What common patterns should I look for in chess?

What you here call 'patterns' are more commonly called chess tactics. See the Wikipedia article for Chess Tactics for a list with some visualization.

These are the simple patterns. There are more complicated patterns that arise rather less commonly, but these complicated patterns tend to simply be a composite of the 'basic tactics'.

A fine example of a more complicated pattern is the windmill: Wikipedia article for Windmill


http://www.amazon.com/Grandmaster-Repertoire-17-Classical-Slav/dp/1907982388

Grandmaster Repertoire 17 by Avrukh is probably what you're looking for. It is extremely dense and detailed. It will require a lot of work to get all the information that you need, but there are a lot of rewards there as well.

If you have not studied that Slav before, I would recommend:

http://www.amazon.com/Slav-Move-Everyman-Chess/dp/185744678X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347014456&sr=1-2&keywords=slav+defence

Slav: Move by Move by Lakdawala as it gives a great overview of the plans and ideas of the opening and provides puzzles and quizzes throughout the games to test your understanding.

The Slav is a great opening and I wish you luck in your studies!


Assuming it is even white to move there, the real question is can white avoid the loss, and I would say the answer is "no".

White is down two pawns, and black has the means to create passed pawns on both wings. This is just lost.


Fastest way to generate castling moves in a computer chess engine

It's been a long time since I've made any efficiency mods, but this can be reduced to one if statement, but many would be easier to read.
if
!bitboard_occupied  // easy to find by ORing with f1/g1 (or queenside)

!bitboard_attacked | [square e1/f1/g1 (or queenside)  // attacked already known

!bitboard_moved | (h1 (or a1) & e1)

Updating the moved bitboards would be more costly to maintain during each move and undo than the extra if statements in the relatively rare castling routine.


Why and how do great chess players become "crazy"?

King's Gambit: A Son, A Father, and the World's Most Dangerous Game is about this. The age-old question is:
Does chess make you mentally ill or are mentally ill people attracted to chess?

Chess has the highest suicide rate of any sport by a long-shot.
Many chess world champions were mentally ill.

There's a whole bunch of other supporting facts about chess being linked to insanity, but I'd have to re-read the book to recall all of them.
All the insanely brilliant people in my life have some form of mental illness. I consider myself extremely fortunate to know these people. They're genius about things I can't begin to understand. There's two bipolar geniuses and two Aspergers geniuses. I know three of the four love chess.
And then there's my 135 IQ friend who's bipolar, her boyfriend from back in the day who was a genius and schizophrenic, my straight A friend who's depressed and maybe a little autistic, my aspergers 130+ IQ friend, my nerdy (aka autistic/aspergers traits) friend with depression who's 138.
So basically every intelligent person I can name has some sort of "disorder." Remember that by definition, being intelligent isn't normal. Who's to say one is the correct or incorrect way to think? Just because the majority of people think at a normal intelligence doesn't necessarily mean that's the right way to think. That's just how almost everyone thinks, so they only diagnose the exceptional people. Maybe you could argue that having a normal level of intelligence should be its own mental disorder.
For example, normal people don't get intelligent questions. Look at some questions on here written by geniuses and you'll see they're immediately flagged and closed. People rationalize it after the fact. It's unfocused, or too specific, or not a real question, or misguided, or all over the place, or off topic, or whatever. The kind of thinking that seems obvious to the intelligent person needs to be justified to normal people. Remember that as a society we villainize intelligence. Nobody normal is interested in big ideas. That's weird. All they care about is whether or not this is going to make their life more comfortable. And I'm not really sure why we were put on this Earth, but I'm pretty darn sure it wasn't to make ourselves comfortable.
See where I'm going with this?
My Calc professor left his copy of that book on my desk the day I went in to take my final exam for his class. He loves chess and mathematics. I'd visit him in his office after my class ended to say hi. We'd talk about intellectual giants and infinity and chess. Sometimes you can get caught on a problem, and start thinking about it forever. And eventually it'll drive you crazy. That's what happened to a lot of these mathematicians. Maybe these chess guys just got too absorbed in their own world. But it takes a tremendous mind to be capable of creating a world.
See where I'm going with this?


What does "best five out of eight" mean?

To me, it just seems A is asking for a match of 8 games. If you exclude the possibility of draws, you'll need 5 wins to win such a match. This is similar to the best-of-X formats used in playoffs in many sports.

In any case, it's not terminology specific to chess. You might have more luck on English Language & Usage or English Language Learners.


According to the FIDE Laws of Chess:

  9.2.2 Positions are considered 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:

  9.2.2.1   at the start of the sequence a pawn could have been captured en passant
  9.2.2.2   a king had castling rights with a rook that has not been moved, but forfeited these after moving. The castling rights are lost
  only after the king or rook is moved.

Hence the answer to

  With respect to threefold repetition, would the positions be
  considered the same if:

  In the first position, the king cannot castle because it is in check,
  pieces are blocking, or for some other reason, but it could castle
  otherwise

Although castling is temporarily prevented the king still has castling rights. They are not lost if castling is temporarily prevented by check or blocking pieces. They are only lost if the king or rook moves.

With regard to:

  With respect to threefold repetition, would the positions be
  considered the same if:

  In the second position, the king cannot castle because it has already
  moved.

The rules are clear. If the king has lost castling rights since the the first position then the positions are not the same and a draw cannot be claimed.

  Does permanent loss of castling rights reset three fold repetition?

Yes. That's what the rule says.


Does the FIDE 75-move rule apply after checkmate or resignation?

The FIDE Laws of Chess (I'm giving a link to the version in the Arbiter's Handbook because FIDE have Munged their own site) do give a definitive answer but it takes some searching to find. The key appears in the section on the Chess clock!

  6.2.1 During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent‟s clock
  (that is to say, he shall press his clock). This “completes” the move.
  A move is also completed if:
  6.2.1.1 the move ends the game (see Articles 5.1.1, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 9.6.1 and 9.6.2),

We turn to 9.6.1 and 9.6.2 -

  9.6 If one or both of the following occur(s) then the game is drawn:
  9.6.1 the same position has appeared, as in 9.2.2 at least five times.

  9.6.2 any series of at least 75 moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. If the last
  move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence.

Checkmate or resignation occurred after the 75 moves hence the game had already ended and provided the rules of the competition allow for appeals / claims then your claim of a draw is valid. Note that if you wait too long the decision is not going to be reversed. For instance if the results have already been sent to FIDE for rating then it is way too late. If you notice 10 minutes after the game then you should still be able to appeal and claim the draw.

Note that had you been paying attention then you would have claimed the draw after 50 moves. After 75 moves it is the arbiter who is supposed to be paying attention and you should not have to take any action. It is his responsibility to pay attention and step in to declare the game drawn. The only reason you have to take action and appeal in this case is to correct the mistake of the arbiter.


Since your opponent is most likely to castle short, you have to choose lines where long castling (for you) is reasonable.

With white I would suggest 1. e4, and against 1... e5 the Center Game 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4 Nc6 4. Qe3.

[Title "Center Game"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4 Nc6 4. Qe3

Against 1... c5 you can play the Open Sicilian (2. Nf3 followed by 3. d4).

Against other black defenses you can find lines with long castling as well.

With black it's more difficult. You could try the French Winawer

[Title "French Winawer"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4

against 1. e4 and the Albin Countergambit

[Title "Albin Countergambit"]
[FEN ""]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 d4

against 1. d4.


Fischer vs. Geller, Curacao Candidates 1962

Geller himself analyzed this endgame in The Application of Chess Theory. I'm not sure if it's quite as in-depth as you're looking for but I've reproduced the post-move-33 annotations here.

[FEN ""]
[StartPly "65"]
[StartFlipped "1"]
[Event "Curacao Candidates"]
[Site "Willemstad CUW"]
[Date "1962.05.16"]
[EventDate "1962.05.02"]
[Round "9"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Robert James Fischer"]
[Black "Efim Geller"]
[ECO "B88"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "136"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bc4 e6
7. Bb3 Be7 8. f4 O-O 9. Be3 Nxd4 10. Bxd4 b5 11. e5 dxe5
12. fxe5 Nd7 13. O-O Bc5 14. Bxc5 Nxc5 15. Qxd8 Rxd8 16. Nxb5
Ba6 17. Bc4 Rab8 18. a4 Nxa4 19. Nd6 Bxc4 20. Nxc4 Nxb2
21. Nd6 Rd7 22. Rfb1 Rc7 23. h3 Rb6 24. c4 h6 25. Nb5 Rc5
26. Rxb2 a6 27. Rf2 axb5 28. Ra7 Rxe5 29. Rfxf7 Rg5 30. Rfb7
Rxb7 31. Rxb7 bxc4 32. Rc7 Rf5 33. Rxc4 Kf7 34. g4 (34. g3) {An inaccuracy. Of course, the white king has come into play, but for this 34. g3 was more appropriate, retaining the possibility in certain cases of continuing h3-h4 and Kg2-h3-g4. But now the white king is cut off along the third rank, and the white pawns are insufficiently defended} Rf3 35. Kg2
Rd3 36. Rc7+ Kf6 37. h4 Ra3 38. Rb7 Rc3 {Both sides have been making waiting moves before the time control, but White suddenly changes the character of the position} 39. g5+ hxg5 40. hxg5+
Kg6 41. Re7 Re3 42. Kf2? (42. Kh2!! Re5 (42... Kxg5 43. Rxg7 Kf6 44. Rg1 Rf3 45. Kg2 Rf5 46. Re1) 43. Kh3){This last move before the adjournment loses by force. White could still have drawn with 42. Kf2!!, so as to answer 42... Re5 with 43. Kh3, not allowing the black rook to take the g5 pawn with check or to leave the e-file with check. And in the event of 42... Kxg5 43. Rxg7+ Kf6 44. Rg1 Rf3 45. Kg2 Rf5 46. Re1 a theoretically drawn position would have been reached} Re5 {By this sealed move Black wins a second pawn, and with it the game} 43. Kf3 Rf5+ 44. Ke3 (44. Ke4 Rf7! (44... e5?? 45. Rxg7) 45. Rxe6 Kxg5) {In the event of 44. Ke4 Black of course would not have continued 44... e5?? 45. Rxg7+, but 44... Rf7! 45. Rxe6+ Kxg5, and since here White's king is cut off on the so-called "long" side of the board, he is lost. Something similar also occurs in the game} e5 45. Ke4
Rxg5 46. Re8 Rg1 47. Kf3 (47. Re6+ Kf7 48. Rxe5 Re1+ 49. Kf5 Rxe5+ 50. Kxe5 Kg6! 51. Kf4 Kh5) {The e-pawn is immune, since the pawn ending in the variation is lost} Rf1+ 48. Kg3 Rf5 49. Rb8 (49. Kg4 Rf4 50. Kg3 Kf5 51. Rf8+ Ke4 52. Rg8 Rf3+ 53. Kg2 (53. Kg4 Rf1) Rf7 {and Black completes his regrouping}) Kg5 50. Re8
Kf6 51. Rf8+ Ke6 52. Re8+ Kf6 53. Rf8+ Ke6 54. Re8+ Kd5 {Before the second control Black gains time on the clock by repeating moves}
55. Ra8 Rf7 56. Kg4 Re7 {The control is passed, the rook is ideally placed, and Black has merely to escape from the checks and advance his pawns} 57. Ra5+ Ke6 58. Ra6+ Kf7 59. Kf3 Re6
60. Ra8 e4+ 61. Ke3 g5 {All the conditions have been fulfilled, and the win is not far off} 62. Ra1 Kg6 63. Rb1 Re5 64. Kd4 Kf6
65. Re1 (65. Rf1 Ke6 66. Ke3 (66. Re1 g4 67. Rg1 e3) Rf5 67. Ra1 Rf4 68. Ra5 Kf6 {and the king breaks through at h4}) Ra5! {A typical plan. Black gives up one of his pawns to break through with his king and obtain a theoretically won position} 66. Rxe4 Kf5! {Here the pawn ending would have been drawn} 67. Re8 Kg4 68. Ke3 Kg3 {White resigned in view of the following plan, which is typical} (69. Ke2 g4 70. Rg8 Rf5 71. Rg7 Kh3 72. Rg8 g3 73. Rg7 Kh2 74. Rh7 Kg1 75. Rg7 g2 76. Ra7 (76. Rh7 Re5 77. Kd3 Kf2 78. Rf7 Kg3 79. Rg7 Kf3 80. Rf7 Kg4 81. Rg7 Rg5-+) Rh5 77. Kf3 Kh1)  0-1


