When has the FIDE rule against bringing the game into disrepute been invoked (if ever)?

Has the FIDE rule against bringing the game into disrepute been ever invoked? Indeed. I have found several examples of applications of the rule, based on the analysis of many resolutions by FIDE, and a few national and regional chess federations.
N.B. Although I tried to find references in English, it was hard to do and most of the references I found are in French, Catalan and Italian. The references I could find depend on my knowledge of languages and on the publication of disciplinary resolutions by a particular federation. (For example, I could not find such type of documents neither at the USCF site nor at the English Chess Federation's).
Cases of application
I actually found a case similar to that presented by @Brian Towers for committing illegal moves/actions during a game of chess. During a rapid chess competition, the white player repeatedly made illegal actions during the last two moves of the game (captured a pawn but did not take it off the board during his own time; retired the pawn during the opponent's time and, because of this movement, displaced a bishop from d4 to f3 and interfered with the opponent; knocked down two pawns while making his next move and did not set them up during his own time). This went unnoticed by the arbiter but there was video footage. The black player made a claim, but lost by time because of this. The result of the game was overturned based on article 11.1 and 11.5 (not annoying the opponent) (decision 3/2016, in Catalan, by the competition judge of the Chess Federation of the Balearic Islands).
However, this type of application of the article seems to be rare and it is more often invoked to punish inappropriate behavior during a match. Here are some examples:

A player broke havoc in disguise during the final of 86th French Championship as part of a prank. According to the arbiter that reported the event, "His behavior and actions have brought discredit to our sport". The player was suspended for two years (Resolution 2011-14 of the Federal Committee of Discipline of the French Chess Federation, in French).
An adult player shouted to an underage player, accusing him of having touched a piece and not played it. The adult player was suspended for 30 days (Resolution 2020/277 of the National Sports Judge of the Italian Chess Federation, in Italian).
Two players started quarreling during a match about some pieces having been knocked down. Both players lost the game and were suspended for 30 days (Resolution 2019/259 of the National Sports Judge of the Italian Chess Federation, in Italian).
A player insisted on using swear words and acting disrespectfully, even after several requests by the arbiter. The player was suspended for two months (Resolution 2017/155 of the National Sports Judge of the Italian Chess Federation, in Italian).
While playing against an underage player, an adult player repeatedly went to the bar for alcoholic drinks (although he apparently was not inebriated). He was reprimanded on the grounds of article 11.1 (Resolution 20/2019 of the Catalan Chess Federation, in Catalan).
A player was reprimanded on the grounds or article 11.1 for shouting during a match when his opponent's phone alarm rang (Resolution 7/2019, of the Catalan Chess Federation, in Catalan). (The other player was reprimanded for telling the delegate, but not his opponent of the fact that the alarm would ring to remember him to take his medication. The competition rules specified he should have told both about it.)
Several players were reprimanded for misbehaving (shouting, speaking aggressively) because of a conflict during a match (Resolution 07/2017 of the Catalan Chess Federation, in Catalan).
A team's delegate was reprimanded for acting angrily when making a claim (Resolution 06/2017 of the Catalan Chess Federation, in Catalan).
A player was reprimanded for refusing to shake hands as customary at the beginning of the game (Resolution 17/2016 of the Catalan Chess Federation, in Catalan).
An adult player has suspended for six months for acting pejoratively against two underage opponents. The decision was confirmed during an appeal based on grounds of article 11.1 and 11.5 (Appeal Resolution 15/2016, of the Catalan Chess Federation, in Catalan).

Article 11.1 has also been used to punish affronts and offenses against chess organizations:

The president of a chess club was suspended for three years for offenses against the French Chess Federation on Twitter and for manhandling a couple of underage players he trained (Resolution 2019-14 of the Federal Commission of Discipline of the French Chess Federation, in French). Although the resolution does not cite explicitly the article 11.1, it says that such actions (the insults on Twitter) "are of such a nature to attack the image of the French Chess Federation and the game of chess" (my translation).

