 4, at most one of squares 5 & 6, and so on.
But a knight's tour is somewhat difficult, and not really needed for this problem. All we really need is to divide the 64 squares of the chessboard into 32 pairs, each pair being separated by a knight's move. Since the 8 x 8 board can be cut up inti eight 2 x 4 boards, it will be enough to observe that the 2 x 4 board admits such a pairing (and therefore can hold at most 4 non-attacking knights), namely a1 & c2, a2 & c1, b1 & d2, b2 & d1.
Non-attacking knights on variant chessboards
It can be shown that, provided m,n > 2, the maximum possible number of knights on an m x n chessboard is ceiling(mn/2), that is, it's mn/2 if mn is even, (mn+1)/2 if mn is odd. This number can obviously be attained by putting all the knights on squares of one color. Proving that it's optimal is more work.
Let's say that an m x n chessboard has a "good pairing" if the set of squares can be partitioned into pairs (with one square left over if mn is odd), each pair being connected by a knight move. The existence of a good pairing follows from the existence of a knight's tour, but good pairings are easier to find than knight's tours. It will suffice to show that a good pairing exists whenever m,n > 2. In fact, it will suffice to show that a good pairing exists for 2 x 4, 3 x 3, 3 x 4, 3 x 5, 3 x 6, 5 x 5, and 5 x 6 chessboards, since every m x n chessboard with min(m,n) > 2 can be partitioned into rectangular pieces of those seven sizes, without using more than one piece with an odd number of squares. Constructing good pairings for those seven small boards is left to the reader. (The 3 x 4, 5 x 5, and 5 x 6 boards allow knight's tours.)