Does SCID have a function that allows to print a single game with variations as ECO table?

First of all, I do not know if trying the feature Opening Report on a single game (or a database composed of a single game) would show the variations in the ECO tree. If you have not tried it, this would be my first step.

I also don't know if the ECO table can be directly printed as on ChessBase (it certainly is a great feature), but what you can do, albeit being a bit more of work, is to make a SCID database rewriting all the variations as whole (unfinished) games, and then use Opening Report to get the desired ECO tables.

What I mean by this is that if I have a game that goes:

    [FEN ""]
    1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 (2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4) Nc6 3. Qh5 Nf6 4. Qxf7#

Then the variation shall be included in the database and this game would be split into two, the main line and the variation, when being rewritten. When using Opening Report on this variation filled database, you will certainly obtain the ECO tables (and more).

This should not be extremely difficult and hopefully not long. I suggest you take a look at this video, as here the theme of easily including and saving variations in a game is a bit discussed (although the main purpose of the video is to use SCID to develop an opening repertoire).


Are there any opening traps that result in a windmill?

I did some deep, deep searching and found few results. It seems that there are no actual windmill traps that are quick and widely known. This is unless you somehow manage to run through long and arbitrary sequences that are extremely unlikely to occur in actual play. Even then, it is a matter of your opponent who actually falls for it.
If you still consider it a trap though, the one genuine such trap that I have discovered so far occurs in the Russian Game, Damiano Variation.
[FEN ""]
[startply "26"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 Nxe4 4. Qe2 Qe7 5. Qxe4 d6 6. d4 dxe5 7. Qxe5 Qxe5+ 8. dxe5 Nc6 9. Bb5 Bd7 10. Bxc6 Bxc6 11. O-O O-O-O 12. Bf4 g5 13. Bxg5 Rg8 14. Bxd8 Rxg2+ 15. Kh1 Rxf2+ 16. Kg1 Rg2+ 17. Kh1 Rg3+ 18. Rf3 Bxf3#

The trap occurs when Black plays 13... Rg8. If White strikes the false prey with the move 14. Bxd8?, thinking they have won an exchange, then Black can play 14... Rxg2! and commence a mate in 4 using the windmill tactic.
Another alternative, as @supercat suggested in a comment, is that Black could troll some and have fun demonstrating the power of the windmill.
[FEN "2kB1b2/ppp2p1p/2b5/4P3/8/8/PPP2PrP/RN3R1K b - - 0 1"]

1... Rxf2+ 2. Kg1 Rg2+ 3. Kh1 Rxc2+ 4. Kg1 Rg2+ 5. Kh1 Rxb2+ 6. Kg1 Rg2+ 7. Kh1 Rxa2+ 8. Rf3 Bxf3+ 9. Kg1 Bc5+ 10. Kf1 Rxh2 11. Ke1 Be3 12. Nd2 Bxd2+ 13. Kf1 Be3 14. Ke1 Rh1#


First of all, lichess rarely bans players. What they usually do is flag their profile (usually for using chess computer assistance), remove their rating, and prevent them from p laying in tournaments and/or rating games. This is not a full ban.

To answer your question:

Lichess flags players for a variety of reasons, but (as mentioned above) they usually flag players for using chess computer assistance. They may also be flagged for sandbagging - artificially increasing or decreasing their rating.

If you want to know why are particular player was flagged, check their profile. There should be a large red banner informing you what has happened.

If you are wondering how the process of reporting/flagging players works, that would be a separate question.


You can't cancel the match once it is started. Your only option is to resign in such case.

You're referencing something called "abort" where the match is ended with no result for either side. There is no option to "abort" in modern competitive chess, but it is worth mentioning that a few decades ago it was the norm to adjourn games that took an unreasonably long amount of time (i.e. played long into the night). It would be resumed at a later time convenient to both players.


Can you mate with each of your 16 pieces on its original square?

Obviously the last white move was 16. Nf3g1+.

I note that black needs at least 15 moves to place the pieces as they are:

4 moves to swap queen with rook as they are (various movements possible),
2 moves for the bishop (Bf8g7, Bg7h8),
2 moves for the knight (Ng8f6, Nf6g4 or Ng8h6, Nh6g4)
1 move each for the two pawns (g7g6 and h7h5)
5 moves for the king (any direct route)

Together with the information that it is black's 16th move, this means that all of black's pieces must have taken a direct route to their destination.

Note that black did not capture any white pieces, because white still has 16 pieces on the board. This means in particular that the pawns on g6 and h5 are the pawns from g7 and h7 respectively.

White has promoted the g pawn for a knight. Since black has still the original g pawn, and all pieces except for two pawns, this is only possible, if the white g pawn moved to g6, captured the black pawn on f7 and promoted on f8 for a knight.

The white pawn could only be promoted after the square on f8 was emptied, i.e. the order of moves is roughly: 1) white pawn moves to g6, 2) white pawn captures black pawn on f7, 3) black plays g7g6, and Bf8g7

Before white captured g6xf7, the black e pawn must have been gone as otherwise (with e7, Qd8, Bf8 and Ke8 present), black would have been forced to recapture the white pawn on f7 since it is check (and the black king would have no squares to escape).

Counting the minimum number of white moves now until the position after blacks's 15th move (i.e. with white knights on f3 and g2)

white's g pawn: 5 moves (g2g4, g4g5, g5g6, g6xf7 f7f8N)
return the promoted knight from f8 to either f3 or g2: 3 moves
capturing the e7 pawn and returning the piece:
If this was done by the rook, it would take at least 8 moves. This would make the total (5+3+8>15), so is not possible. So e7 was captured by a white knight, which returned. Both options (a) white knight from g1 capturing e7 and returning to g2 or f3 or (b) white knight from b1 capturing e7 and returning to b1 plus the move Ng1f3; would take 7 moves.

5+3+7=15, meaning that also white moved its pieces on shortest possible routes without any time for waiting moves.

As for the rest, basically it comes down to check how to achieve the main plans in order, i.e.:

capture the pawn on e7 with a knight and return the knight at least partially (so that the black king is able to get to e7); as mentioned this needs to be done before white captures gxf7
capture gxf7 and promote the pawn
return all white pieces to their final destination

During phase "1." black is very limited in moves since the g pawn cannot move yet (has to wait for the white pawn to play gxf7). This leaves as the only possible first moves for black 1....h5 2...Rh6 ... 3...Rf6 4....Nh6.

These four moves are just enough time for white to capture the e7 pawn with the knight on b1 and to return the knight to c3 (making space for the king on e7, i.e. giving black additional "waiting" moves (waiting for white to push the pawn to g6 and play gxf7). Note that white has to capture the e7 pawn with the knight on b1, because trying to capture it with the knight on g1 would take one move longer and black would run out of waiting moves. So the first four moves are: 1. Nc3 h5 2. Nd5 Rh6 3. Nxe7 Rf6 4. Nd5 Nh6 5. Nc3 Ke7.

Phase two starts and white has to push the g pawn forward, because playing for instance 6. Nb1 black would run out of "waiting" moves and would not manage to regroup queen/rook/bishop in time. So, the next three and a half moves (6. g4 Ke6 7. g5 Kf5 8. g6 Kg4 9. gxf7 ) are basically black pushing the king on the shortest available route towards h3 and white pushing the g pawn forward. As mentioned black has to wait with playing g6 until white captures gxf7, so black can only push the king during this phase.

The final phase (9....g6 10. Nf3 Bg7 11. f8=N Bh8 12. Ne6 Qg8 13. Nf4 Rf8 14. Ng2 Kh3 15. Nb1 Ng4 16. Ng1#) is basically just moving the pieces to their final squares. There are no alternative move orders possible. For instance white cannot play Nb1 earlier, because with 14. Ng2 he is just in time to block the bishop from attacking h3, allowing 14. ... Kh3.


What is the probability that an exchange sacrifice leads to a win?