Penalties
As is apparent from the examples above, in case of minor transgressions penalties are limited to admonitions with more severe punishments in case of re-incident behavior. In more severe cases it results in the loss of the game or even license suspensions.
Alternatives to article 11.1
The invocation of article 11.1 seems to depend on the actual regulations of each federation. In fact, the offenses listed above are related to violations of ethical codes in some federations.
For example, the article 2.2.10 of the FIDE Code of Ethics is approximately equivalent to article 11.1 of the Laws of Chess. It states:

"In addition, disciplinary action in accordance with this Code of
Ethics will be taken in cases of occurrences which cause the game of
chess, FIDE or its federations to appear in an unjustifiable
unfavorable light and in this way damage its reputation."

This article was used to suspend former FIDE president K. Ilyumzhinov (case 2/2018 of the FIDE Ethics Commission) for pursuing his own interests instead of FIDE's in addition to other actions.
Also, in France disrespectful behavior is usually judged as violations of the Ethics and Deontology Chart of the French Chess Federation (e.g., Appeal decision 2017-02 for hitting a player, decision 2019-01 for insulting and menacing two players, decision 2019-13 for shouting to the opponent, in French).
Finally, the ruling 2/2020 of the FIDE Ethics & Disciplinary Commision regarding an attempt of match-fixing states that "Art. 2.2.10 is a more general rule, primarily aimed at targeting acts or omissions by  players  or  office  holders  that  is  not  covered  by  any  of  the  more specified articles in the Code of Ethics." I think this should also be applicable to article 11.1 of the Laws of Chess.


As Black, how should one respond to 4. Qe2 by White in the Russian Game, Damiano Variation?

Do not play 3...Nxe4 in response to 3. Nxe5.

I feel this important aspect is missing in the other answers. You can see the primary reason it doesn't work in your game - you end up losing the queen. Given that you can't just move the knight after 4. Qe2, your next-best option is to play 4...Qe7 5. Qxe4 d6 (or ...f6), which still results in you losing a pawn. It's not a disaster because Black does have some compensation in the form of superior development, but Black's position is still undoubtedly inferior.

Avoiding this line is the main line of the Petroff, and is much more stable. The main line goes 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5. Black has gained a tempo (as seen from his advanced knight), but the knight is somewhat exposed and can potentially be forced to retreat, in which case White is up two tempi. In practice, White can usually achieve this, but needs to play pawn breaks like c4, which balances out. The Petroff is thought to be drawish for a reason.


The moves leading to the winning combination

Your situation sounds a lot like my own - in the past, I tended to use a very "defensive" style of play, preferring closed openings, subtle position play, etc.  If the opponent made a mistake and I could win a pawn with some clever tactics, it'd be enough to win the game, most of the time.

This approach is probably perfectly fine if you are aiming for a respectable rating (as we've often heard, simply not blundering will see you through to the 1800s), but for some reason, I began to lose interest in chess (probably from too many draws and eeked out wins).

After a break of several years, I started playing "strictly for fun", with friends in person, and online.  This has given me the opportunity to experiment more with play style, and I found out that I actually prefer an aggressive style.  It was surprising for me just how often this style of play would lead to the opportunity for exciting tactics.  My experience on making the transition:

Play unrated games: It's difficult to experiment (wildly) with your play style while trying to play your strongest game.  You should still review your games and try to learn from them, but you shouldn't worry if you lose.

Stop playing drawish openings: Some openings are simply more suitable for aggressive play than others.  Prefer open games versus closed ones.  As white, you have a tempo advantage, and you should try to make the most of it.  As black, you can try to unbalance the game, as opposed to simply letting white run the show (e.g. Sicilian Defense).  I've always found the Danish Gambit to be a wonderful opening.  Get someone to play this opening with from the "Accepted" position, to appreciate what an aggressive style can lead to - you're two full pawns down, but have a huge advantage in development (aside - unfortunately, the Schlechter variation is strong for black, and almost everyone knows it nowadays).

Don't use your aggressive style on computers:  Perhaps it's just me, but computers nowadays are way too good at tactics.  They see things coming a mile away, and simply won't walk into your clever tactics, unless they are 6+ moves ahead.  It's not fun to keep getting floored by the computer.  Humans make mistakes more often, but more importantly, do not see every possible combination to at least 4 moves (unlike computers).

Piece position is important:  This goes without saying, but having the pieces there when you need them makes all the difference.  Attacks are often won or lost on a single tempo difference, so don't get tricked into giving up tempo, and try to get some from your opponent!