In my experience, it's best to just check what it gives, for example: if I now sacrifice my legs and in return all my tools will be active and the opponent's passive, then it's right to sacrifice my legs, every time I have to act like math, feet equal point, activity equal 1.2, direct attack On the king is worth 1.3, and so on, everyone has to decide for him what is worth to him an attack on the king, what is worth my feet, and thus decide whether to sacrifice or not. Hope I helped


In the Nimzo-Indian, Black's entire opening strategy is built around restricting the e4 push. 1... Nf6 stops it immediately. 2... e6 prepares 3... Bb4, which stops it again. Black's takeaway from the opening is that white is generally only able to achieve e4 by making some concession.

In the King's Indian, Black makes no attempt to stop the e4 push other than 1... Nf6 which is of course only a temporary delay. 2... g6 and 3... Bg7 are both aimed at d4.

So, you can tell when you can play e4 by looking at the idea of Black's moves.


Vienna Game: Struggling to find a good response to 2...Nc6

I picked up the Vienna Gambit a year ago and ran into the same quandary over 2. ... Nc6, I generally agree with your assessment of each candidate move, and I don't see that you have much real choice apart from those four.  Taking into account that your preferred line is the Vienna Gambit, and that you'd like to be able to deal with alternatives to 2. ... Nf6 in a similar spirit:

Nf3 definitely isn't what you want!  If you were comfortable/happy with 3. Nf3, you'd play 2. Nf3 instead of the Vienna.

Bc4 is a pity.  Before switching to the Vienna Gambit, I was originally drawn to the 3. Bc4 Vienna because of the fairly reliable prospect of getting 5. f4 without gambitting the pawn, but indeed, Black can and should spoil your fun by trading off your bishop with Na5 as soon as you've played d3.  The resulting position is playable, but as with the Four Knights, generally not much fun for the sort of player who'd opt for the Vienna to begin with.  In practice, a lot of players unfamiliar with the Vienna will instead give you 3. ... Bc5 4. Qg4!, so this could be a workable choice in club-level blitz, but "hope chess" should never be the basis of a repertoire decision.

g3 is a much slower and less forceful way to achieve f2-f4 and results in positions of a very different character from developing the Bf1 to c4 or b5.  Once again, playable, but not in the spirit of the Vienna Gambit.

My recommendation is to take a closer look at 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4.  Granted that it's a transposition to the King's Gambit where Black can take the pawn freely without fear of 4. e5 ideas found in the Vienna Gambit, but I think you'll find that the character is about as close as you're going to get to the Vienna Gambit without risking the boring Na5 lines of 3. Bc4, and in chess we don't have the luxury of always getting exactly the flavor of game we'd like.  If your concern is that it's riskier than you prefer, consider the following:

Going back to the Vienna Gambit proper, remember that Black can accept the gambit and walk into 4. e5.  It's a bad decision, but it's not an instant loss, it's hardly risk-free for White, and it will require some technique from you to fully take advantage of Black's misstep.  By playing the Vienna Gambit, you sign on to occasionally play the crazy King's Gambit-ish positions that result from Black accepting the gambit.  In this sense the 2. ... Nc6 3. f4 lines are similar in character to the Vienna Gambit.
With Nc3 and Nc6 having been played, a quick d7-d5 is ruled out.  You're playing a King's Gambit where Black doesn't have access to the Falkbeer Countergambit 2. ... d5 or the Abbazia Defense 2. ... exf4 3. Nf3 d5.  Black has fewer credible replies, and can't really decline the gambit except in ways that permit you to keep your pawn on f4 and transpose into 3. Bc4 Vienna lines where Black hasn't played Na5, which should be pleasant enough for a Vienna Gambit player.
If Black does accept the gambit, presumably you're going to respond 4. Nf3; if you're happy with Vienna Gambit levels of risk but not King's Gambit levels of risk, then allowing 4. ... Qh5+ and having to move your king is probably not your cup of tea.  So now we're looking at the 3. Nf3 King's Gambit proper, except the presence of Nc3 and Nc6 limits Black's options and slightly modifies the character of the remaining choices, a small plus to the Vienna player in terms of familiarity that should decrease the risk.  You're also one move closer to being able to castle long, generally desirable both for safety and for achieving positions closer to what you would have gotten out of the Vienna Gambit main lines from 3. ... d5 4. fxe5 Nxe4.  In many cases you have a decent prospect to fight for d2-d4 and Bxf4.

There are two main issues for you to consider in the lines after 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 exf4 4. Nf3.  If you can reconcile these with your tastes and aptitudes, then I think 3. f4 should be absolutely fine for you.

Just as in the King's Gambit, even if you opt for Nf3, Black may play Be7 and uncommon Bh4+ ideas that will require you to either move your king or (if you played Bc4 in advance) castle short in a tricky position where you have neither f nor g pawns and Black is bearing down on you.  The database stats are encouraging either way, but you will need to know what you're doing and you will need to be comfortable playing in some really madcap positions.
Nc3 and Nc6 aren't solely an improvement for White; the presence of Nc6 means that if Black holds the f4 pawn with 4. ... g5 (by far the most popular choice), and then pushes 5. ... g4 (popular if you play 5. d4 or 5. Bc4, all but guaranteed if you play 5. h4), now you can't simply play Ne5 and preserve some degree of sanity.  With Black's Nc6 preventing you from escaping to e5, you basically need to be prepared to sack the knight, whether that's 5. d4 g4 6. Bc4 gxf3  (or Bc4 first and then d4) in the style of the Muzio Gambit, or 5. h4 g4 6. Ng5 h6 7. Nxf7.  Just about the only alternative to sacking the knight (aside from retreating it...) is 4. ... g5 5. d4 g4 6. Ne5 Nxe5 7. dxe5 Qh4+, which to me looks considerably weaker.  Good news, both knight sacks are playable if you know what you're doing.  Bad news, most likely neither of them is perfectly to your taste if you opted for the Vienna Gambit over the King's Gambit.

In the end, no opening is going to give us exactly what we want 100% of the time.  1. e4 players get to pick their poison between the Ruy (the Berlin stifles the greatest attacking players), the Italian (3. ... Bc5 can be a slog, unless you like the Evans Gambit), the Scotch (3. ... Bc5 again...), various gambits of the d4 pawn, the King's Gambit with Black's numerous strong retorts and White's razor-thin margin for error, and the Vienna with the potential drawbacks you've noted in each major variation.  The other possible first moves for White all have their own equivalent issues.  Take your pick, either based on which troublesome lines you're most likely to meet, or based on which troublesome lines you would most prefer to never meet.  I've tried most everything listed here and found that my personal preference is the Vienna Gambit, with 3. f4 in the case of 2. ... Nc6, and while it's certainly not a choice without drawbacks, you don't have any choices that are wholly without drawbacks.  My advice is to examine the 2. ... Nc6 3. f4 lines a little more closely and decide whether potentially being forced to sacrifice a knight every now and then is preferable to your grievances with the alternative third moves.


Chess960 vs. Chess480 castling moves? Which is better?

I believe the premise of the question is rather unclear! If you're already saying that there are a set of FIDE rules for castling, then the comparison between other types of chess should be straightforward, wouldn't you say? Either they follow the rules or they don't, whereas you seem to be asking for a crude-subjective-qualitative comparison here (you use words like "which is better" or "favored"...), which is kinda impossible because castling in standard chess has well defined rules.

First off, unlike the well-known chess960 mode, chess480 still lacks a coherent definition as many different types of it exists apparently(one where queen has to be restricted to appear on the left of the king, other where the king has to be on dark squares etc.) so as long as there's not a coherent and consistent description of the game, it remains very difficult to do any comparison (unless e.g. you ask for a specific scenario).

But anyway, all that differs, is basically the positions of rook/king after castling, in chess480 in certain scenarios, if possible, unlike Chess960, the final position after castling will not be the same as the final position of a castling move in traditional chess. Quote and image from Wikipedia:

  the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards
  (or over) the rook, then that rook is transferred to the square the
  king has just crossed (if it is not already there). If the king and
  rook are adjacent in a corner and the king cannot move two spaces over
  the rook, then the king and rook exchange squares.

In chess480:

In chess960:

So as far as traditional castling rules are concerned, they are both equally undermining, as for one thing in either mode, the kings can be found on squares other than e-square in the initial setup and still be castled...

Maybe you could further clarify, as to what exactly you intend to achieve with such comparison. (and if you do, then I will edit my reply accordingly.)


When was the term 'Super Grandmaster' first used?

As pointed out in the comments, it's nigh impossible to pin down the very first usage, but since you're after a rough idea, I'll get the ball rolling with an initial answer of the oldest definite use I'm aware of; it's from within the last 25 years, so maybe others can improve on this with better answers.

In 1990, there was a tournament held in New Delhi called the Triveni Super Grandmasters Tournament. The joint winners were Kamsky (#8 with a 2650 rating on the July 1990 rating list) and Anand (#19 with a 2610 rating on the same list). I tried to find a full crosstable or participant list for the tournament, but have so far come up empty on such details.

I do know that Judit Polgar (then "only" #108 in the world, though she would crack the top 20 three years later, and the top 10 three years after that) and former champion Mikhail Tal both played. Additionally, it seems this wasn't a tournament exclusively for GMs, but rather one offering lesser lights the chance to play with some "super grandmasters," as Kamsky mentioned in an interview after the tournament that no participants had achieved any grandmaster norms.

Games

Anand-Kamsky, New Delhi 1990
Kamsky-Tal, New Delhi 1990


Being the one who said that, it's probably fitting I answer.

It all depends on your definition of 'playing the man and not the board.' If by that you mean ignoring your opponent's moves and the demands of the position, gambling on an unsound attack, no good player does that, certainly no Grandmaster.

OTOH, every player has preferences for typical positions, and in preparing for a game against a known opponent, most top players will 'slant' their work a little, aiming to get positions they're comfortable playing that might be uncomfortable for their opponents.

The classic case of this has got to be Kramnik's revival of the Berlin Defense against Kasparov in their world title match. Kramnik knew Kasparov well, knew he didn't like queenless middlegames with lots of maneuvering. So he added the Berlin to his arsenal for that match, and he won.

Note the subtlety, though. Kramnik didn't play bad moves; the Berlin is a perfectly playable defense that only fell out of favor because it tended to draw far more than other lines.

In my coaching I've run into too many youths who use 'playing the player, not the board' as an excuse to play "hope chess," making bad moves to generate a silly attack that in reality has no hope of succeeding against anyone with more than two synapses firing.

My advice to them has always been: "Learn how to play the board, first. Then, when you're good enough to understand what positions you're comfortable in and how to tell when someone else isn't, and only then, start to consider playing the player. Because only then will you be able to do so with any real hope of success."


Longest sequence of mutually forced moves

Assuming you allow promoted material (since you didn't say anything :-),
this (on Page 13 of the PDF) is the (unfortunately, extremely unknown) finite record since ages. It shows the record for the longest sequence of only 1 legal move for each side, with use of promoted material.

[Title "Karl Scherer, Feenshach 1980, Page 13"]
[FEN "BQ4R1/2Q5/3Q4/4Q1pp/5B1P/6QK/Rrrrrrrq/R4nk1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Qxh2+ Rxh2+ 2. Bxh2+ Rxh2+ 3. Qxh2+ Rxh2+ 4. Qxh2+ Rxh2+ 5. Qxh2+ Rxh2+ 6. Qxh2+ Rxh2+ 7. Rxh2 g4+ 8. Rxg4+ hxg4+ 9. Kxg4 Kxh2


Which chess openings trade the most pieces?

in the gurgenidze variation of the accelerated dragon, all pieces are exchanged off except white's two bishops, and typically a bishop and a knight for black. white has a nice space advantage, but blacks structure is very solid and he should be able to draw. however, there are no winning chances for black.


Chess positions that are easy for humans but near impossible or confusing for computers

One way to fool some computers is to give them a fortress and then
offer material to trick them into opening the portcullis.  For example:
[Title "White to draw"]
[FEN "8/8/pr1k4/Pp2rp1p/1Pp1pPpP/2PpP1P1/3P4/3K4 w - - 0 0"]

1. fxe5+?? (1. Ke1)  (1. Kc1)  1... Kxe5 2. axb6 Kd6 0-1

Many computers won't resist the temptation to win RR for PP,
but the resulting pawn ending is lost (Black can play Kb6, a5, a4,
and then break through with f4).  Instead White can just play random
King moves, ignoring any Rook captures, and wait for 50 moves
and there's nothing Black can do about it.


Which side should I castle if I have opportunity to castle on both sides?

can somebody explain what are the factors should be considered if we have opportunity to castle on both sides?

1. The most important factor is king safety;

Long castle is less safe than short one, because king is closer to the center, thus can be attacked faster. You will lose a tempo to properly secure the king with Kb1/Kb8 ( thus protecting the loose a-pawn as well ). In many openings c-file is open/semi open which heightens the danger for the king.

Short castling moves the king far away and there are no loose pawns to protect. Furthermore, opponent must invest considerable amount of time to organize the attack by moving his forces to the kingside. This means that he must abandon some squares/pawn protection which enables you to organize strong counterplay.

2. King's activity in an endgame;

Long castle is preferred as your king will be close to the center. This fact can constitute a big advantage in endgame as king now becomes very powerful.

3. How fast do you need to develop pieces/launch an attack?

You need 2 moves to castle short ( you must move f1 bishop and g1 knight and you are done ), while you need 3 for long castle ( you need to move the queen, c1 bishop and b1 knight ). In opening speed is very important, therefore super GMs prefer short castle.

On the other hand, when castling long, rook lands immediately to d1 which is the best square for him, while with short castle you need to spend extra tempo to centralize rook with Re1.

When choosing where to castle, you should also ask yourself where do you lead the attack. If you play in the center and you plan a fast attack, prefer long castle. If you do not know what will you do at the moment than short castle is more flexible.

PRACTICAL GUIDELINES FOR APPLYING THE ABOVE:

First you need to form a general plan based on the factors listed above and personal preferences:

Will you attack or play positionally?
Are you willing to play the endgame or you are going for mate?
On which side of the board are you stronger, regarding your piece placement?
How well are you placed to attack on kingside/queenside?
Is your pawn structure healthy, on the side where you want to castle?
What is the state of center of the board -> is it closed/open/semi-open?

If you have opportunity to castle both sides than first look at your pawn structure. Is it healthy ( pawns are at starting positions ) or you have doubled pawns/pawn islands/"holes"? You should prefer the side that has healthy pawn structure.

Once you answer this question ask yourself the following: How well are my pieces placed to defend my king from opposing forces? If you have enough defenders, then go for that side.

This was the easy case, you have healthy pawn structure and solid defense on one side of the board, but what if you are good on both sides? What if your pawn structure and piece placement is good on both wings?

Then you must take endgame into consideration! If you can force a lot of exchanges go for the long castle ( even better if opponent went short castle! ). If the game will last long, and will be sharp or simply there are no signs for lots of exchanges, then you need to take attacking potential into consideration. Maybe you could go for "opposite side castling" because you will get promising pawn storm, or you could go for quiet game by castling to the same side as the opponent since you plan to attack in the center? This is really position-dependent part.

PRACTICAL EXAMPLES THAT ILLUSTRATE THE ABOVE:

Let us take a look at the following position and apply the above principles:

[Title "Where to castle?"]
[fen "r1bqr1k1/pp1nbppp/2p2n2/3p2B1/3P4/2NBPN2/PPQ2PPP/R3K2R w KQ - 0 1"]

First factor, king safety: we see that White is safer on kingside, and if he castles there he has good prospects for minority attack on the queenside, and for "f4 push" on the kingside ( please see my answer to this question for detailed coverage of these plans if you need further explanations ). The later option is beneficial for positional players.

Second factor, the activity of the king in the endgame, is bad for White since his king is further from the center then it would be after long castle. But if he wishes to play for minority attack he need both rooks on quenside, and in those positions the endgame will not appear for a long time.

Third factor, speed, is in favor of short castling, since White can generate minority attack or "f4 push" faster than the kingside pawn storm ( again see my answer to the question I linked above, if you need concrete explanations/examples ).

Since a positional player will always keep his options open and his king safe, castling short would be a good option, and is played most of the time at top level.

OK, this all sounds great but what about long castle? What about players who like sharp play?

White has healthy pawn structure at queenside, queen + bishop battery is directed on kingside, and Bg5 + Nf3 are aggressively positioned. White also has space advantage and better development, but Black can open c-file with ...c5 at some point. Therefore, based on the first factor, this should scare White a little.

But notice that I stated that we must take opponents attacking chances as well. Black will lose a lot of time to prepare an attack, and even then White can just play Kb1 and simply use rook on d1 to pressure the d5 pawn after the dxc5 exchange. The point is that long castle speeds up White's development thus strengthening his development advantage and central pressure according to the third factor.

This is the reason some GMs took the risk to castle queenside, claiming that Black is misplaced for queenside counter-attack so they counted that they will be faster on the kingside ( again, third factor is more important here then king safety ) which proved to be true. Therefore Black had to enter an endgame to keep equal chances ( again, see my answer I linked before ), but the second factor I mentioned helped White to still keep small pressure ( king is closer to the center and rook controls d-file, these are all important things in an endgame ).

I could give you another example in Caro-Kann, but I have "ran out of steam" :(

The point is to do the same as I did in the above practical example:

Evaluate kings safety ( your pawn structure, piece placement, opponents attacking chances on that side of the board... );
See how castling long/short fits into your overall plan ( is there a high probability for an endgame to arise or do you need sharp position and so on... );
How fast do you really need to mobilize your forces ( do you need fast action in the center or can this wait; can you afford slightly exposed king to get sharp position with "opposite side castling" and so on.. );

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


What happened to the official website for the World Chess Championship 2010?

Apparently, FIDE didn't renew the site, so somebody purchased it. You can check the old contents at http://web.archive.org/web/20100701000000*/http://www.anand-topalov.com


The answer for tournament chess is clear - one cannot request or approve a takeback. On certain chess servers, takebacks are allowed if agreed to by both players. The Internet Chess Club supports this feature, but others like Chess.com do not.


Has there ever been a grandmaster-level win where a queen did not move nor get taken throughout the game?

As noted in the first comment to your question, there are certainly a lot of draws. To narrow it down to reasonable games that were wins, I searched the Mega 2019 Database for games with both players above 2500, and wins with moves between 4-10. It returned 131 games. Of those games, whether due to the remaining moves simply not being transmitted, someone losing for some reason like time or forfeit, or just the wrong result being reported, most were still bogus and equal at the end.

I went through the games quickly looking at the final position looking for games that were truly lost. I also left out a few Internet games that were clear premove/mouseslips like a GM hanging his Qd8 on move 6 to a Bg5. One game might have been legitimate, but a touch-move error with an ill-timed Rg1, so I also left that game out. I found these games that made sense. One has a very instructive tactic!

Let's start off with the least interesting example with a rare case of GM blindness, and simply blundering a piece.

 [FEN ""]
 [Event "Bad Homburg"]
 [Site "Bad Homburg"]
 [Date "1997.07.31"]
 [Round "6"]
 [White "Lutz, Christopher"]
 [Black "Dautov, Rustem"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [ECO "B12"]
 [WhiteElo "2590"]
 [BlackElo "2595"]

 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. dxc5 e6 5. Be3 Nh6 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. c3 Nf5 8. Bf4 Bxc5 9. Bd3 Nh4 10. Nbd2 Nxg2+ 0-1

The second game has a very cool tactic that I have seen a few times. White calculated cxd7+ expecting Qxd7 and then capturing on e2, but forgot about Nxd7 leaving the Bg5 hanging.

 [FEN ""]
 [Event "Kolkata op 3rd"]
 [Site "Kolkata"]
 [Date "2018.05.21"]
 [Round "8"]
 [White "Sengupta, Deep"]
 [Black "Narayanan, Srinath"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [ECO "D00"]
 [WhiteElo "2563"]
 [BlackElo "2525"]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 d5 3. e3 c6 4. Bd3 Bg4 5. Ne2 Nbd7 6. f3 Bh5 7. O-O Bg6 8. c4 e6 9. cxd5 Bxd3 10. dxc6? Bxe2 (10...Bxe2 11.  cxd7+ Nxd7!) 0-1

And the last game is between the most famous players, although it is a rapid game.