Build pressure: If in doubt, build pressure, complicate the situation.  Look for a weak spot, and start aiming pieces at it.  Again, you'd be surprised at how often a tense situation can lead to a brilliant combo / quick win.

These are all the basic, non-tactics related tips I have.  To reiterate, I think you should just play many games in a more aggressive style.  You will probably lose a lot at first, but you will also get a lot more practice in attacking, both strategically and tactically.  Eventually the results will come, and if you decide to switch back to a more defensive style, the lessons learned will stay with you.

Edit: To expand on the comment about playing against computers, I find that their simulation of "weaker" human players is quite badly done.  One well known program, for example, seems to change the player's heuristics in favour of different pieces ("likes knights", etc), and throws in a few major blunders at lower levels, while playing 99% accurately most of the time, thinking many moves ahead, and having an excellent opening repertoire.  I don't really find this to be a realistic representation of a real player.  Setting the AI up yourself, to have a shorter think time than you (and to not think on your clock time) may work slightly better, although typically leads to weak endgame play.  In the end, it's more fun to just play against people, and with the internet, there's plenty of opportunity for that.


Does playing too much hyperblitz and bullet ruin your classical performance?

Usually, when playing speed chess our eyes get trained to find tactics quickly, and we tend to overlook complex ones. Also, repeatedly playing speed chess over a significant time reduces your stamina which is needed for long games.
In my experience, when I spend too much with speed chess before a tournament, after I analyze my games I see that my games are not as technically sound as it used to be.
It is a bummer for me because love bullet chess :(.


What is the best way to play chess via terminal?

You can save games with:

pgnsave FILENAME

This saves the game played so far from memory to a file.

You can find some documentation here: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/chess/


Chess Position Trainer in Conjunction with Chessbase or Similar

a) can you train your entire repertoire in one swoop? Or are you
  forced to choose each opening module and train one at a time?

you have to choose the opening you want to train.  However, you have control of what is included in an "opening"  The only constraint is that White and Black must be separate.  So you could have a single "white" opening and a single "black" opening to train.

I have two white openings and three black openings.


I will need to make an educated guess as to what rules come closest to what you have described, and I think it is that:

You are checkmated whenever your king is attacked and if it were your turn next, you would not have any moves that would result in your king not being attacked.
An opponent causes checkmate on you, if at the start of their turn you are not checkmated, but at the end of their turn you are.
If at the start of your own turn you are checkmated, then your king is removed from the game and the opponent who last caused checkmate on you will gain control of your pieces.

Under these rules, merely piling on a check while it was already checkmate would not cause checkmate.

The rest of this post is background and further analysis of checkmate, that informed my answer and may help to understand it:

According to Wikipedia, it was the Persians who abandoned king capture and introduced warning of check in order to not accidentally end the game.  So let's go back in time before the introduction of checkmate and reanalyse.

In two-player chess checkmate is a situation where at the end of your turn all parties are certain that you will (be able to) capture the king on your very next turn (and in two-player chess there exist no reasons not to actually capture the king).  Because of this certainty of how the next two turns will play out (a doomed evasive move and a certain king capture), there is no point in actually playing those moves, so both can be (and have been in FIDE chess) eliminated from the game with no detriment to the game.  (Very much the same thing happens when a player forfeits the game upon realizing that the game is lost and there is no point playing any further.)

But if there are three or more players a third party can intervene on behalf of a threatened king and (unless the game ends when the first king is captured) there may be more pressing matters than capturing an opponent's king left in check (like defending your own king).  These differences make it impossible to say with certainty when king capture is actually going to take place before it actually happens, thereby invalidating the reasoning which allowed us to eliminate king capture from the (end of the) game.

It is of course possible to try and use a definition of checkmate that is equivalent to the full checkmate described above in two-player chess also in chess with three or more players.  Indeed checkmate is usually defined in an operational way that is equivalent to full checkmate in two-player chess: your king is attacked and you have no move that will result in your king not being attacked.

When you try to use that definition in multi-player chess you will need to think about on which player's turns one can be checkmated.  If your king is attacked and you have no move that will result in your king not being attacked, because it is not even your turn, are you checkmated?  Apparently that was something you rejected, but then it becomes hard to say who checkmated you.  It is possible for example that the player before you causes your king to be attacked by moving one of their pieces out of the way of a third player's piece, and even causes you to not have any moves that result in your king not being attacked, even though they are not even checking you with any of their own pieces.  Have they checkmated you?  I think most people are inclined to say yes.  But if you want to know if they caused checkmate or not, then you need to be able to say whether or not you were already checkmated before their turn or not.  Thus you need a way to determine checkmate even when it is not your turn.