 [FEN ""]
 [Event "EU-ch Rapid-30'"]
 [Site "Cap d'Agde"]
 [Date "1996.??.??"]
 [Round "?"]
 [White "Leko, Peter"]
 [Black "Ehlvest, Jaan"]
 [Result "1-0"]
 [ECO "B07"]
 [WhiteElo "2630"]
 [BlackElo "2660"]

 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nf3 d6 4. c3 Nf6 5. Bd3 O-O 6. O-O c5 7. h3 Nc6 8. d5 Na5 9. Re1 e5 10. b4 1-0


How is Buchholz score calculated in a Swiss tournament?

The information is hidden away in Standards of Chess Equipment and tournament venue for FIDE Tournaments section 13.4.

  13.4. Buchholz System
  13.4.1. The Buchholz System is the sum of the scores of each of the opponents of a player.
  13.4.2. The Median Buchholz is the Buchholz reduced by the highest and the lowest scores of the opponents.
  13.4.3. The Median Buchholz 2 is the Buchholz score reduced by the two highest and the two lowest scores of the opponents.
  13.4.4. The Buchholz Cut 1 is the Buchholz score reduced by the lowest score of the opponents.
  13.4.5. The Buchholz Cut 2 is the Buchholz score reduced by the two lowest scores of the opponents.

Now it gets complicated.

  how it is calculated, taking into consideration other factors such as
  bye, no show (default win)

Since these pose a problem for all tie breaks which take into account the performance of opponents, in 2012 FIDE introduced the concept of a "virtual opponent" to be used in these cases. The details are spelt out in section 13.14.2

  13.14. Tie-Break Systems using Ratings in Individual Tournaments (where all the players are rated)    ...
  13.14.2. For tie-break purposes a player who has no opponent will be considered as having played against a virtual opponent who has the
  same number of points at the beginning of the round and who draws in
  all the following rounds. For the round itself the result by forfeit
  will be considered as a normal result.

  This gives the formula:

  Svon = SPR + (1 – SfPR) + 0.5 * (n – R)

  where for player P who did not play in round R:
  n = number of completed rounds
  Svon = score of virtual opponent after round n
  SPR = score of P before round R
  SfPR = forfeit score of P in round R

Since I, like a lot of arbiters, use the Swiss Manager pairing program I though I'd see what the Swiss Manager help has to say about this.

  4 Buchholz-Tie-Break Calculation On account of many requests about the Buchholz-Tie-Break I publish the following Excel file with
  suitable examples.

Some quite complicated examples are given there but with minimal explanation.

One last final twist which helped me understand the examples is this one regarding
the score of a player which is going to be used in the Buchholtz calculations for other players.

If a player has received a pairing bye for which he has received one point (as opposed to an elective bye for which the player receives only half a point) then this is treated as an elective bye for Buchholtz calculations, so only counts as a half point bye.

So, if I play player A who has a total score of 3 and he had a one point bye (meaning he scored 2 points from playing games and 1 point from the bye) then when calculating my Buchholtz score I don't add 3 points for this opponewnt, I only add 2.5 points because his one point bye only counts as a half point bye.


what is the shortest allowable time control for a FIDE rated standard tournament game?

According to the FIDE Rating Regulations, it depends on the player ratings:

  1.1 For a game to be rated each player must have the following minimum periods in which to complete all the moves, assuming the game lasts 60 moves.
  Where at least one of the players in the game has a rating 2200 or higher, each player must have a minimum of 120 minutes.
  Where at least one of the players in the game has a rating 1600 or higher, each player must have a minimum of 90 minutes.
  Where both of the players in the game are rated below 1600, each player must have a minimum of 60 minutes.

  1.2 Where a certain number of moves is specified in the first time control, it shall be 40 moves.


How do you know whether to trade one of the rook pairs in an endgame?

One question to ask is "am I behind or ahead?"  If I have some winning edge, it's best to simplify.  If I'm behind, it's better to complicate the position.

After that, the question has both tactical and positional elements.  If my rook is less active then my opponent's, it's better to exchange.  If my rook is more active, then it's better to keep it.


lichess gets it wrong.

As it happens, White would lose all three games. With all white pieces still on the board, black has still "enough mating material" - it would actually help if White had no pieces at all!

I guess we all agree in the following position black is checkmate:

5k1K/5n1P/8/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

But this position can be reached from the examples shown. Even without pawns, it is still possible to checkmate for black:

2RKR3/5n2/3k4/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

Obviously, these cases are rather theoretical. But there are real-world situations (you need something like KRR vs KN, note that KQ vs KN is in fact drawn under that circumstances!) where this may apply. That is why the 10.2 rule (claiming draw with less than two minutes, now annex G) was established and why any higher-rated modern tournament will play with time increments.

There aren't many examples of asymmetric insufficient material. Most of the time, either both players or neither can win.

Edit: The relevant section of the rules is Article 6.9:

  Except where one of Articles 5.1.a, 5.1.b, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c
  applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves
  in the allotted time, the game is lost by that player. However, the
  game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot
  checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

The common simplification "has not enough winning material" is not always a good one.


Do the rules of chess state that a Bishop+King can be sufficient mating material?

First, Carlsen, despite having only the Bishop, WON that game. So it is not about mating material, but about ANY possible mating position, and there was one here.

The rule at hand is this:

  Paragraph 6.9 of the FIDE Laws of Chess state:

  The game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot
  checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

There were positions that white could be mated, even though it required total cooperation, and there is no way that Firouzja would have allowed it. That was irrelevant, so it was a loss.

Also see this related question.

Here are the USCF rules.

14D. Insufficient material to continue.

The game is drawn when one of the following endings exists as of the most recently determined legal move, in which the possibility of a win is excluded for either side.

14D1. King vs. king.

14D2. King vs. king with bishop or knight.

14D3. King and bishop vs. king and bishop, with both bishops on diagonals of the same color.

14D4. No legal moves leading to checkmate by opponent. There are no legal moves that could lead to the player being checkmated by the opponent

So, even these rules are quite specific as to the material for an automatic draw.


What advice would you give a novice in Chess?

1) Study the games of masters. I would recommend earlier masters like Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca, etc. Studying their "simple" games will better your understanding to study more "complicated" games of Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Anand or Carlsen.

2) Study the endgame. I recommend Understanding Chess Endgames by John Nunn.

3) Practice and improve your tactical skills. There are many online tactics websites that can help you in that regard, like chesstempo.

4) Enjoy playing chess! Without enjoyment, it's difficult to learn. But don't waste time playing useless 2 or 3 minute blitz games. These won't help you to improve much. Play games with longer time controls, especially in tournaments if possible.

5) Get a good chess engine to analyze your games. I would recommend Stockfish, which is a free engine. However, if you're willing to spend more money, I recommend a powerful engine like Houdini with Chessbase 12. Note that you can also use Stockfish with ChessBase 12. I often use it myself. It's a very strong engine and Houdini is just very sligtly better (for beginners, that shouldn't make much of a difference).

6) Never leave any of your games unanalyzed. That's a serious waste of the time you have spent playing those games and also a loss of the things you could potentially have learned. Never put off analyzing a game for more than a week. My experience is that you remember the lessons learned from your games the earlier you analyze your games. Of course, you need to make good notes on your games.

7) Watch this inspiring video! :) Bobby Fischer - Anything to Win. Caution: I'm asking you to be inspired only by the way Bobby Fischer trained to play chess and win; not to be inspired by his paranoia or his other questionable activities!

8) Study the openings and opening principles. Although this isn't that important for beginners compared to the other things I mentioned, it is nevertheless very important to play good openings to have good positions to play.


When was the FIDE title of Candidate Master first awarded?

This seems to be a quiz question, you probably know the answer but anyway ...

The first rating list that contains the Candidate Master title is April 2002 and all the players on that list with the said title are from England followed by Wales in the next rating list (July 2002). There are two relatively well known names among the first eleven people in history who held the CM title.


What are some good middle game plans or strategies?

Although your question is quite broad, the general ideas in the middlegame are the following-

  1) Improve the position of your pieces- knights on outposts,
  bishops on open diagonals, rooks on open files, etc.

  2) If a piece is badly placed and cannot be improved, see if you can
  exchange it for one of your opponent's better placed pieces.

  3) Create weaknesses in your opponent's pawn structure, by
  provoking certain pawn moves. Note that every pawn move is
  irreversible, thus you must watch out for opportunities where you can
  provoke pawn moves from your opponent that would weaken their
  position.

  4) If you yourself have weaknesses, see if you can eliminate them; if
  not, guard them well.

  5) Keep your pieces co-ordinated and see if you can disturb the
  co-ordination of your opponent's pieces.

  6) Keep your king safe and see if the opponent's king position can
  be compromised.

  7) Look for transpositions into favorable endgame positions (e.g.
  two bishops vs two knights or two bishops vs bishop and knight in open
  positions).

With respect to your particular approach, attack's on the opponent's king are not always justified. It may work at the beginner level, but a stronger opponent will be able to refute an unfounded attack. In order to attack, first of all, there must be something to attack- weaknesses. If your opponent has no weaknesses, then your attack will come to nothing and you risk ruining the co-ordination of your pieces.

The better approach therefore is to work for the accumulation of advantages. A single advantage (like a knight on a good outpost) is often not enough to win. You must try to accumulate as many advantages as you can before you can deal the lethal attacking blow. Of course, if the opponent makes a mistake or blunders, then the lethal blow can come quickly. If not, slow yet constant improvement of your position is the best way to go.


Is there a measure of how likely it is that a position will end in a draw?

You have several questions which don't appear to be related. I'll answer you this one:

  Q: If it is very sharp and complicated then at least humans cannot overlook all options and a win has gotten more likely. Would simply the width of the engine's positional tree be a useful measure?

Yes. There's a related concept known as positional complexity. Of course, the more complicated the position it is, the less likely it should end with a draw.

Using Heuristic-Search Based Engines for Estimating Human Skill at Chess has a definition for the complexity measure. Their definition is simple and straightforward. Computer Analysis of World Chess Champion is a similar paper.
Chess DB has a brief description
Who is the Master defines several more measures, they call them "conformance".
Another related: Intrinsic Ratings Compendium

If you require technical explanation, please edit your question and I'll update my answer.


What is the correct hand movement to capture a piece?

According to the FIDE Laws of Chess:

  4.1 Each move must be played with one hand only.

In other words, the "correct" hand movement is one which uses only one hand. The order in which the opponent's piece is removed and the player's own piece moved to the capturing square is irrelevant.

Note that once the captured piece has left the board it doesn't matter which hand is used to place it on the side. It is perfectly legal, for instance, to lift the piece from the board with the right hand, immediately transfer it to the left hand and carry it to the side of the board with the left hand whilst simultaneously moving the capturing piece to the capture square with the right hand.

Something similar applies with promotion. The promoted piece must be placed on the board with the same hand that removes the pawn from the board but it is perfectly legal to pick up a queen, say, with one hand whilst removing the pawn with the other and to transfer the queen from one hand to the other before placing it on the promotion square.


What are the main plans for black and white in the main-line Slav after 5...Bf5 6.e3?

Fight for the center

The variation with 9.Nh4 has its own flawor. For the other main lines, the logical plans flow from the strategic evaluation of each side's plusses and minuses:

White enjoys the better center. Black's dxc4 was a slight concession in the fight for the center, Pd4 is firmly established.
On the other hand, Black has freed both his bishops, while White's queen bishop is still locked inside his pawn chain.
White has a very slight development advantage, having already castled.
White's Q-side is slightly weakened by the a2-a4 advance. The stronghold on b4 for one of Black's pieces makes his lack of space more manageable.

As a consequence, White aims to increase his space adantage, free his Bc1 and set his center in motion with e3-e4. If possible, he would also like to provoque weaknesses in Black position (the usual suspects are Pb7 fixed by a4-a5 or targeted by Qb3, and the kingside pawns White tries to induce into advancing by threatening a K-side attack, or wants to double with an exchange on g6).

Conversely, Black tries to slow down White advance on e4 (8...0-0 9.Qe2 Bg6!?, e.g., aims to avoid 10.e4 Bxc3 11.exf5), complete his development, and nullify White's central advantage by exchanging the Pd4 with ...c6-c5 or ...e6-e5 (Nbd7, Qe7/Qa5, Rc8/d8/e8 are typical preparatory moves to engineer those breaks). Alternatively, he can put pressure on White's e4-d4 center when it's formed in order to provoque an early e4-e5 (which gives White attacking chances on the K-side but also the d5-square for Black).

The battle for and against e4 is the main topic of the next 5-10 moves.

You can check several battles from the Topalov-Kramnik Elista WC match (WC stands for 'World Championship', not for 'Toiletgate'), or old games by Max Euwe and Gideon Stahlberg.


There are two checkmates per orientation:
    [title "Mate in one"]
    [FEN "3b4/R3P3/2kPR1n1/P1p1n3/4K1p1/2Nr4/5p2/1b6 w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. exd8=N#

and
    [title "Mate in one"]
    [FEN "3b4/R3P3/2kPR1n1/P1p1n3/4K1p1/2Nr4/5p2/1b6 b KQkq - 0 1"]

1... Rxc3#

and
    [title "Mate in one"]
    [FEN "6b1/2p5/4rN2/1p1K4/3n1p1P/1n1RPk2/3P3R/4b3 b KQkq - 0 1"]

1...c6#

and
    [title "Mate in one"]
    [FEN "6b1/2p5/4rN2/1p1K4/3n1p1P/1n1RPk2/3P3R/4b3 w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. e4#


I agree that f5 is irrelevant. A weakness is only a weakness if it can be exploited.

The main reason that g5 works here is that it can force the N away from f3, and then your N can go to d4 with not only a direct threat of Nxc2, which is VERY inconvenient to defend, and the more decisive threat of Nf3!. These threats are so strong that the computer thinks that Qd6 allowing Nf3 is best by two whole pawns.

It all comes down to forcing tactics that are favorable to black.

 [FEN "r1b2rk1/pp4qp/2ppn1p1/5p2/7Q/1PNP1N1P/1PP3P1/R3R1K1 b - - 0 1"]

 1... g5 2. Qb4 g4 3. hxg4 fxg4 4. Nd2 Nd4 5. Qxd6 Nf3+ $1 6. gxf3 gxf3+ 7. Kf2 Qg2+ 8. Ke3 f2 {Is crushing.}


Communication with Stockfish engine via Python

The Problem was p.communicate(), which kills the subprocess. The interaction with the engine works well with the following code:

def put(command, inf_list, tmp_time):

    engine.stdin.write(command+'\n')
    engine.stdin.flush()
    time.sleep(tmp_time)

    if command <> "quit":

        engine.stdin.write('isready\n')
        engine.stdin.flush()

        while True:
            text = engine.stdout.readline().strip()

            if text == 'readyok':
                break

            elif text !='':
                inf_list.append(text)

inf_list = []
put('uci', inf_list, 0)
put('setoption name Hash value 8192', inf_list, 0)
put('ucinewgame', inf_list, 0)
put('position fen rq3r2/2pbppk1/3p1np1/1N5p/1n1PP2P/2N2P2/PP1Q2P1/R3KB1R w KQ - 3 15', inf_list, 0)
put('go movetime=3000', inf_list, 4)
put('stop', inf_list, 0)
put('quit', inf_list, 0)


Where does the phrase "Botvinnik moment" come from?

It is/was a common advice, in a game with a classical time-control, to take a small break during the opening instead of flashing out the moves, even if you know them by heart. The idea is to 'warm-up' your brain, to refresh your knowledge about the main ideas and plans in the variation, and to avoid starting out with a very long think after the first move by your opponent that you had not anticipated: first that would give him information about how deep your preparation was, second your very first thought would be about a difficult and important decision - when any mistake might be very consequential.

When he took a few minutes before playing 9...b6 (even though he already knew he would play that move), Carlsen was most probably mentally rehearsing the possible variations from that point, refreshing his positionnal guidelines in the given pawn structure and remembering which previous games of Caruana had already been played from similar positions.

The advice was originally spread within the infamous post-WWII 'Soviet Chess School', so it doesn't come as a surprise if it is somehow associated with Botvinnik - possibly Botvinnik formulated it first or endorsed it in a publication.

I consider the Keene-Botvinnik 'moment' to be something totally different: the commentator only stress out that every player has already found himself in that embarassing situation of having to resign a long-fought game after an oversight.


Here is what the FIDE Laws of Chess have to say:

  4.3  Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move touches on the chessboard,with the intention of moving or capturing:

  4.3.1 one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved
  4.3.2 one or more of his opponent’s pieces, he must capture the first piece touched that can be captured
  4.3.3 one or more pieces of each colour, he must capture the first touched opponent’s piece with his first touched piece or, if this is illegal, move or capture the first piece touched that can be moved or captured. If it is unclear whether the player’s own piece or his opponent’s was touched first, the player’s own piece shall be considered to have been touched before his opponent’s.

So, if the first two pieces you touch are one of your pieces and one of your opponent's pieces then you must capture your opponent's touched piece with your touched piece. Order is irrelevant in this case.

If you first touch your piece and then one of your opponent's pieces which you cannot capture with your touched piece then you must move your piece even if you can capture your opponent's touched piece with one of your untouched pieces.

If you first touch one of your opponent's pieces and then one of your pieces but can't capture the opponent's touched piece with your touched piece then you must capture your opponent's touched piece if you can. Otherwise you have to move your touched piece.

Overriding these rules is the rule preventing you from making an illegal move. You may only move a touched piece or take an opponent's touched piece if that move is legal.


Let me build on @Brian Towers' answer: Love, Play and Analyze! But let me add some points.

Love Chess. because you'll need it to train a lot and go through your list.

  GM Shipov suggests that the main requirement for success at chess is to be 100% dedicated and interested in the game. If you just a little interested, you will not be able to make serious progress.

Play Chess. Competition is indeed crucial. Play competitively over-the-board and online. Blitz and rapid games may help you practice and test openings. But it is true that classic games (90 min/40 moves + 30 min and increment) are the most important, as you will devote on average about four hours playing chess and thinking. In his book Deep Thinking, Gary Kasparov writes that a player is so concentrated during a game that the quality of her/his analysis is even better than in post-mortem. An addition: choose your tournaments to face stronger opponents. You will learn from them.

  GM Kazhgaleyev writes that in order to improve at chess you need to play
  more tournament games, study classics, solve tactics and endgame
  studies as well as be passionate about chess in general. That's how
  you can get to that 2200-2300 Elo.

Analyze Chess. But the most important thing is to analyze the losses because they will give you the feedback you need to improve. We loose because we make mistakes, at least the last one! After each game, write down your ideas and your analysis, the ones you had during the game. Then you can use a computer to check your analysis. The computer or a coach will help you identify your mistakes. You will improve by not repeating them.

  GM Shipov believes in importance of deep analysis of your own games
  and ability to judge yourself fairly. If you lose a game, don’t think
  that it’s because of that silly move you played, find the real cause
  and improve!

Quotes are from How to Reach 2200 ELO – According to GM Tkachiev... not too far from the FIDE Master level...


Can a pawn move to the last row diagonally without a capture?

Pawns only go diagonally when they capture. See the section 3.7 of Chess rules.

The software you mention probably has a flaw.


f7/e5

  Clearly, e5 and f7 are corresponding: the first person to move on these squares loses

I don't think your definition of corresponding squares is quite correct. If the black king goes to f7, black does not necessarily lose.

In this position the fight is about the square f6. If black manages to get the king to f6 (with the white king not on f4) he can play g5 and create a passed pawn on the h file.

In this sense, e5 and f7 are corresponding because:

If the white king goes to e5 first, black will play Kf7 putting white in zugzwang. White has to retreat with the king (or play b6 which is equally bad). Assuming white retreats the king from e5, you note another theme of corresponding squares: f6 and f4: if the black king goes to f6, white - in order to keep equality - has to reply with Kf4. Conversely, if white plays Kf4 himself first, black can reply with Kf6 putting white in Zugzwang. However you can easily see that black will always get to f6 favourably. For example 1. Ke5 Kf7 2. Ke4 (staying close to the square f4) Ke6! and white has to play Kf4 (which is answered with Kf6) or retreat further to the third rank, letting the black king to the fifth rank. In this case black is winning.
If the black king goes to  f7 first, white has to prevent Kf6 by playing Ke5. The position is still a draw in this case.

g7/e6

You can confirm for yourself that white is too slow to win on the queenside, i.e. capturing the pawn on a7 with the king and promoting the b pawn will take longer than black getting a queen on h1 (after playing g5...).

This means that white always has to keep an eye on the kingside pawns, because black is threatening to create a passed pawn with g5, hxg5 h4. Particularly this means, that the white king has to be able to reach the square ("pawn promotion square rule" for black pawn on h4): d4-d1-h1-h4. Particularly this means that the white king may never move to the sixth rank. So e6 is never going to be a corresponding square for the white king.


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

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

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

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

1...Kxf7

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

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

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

1...Kxf7 2.Bxf7

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


There is no easy answer to that question. You need to be able to accurately assess your winning chances in the possible endgame and to do that you need some knowledge and a lot of experience.

You can acquire the knowledge by looking at the basic theoretical endgames. That will tell you that two knights aren't enough for mate, that bishop and pawn might still be a draw, that rook and bishop vs rook or knight vs rook is tricky but a draw and many other things.

For the experience you'll have to play. Then you will also notice that apart from winning chances, there is another factor to the decision of going into an endgame: Minimising the risk of losing. Often simplification decreases both: The chances of winning and the chances of losing. So if winning is more important to you: When in doubt, keep the queens.


Unclear endgame / late middlegame position: looks like advantage white to me, but engine analysis suggests draw

It is true that White has a slight material advantage (the bishop pair vs bishop and a knight), but White's light-squares' bishop is confined to your side of the board and cannot attack any of Black's pieces.  White's dark-squares' bishop cannot enter Black's territory or attack any of Black's pieces either, and your king has a long way to go to attack Black's isolated pawn on f7.  Black's king can easily defend their isolated pawn and Black can further close the position with b7 (so White's dark-squares' bishop cannot attack Black's pawn on d6 from c7 or b8 and overload Black's king while it is defending Black's pawn on f7).  It seems similarly difficult for Black to make any real progress towards a win, so in my inexpert assessment a draw is likely.


Which chess player has been the most financially successful?

Chess playing has never been a very lucrative occupation.  The most money earned in the field of chess probably comes from prizes, and the big prizes are only awarded to the top players.  I don't have a definite source, but I would say that Viswanathan Anand is probably the most financially successful, since the prizes have only increased since he began his reign as undisputed world chess champion in 2007.  The prize is generally split in half, or 60-40 between winner-loser, or in similar fashion. The prize for this year's tournament will be $2.55 million, split between Anand and Gelfand.  For 2010, the prize was 2 million euros, 60% of which went to Anand.


Interesting Ending Knight + pawn vs Rook - main plans (white and black)

First of all, I think white can only play to hold. The question is whether black can really create winning chances.

All the h3-h4-Kf3-Kg4-Kg3 stuff in the game and your line, is pretty much just white doing nothing.

Personally I would put the king on f4 straight away to free up the rook. And then put the rook on the c-file. This should limit blacks options by attacking the knight, cutting off the king and threatening a backrank invasion should the knight ever move.

In this scenario even playing a4 cannot easily be engineered because the black king wouldn't be able to take back on a4 and keep protecting the knight.

There are some other motifs in this position. When the white king reaches f4, black pretty much has to play h6 to prevent the invasion. And if black plays h6 white has to play h4, otherwise g5+ will always threaten to win the e5 pawn. If white starts with h4, I would seriously consider h6 with black because white might play h5 the next move, and suddenly the black kingside becomes pretty morose. (So, in the line you give 37.h4 Kb6 38. h5 might be an idea for white. 38…g5 39.h6 and the g5 pawn will fall, 38…h6 39.hxg6 fxg6 and at least there is another open file, although that one isn't so clear to me, but still, why give white the option?)

[FEN ""]
[Startply "75"]
[Event "Android 2.3.5"]
[Site "GT-I9001"]
[Date "2015.04.20"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Stockfish 4"]
[Black "Mandor"]
[Result "*"]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Nce2 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Nf3 cxd4
9.cxd4 Be7 10.Nc3 O-O 11.Be2 a6 12.O-O Qa7 13.Be3 b5 14.Qc2 Nb6 15.b3 b4
16.Nb5 Qd7 17.Nd6 Bxd6 18.exd6 Qxd6 19.Ne5 Ne7 20.Bd3 g6 21.Rac1 a5 22.Qc5
Qxc5 23.dxc5 Nd7 24.c6 Nxe5 25.fxe5 Ba6 26.Bxa6 Rxa6 27.Bc5 Nxc6 28.Bxf8
Kxf8 29.Rfe1 Ke7 30.Rc2 Kd7 31.Rf2 Nd8 32.Kf1 Rc6 33.Ke2 Rc2+
34.Kf1 Rxf2+ 35.Kxf2 Nc6 36.h4 Kc7 37.Kf3 Kb6 38.Kf4 h6 39.Rc1

Now, black can still play for a win, by bringing the knight to c3. For example 39…Nd4 40.Rc8 Ne2+ 41.Ke3 Nc3 42.Rf8 this is extremely sharp and there are many options. White could go 39.Re2 first and the Rc2 and try to defend passively. Or maybe after 41…Nc3 he could just check the black king from behind and only go to f8 after the white kind went to the seven's …


Is any rating information available for human/computer hybrid players?

Computer-human hybrid chess is known as Advanced Chess or Freestyle Chess.
There used to be Advanced Chess tournaments in Leon (now it's normal rapid chess, I think), and Chessbase reported on some "anything goes" online Freestyle tournaments, that were generally won by "Centaurs", i.e. computer-human-hybrid players, not by sole engines.

In recent years there hasn't been much coverage of these kind of events, but apparently Freestyle chess is going strong as ever. Based on PAL/CSS, Infinity Chess and FICGS tournaments there even exists a rating list. (Keep in mind that you cannot compare the absolute values of the ratings on this list with the Fide rating list or the engine ratings.)


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

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

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

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

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


King's Indian Attack plans for White after Black plays ..dxe4 and ..e5

This is my first time answering a question, so i hope that will be all right :)

First of all, the position appearing on the board is also reached via this move order: 1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 c5 3. Bg2 nc6 4. O-O e5 5. d3 Nf6 6. Nbd2 Be7 7. e4 dxe4 8.dxe4 and it's a tempo up for black, and the extra move might be important. And secondly we might reach this position with colors reversed: 1. d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 Nbd7 7. O-O e5 8. dxe5 dxe5 etc. And it's very important to notice that the examination of similar positions provides complete understanding of ideas.

Bypassing the move order and transposition issues, I would like to mention the related article named "The King's Indian Attack (from White's Viewpoint)" (page 142) on the excellent book Opening Preparation by Dvoretsky (1996), Dvoretsky came to the conclusion that this exchange (...dxe4 and ...e5 by Black) is dubious. The reasoning behind Dvoretsky's assessment is:

  "Not a good exchange. White now has a clear plan for playing on the weaknesses c4, d5 and f5."

In the game (which cannot be found in databases) Dvoretsky - Rogozhnikov, Moscow 1965 White executes his plan by playing, c3, Qc2, Nf1 and exchanging the defender of d5 square by Bg5-Bxf6 and after Ne3, Bf1 and Bc4, and exchanging the best defender, the light-squared bishop on e6. It should be noted that Dvoretsky's opponent defended weakly and lost after a beautiful positional squeeze. But it's not clear how White will react after the correct a timely ...h6 and countering the White's plan by trying to push ...c4 by ...b5 or ...Na5
Maybe the answer is the mixture of the whole ideas given, let's say, Nc4(Nf1)-Ne3 and Nf5 and after an exchange on f5 to take with exf5 and play with the strong bishop g2 and full control on the light squares. There are many typical master games with both colors. You might want to search the other transpositional options in order to achieve complete understanding of the ideas, because there are hundreds of master games beginning from those positions with both colors. I hope I might be able to help you.


Can I become a 2100+ rated player in 2 years if I train for 15 hours a day?

To predict someone's progress is very difficult. It depends on so many things: "chess talent", how you practice and train, opportunities to play tournaments (not too weak, not too strong), etc...

A couple of years ago, the author of following blog tried to become a grandmaster: http://roadtograndmaster.com/ and http://roadtograndmaster.com/?p=11

Maybe this blog can give you some information, ideas and tips. Of course, your situation is different, for instance, you are 10 years younger than the author of the blog.


Are there innate limits in chess performance?

'IQ' is a notoriously flawed way of measuring intelligence.

A high rating (NM and higher) is a sign of intelligence, talent, and hard work.

Talent is missing from your equation.  It's why some people who play once a decade can mop up on normal club players.


If I touch a piece with my forearm by accident, can my opponent call touch-move?

According to the 2018 FIDE Laws of Chess (emphasis mine):

  4.2.1 Only the player having the move may adjust one or more pieces on their squares,
  provided that he first expresses his intention (for example by saying “j’adoube” or “I
  adjust”).

  4.2.2 Any other physical contact with a piece, except for clearly accidental contact, shall be considered to be intent.

  4.3 Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move touches on the
  chessboard, with the intention of moving or capturing:
  4.3.1 one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved

Touching with a forearm seems to be "clearly accidental contact", so it shouldn't trigger the touch move rules.

In the scenario where you move the piece because your opponent said you must, and then want to take it back, it's less clear. You generally cannot take back moves (and, if you've moved, then obviously you have now touched the piece with the intent of moving it.) However, your opponent has acted inappropriately; at the very least they've distracted you during your move. It's possible the arbiter would give some sort of penalty for this, especially if your opponent knew touch-move didn't really apply. You should summon the arbiter as soon as possible to get a ruling.


If you exploit Article 12.9 in FIDE's Laws of Chess, is it possible to benefit yourself by purposely receiving a penalty?

It is important to realize that chess is a zero-sum game*. In other words, everything that gives advantage to one player gives an equal disadvantage to the other player. So if adding 2 minutes to your opponent's clock benefits you, then it would be harmful to your opponent. It is not possible for any decision of the arbiter to give an advantage to your opponent and a slight advantage to you too.

(* Although of course there are things that make both players enjoy the game more etc., but here I'm concerned only about the result of the game.)

Suppose two minutes are added to your opponent's clock. Now (s)he has two choices (or something between them):

Pretend his extra two minutes didn't exist and play as if his clock showed 2 minutes less.
Make good use of his extra time.

If your opponent chooses option 1, the only effect of the extra time is that he does not run out of time accidentally. This never gives any advantage to you. If your opponent thinks that option 2 is better for him than option 1, then he also believes that him choosing option 2 is worse for you.

It is possible that your opponent does not understand how well you use his time and therefore chooses option 2 but it ends up being beneficial to you. However, I think this is very unlikely.

I think a more important loophole is this: When calling the arbiter to settle any dispute over the board, you are allowed to stop the clock even if it is your turn. Sometimes it can take a minute or two before the arbiter arrives, so it can be used as a way to gain extra thinking time. For example, in a difficult position in time trouble, you can claim a draw (even if you know there's no draw) and gain extra time while waiting for the arbiter.

Because the usual penalty for unreasonable claims is adding time to your opponent's clock, you may gain more advantage by the extra thinking time than you lose by the penalty. Needless to say, this is extremely unsportsmanlike, and will result in everyone hating you and possibly even point losses if the arbiter sees through it. Please don't ever do this.


What is the point value of each chess piece?

General consensus values chess pieces as follows:

Pawn = 1 point
Knight = 3 points
Bishop = 3 points
Rook = 5 points
Queen = 9 points

However, you should consider this valuation scheme (as well as any valuation scheme) to be very vague, to the point where it is almost sloppy to assume it is correct in any specific position. For instance, two bishops together are often valued higher than 3+3, sometimes 6.5 or 7. Or a passed and advanced pawn may easily be worth a piece, especially when connected with another pawn. Rooks, bishops, and queens are worth less than normal when the position is closed, whereas knights thrive in such positions. When the position has clear lanes for the long-range pieces, the knight is less outstanding.

Of interest, too, is the valuation of the king's tactical strength. The king is generally valued between 3 and 4 points, slightly higher than a knight or bishop. Of course, this valuation is meaningless when it comes to calculating exchanges.

Wikipedia's article on this topic is well-referenced and extensive. There is a table listing various valuation schemes, both historical and modern, and an average of all schemes in the table is given as follows:

Pawn = 1 point
Knight = 3.2 points
Bishop = 3.3 points
Rook = 5.2 points
Queen = 9.6 points
King = 3.5 points


This seems to be a bug in the chessboard's engine. If you look at the engine's main line, you'll see that it is bogus. After 11... h6, White will never sacrifice his bishop.


London System with Nc3 -- what's the idea?

If you want to know whether the knight is badly placed on c3, you have to think about your plan. Normally, in d-pawn openings you want to play c4 to attack Black's hold on the center on d5. Here, this is not White's plan. Instead:

White may want to play h4-h5 and attack Black on the kingside. This means White may want to follow up with Qd2 and 0-0-0.
Another idea is the play a gambit with e4. If Black takes dxe4, the knight isn't so bad on c3.

The badly placed knight on c3 is a small price to pay for "getting it out of the way", since it wouldn't do much for the attack elsewhere (it's block in the queen's best square on d2, and a3 is an even worse square).

You are right that according to conventional chess wisdom, you shouldn't play like this. But this kind of system is not conventional! Highly creative players like Jobava play this way (In fact, this setup is named after Jobava). Check out some of his games here.


[FEN ""]

1. e4 Nc6 2. Nf3 f5?!

This is the Colorado Gambit.

If you are looking for a good solid opening, try looking up some of the following:

The Four Knights Game
Italian Game
The Ruy Lopez
The French Defence
The Sicilian Defence
Queens Gambit

This is more than enough for the beginning. All the best!


For rook is typical this one:

W: Kh8 Re3, B:Kg4 Pf2

White to move can't hold.

Re4 Kg5 Re5 Kg6 Re6 Kf7 Re5! f1R!! (queening runs to Rf5 with stalemate). Rh5 Kg6  0-1


What thought process should one use to find candidate moves?

Here is a basic checklist you should always consider (in order of priority):

Examine all tactics currently available to both players on the board within the next move; these take priority. Usually, each tactic has a purpose, such as check-mate (highest priority), winning material (secondary-priority) and securing a very strong position (tertiary-priority.)

In the case of an opponent's tactics, search for "in-between" moves in the execution of the tactic. Many times one non-obvious in-between move can spell the difference between a beautiful defence and losing the game. To give an example of an "in-between" move, suppose your opponent has a discovered attack ready on your queen using a knight and a bishop. His goal is to win a rook for his knight by using the discovered attack and simultaneously attacking your rook and queen. He does not realize that your queen has an "in-between" check move allowing her to move to safety as well as your rook.
In the case of tactics available to you, also search for all "in-between" defensive moves available to your opponent. For example, suppose the previous example of the knight, bishop discovered attack on the queen was actually your tactic. After thoroughly investigating your opponent's options, you realize he can check and move his queen to safety with the in-between move. Therefore, you move your king to a square where a check is not possible, forcing the queen to move to a worse position this turn else face the wrath of the tactic the next turn.

Search all available tactics (as thoroughly as above) within 2,3,4, ... n moves where n is limited by the amount of time you have on the clock and your gut-feel for how important this position is vs. how sure you are your current best move is.
Search for guaranteed positional weaknesses in your opponent. In the lack of tactics available in the game, it can be hard to find a reason to play one move vs another. This may be a daunting task for a beginner, but rest assured there is almost always a best move. Almost all positional weaknesses deal with pawn positioning, specifically the colour your pawn chain sits on, or lack of being able to form pawn chains. In order to achieve positional weakness in your opponent, you may have to do it through a tactic so keep that in mind. I'll list some common positional weaknesses:

A knight placed where an enemy pawn can not "kick" him off is substantially stronger when placed close to an enemy king. This is called a knight on an outpost. This is mainly because it opens up the possibility of many forking tactics. Often, when your opponent has no other means of kicking your knight, such a knight is worth at least 1 rook, sometimes 1 rook and a pawn.
Doubled-pawns create long term weaknesses since they can no longer form pawn chains in one direction. DO NOT consider this a considerable weakness in the early or middle game, because it is not, it is only a weakness in the endgame. Doubled pawns near their king, especially if he is castled, are always a weakness at every point in the game.
The colour your opponent's pawn chain sits on determines their good bishop (the opposite coloured to that colour bishop is the good bishop) seek to trade their good bishop while keeping your good bishop, this is a minor advantage that becomes greater in the latter part of the game.
The first one to double rooks on a file usually owns that file for the rest of the game. There are notable exceptions and usually a great many tactics available to both sides when fighting for dominance over a file so be careful with this one!
A rook on the same file as an enemy king or queen (even if there are many pawns and minor pieces blocking) is still a valuable position for the rook, as you can usually create interesting tactical variations by removing the pieces in the way 1 by 1.
Look for "back-rank" problems in your opponent (as well as yourself!) If your king or your opponent's king can be mated with one rook attack on the back rank this makes for interesting tactical options for both sides!
Try to make your rooks "pigs." A pig rook is a rook placed on the second to back rank (either rank 7 or 2 if you are playing white or black.) A pig rook is very strong as he is usually both attacking undefended pawns as well as posing a considerable threat to the enemy king. If you can get doubled pig rooks this usually means a win or a draw for yourself. This is generally hard to accomplish as it takes a minimum of 2 moves (usually 4+), but look for tactics as this is almost always a win especially near end-game!
Rooks belong behind passed pawns, and always push your passed pawns, the closer they get to the other side the more they are worth!
The three (or four) pawns in front of a castled king are extremely important. Enticing your opponent to move them (to kick a bishop or a knight) creates a permanent weakness in your opponent's defences. Always give your opponent the option of kicking your piece with these pawns, as when he does you know that you can take advantage of the new weakness he has created.

With that last point, I would like to conclude this with two simple principles: the principle of two threats and the principle of every move leaves something behind. The first principle is easy to understand, create 2+ threats for your opponent and it will be hard or impossible for him to defend both. The second principle is much more subtle but just as important. Chess is a game of a delicate dynamic equilibrium. Every move you or your opponent makes gains some advantage but also creates some weakness, if ever so slight. Search for these weaknesses in yourself and in your opponent at all times.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a simplified (and so inaccurate) summary:

The player must play at least 9 games

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

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

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

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

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


The openings which are considered more drawish are usually openings where you have no central tension and symmetric pawn structure, something like the exchange French/Slav.  It's asymmetry and tension that gives room for complications.  I can't think of many huddled, solid defensive lines where the goal is just to be closed and impenetrable, though you could argue a tamely played and unambitious Stonewall, Colle, or London could fit the bill.  Still, by playing this way, you are creating an imbalance in space and activity which isn't in your favor.  Not recommended.


Yes, with enough study and practice, it's possible to become a master at any age. There's even a book titled "Chess Master at any Age", written by a player who became a master at the age of 50.


Chess games similar to Morphy versus the Duke of Brunswick and Count Isouard

Morphy is great! I also am fond of the 1956 game Donald Byrne vs Robert James Fischer (when Fischer was 13 years old!) known as "The Game of the Century". Link

But of course there are many games that are great. Chessbase has an app for the Android or iPhone with a database of many of the great games to look at - just $5.


What to do in a positionally won situation?

I don't think that White should expect to increase his (already large) advantage very quickly. You say there are no immediate tactics, and I don't see any either. But simple moves here are very strong.

1. Nxc6 gets the two Bishops in a position where they will dominate. 1..Rxc6 is forced because if ..1..bxc6 then Rc4. 2. Rxc6 bxc6 and now 3.e5 leaves Black just a pawn down with an awful position. Progress has definitely been made. All of Black's pieces are stuck doing even less than they were.

Over the next twenty or thirty moves you will keep Black tied down, bring your King to the queenside, and promote that rook pawn, so be happy.


What is the opening value of 1. e4 in 2020?

It's still one of the best moves White can play. There's no clear consensus on whether 1.e4 or 1.d4 is better, but it's played frequently at the top level. Due to advancements in theory, I'd say 1.e4 isn't regarded quite as highly as it was in the past, but again it's most likely White's best/second best move.

Advancements in AI aren't really affecting theory on the first move. Games from AlphaZero/Leela are good for new ways of thinking in the middlegame or late opening, but they're not changing our fundamental opening understanding.

EDIT - also, technically 1.e4 isn't "best by test" currently. In my database it scores 52.8%, while 1.d4 scores 54.4%. But to be fair, 1.e4 has been played in roughly 1.5 million more games, and the types of players who favour 1.e4/1.d4 may differ.