One extreme is to say that every check from a player not immediately before you is checkmate (because as it is not even your turn you have no moves to remove that attack).  Another way is to pretend that it were your turn and see if you could do something.  I have recently even read rules for multi-player chess where it actually becomes your turn if you are checked, and the player whose turn it would have been had you not been checked continues after you (and you may or may not forfeit you actual next turn).


Is the chess game from the movie "Revolver" a plausible game?

The scenes we see in the movie are not completely coherent, some of the things we see are in the wrong order, and the initial chessboard seems to come from the same game, but it is not completely consistent with what happens later. Anyway, the combination they play, with the checkmate, looks like this. Of course the combination is quite simple, and it does not match with the idea they want to give in the movie (the two people are supposed to be tournament players, as we see from the scenes with the chess clocks), so for them this combination would be trivial, and the suspence we see in the last three moves is quite unjustified.

[FEN "r1b1r1k1/pp1nbppp/4p3/q2pP3/8/2RBBN2/PP2QPPP/5RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Bxh7+ Kxh7 2. Ng5+ Bxg5 3. Qh5+ Kg8 4. Bxg5 Nxe5 5. Rh3 Ng6 6. Qh7+ Kf8
7. Qh8+ Nxh8 8. Rxh8# 1-0


Playing the French Defense Exchange Variation

First, a side note: I play the black side of the French Defense almost religiously, and my results against the Exchange variation have traditionally been very good. It's not a variation that's feared by most French Defense practitioners. Neither, for that matter, is the Advance variation, which gives black a very clear plan of strategic counterattack based on undermining the white center, freeing the poor light-square bishop, and sometimes pressuring the white queen-side pawns. There are also lesser-known closed lines of the Advance involving a ...c4 pawn push that, while objectively tend to lead to equality, are very promising for the black player who is more familiar with their nuances than his opponent. If you really want to give French players trouble, consider learning to play (one of) the Tarrasch, Steinitz, or Classical variations.

Anyway, back to your main question. Normally, it's asymmetry of position that informs/determines the respective strategies that both sides attempt to realize. The exchange variation, however, is inherently symmetrical and therefore no clear, overarching strategies present themselves until the symmetry is broken by either white or black. There are a few proactive ways of creating asymmetry in this variation:

4. c4 which usually leads to IQP positions with all the attendant and characteristic advantages and disadvantages. The player with the IQP is advised to play aggressive, attacking chess and avoid liquidation of material (unless doing so yields an obvious benefit), as the IQP could be easily blockaded and made into a major weakness in the endgame.
Preparing queen-side castling and launching a pawn storm if black chooses to castle king-side. This is highly double-edged and possibly questionable in its soundness, but a viable choice if you enjoy very sharp games and are confident in your tactical abilities.

Other moves are mostly noncommittal and give black time to develop as he chooses. Ultimately, if neither side breaks symmetry in any substantial way, the game is probably going to revolve largely around control/occupation of the squares e4 and e5. Further, numerous minor piece trades are very likely to take place on the e-file in such situations, leading to drawish positions.

One general piece of advice I'd offer, if you insist on playing the Exchange variation at all, is to delay it by one move and play 3. Nc3 first. In that case, if black opts for the Winawer variation with 3... Bb4, there's an argument to be made that, after 4. exd5 exd5 5. a3, black simply doesn't have any great choices (i.e., he must either effectively waste a move retreating the bishop, or cede the bishop pair, when the doubling of white's c-pawns could even be viewed as an asset in many situations because of their superior centralization). On the other hand, if black plays classically with 3... Nf6, he has lost the possibility of playing the pawn to f6 (often a good choice in many lines of the exchange variation because it helps to control the key e5 square and restrains white's minor pieces).


Blind and Visually Impaired Chess Players

Searching the web, I haven't found anything directly answering your question. However, the rules supplements for blind chess apply to games between a sighted player and one who is legally blind. Thus it seems a safe inference that one would need to be legally blind to participate in IBCA events.


This is a book draw. At our level it is difficult but at GM level this is an easy version of KR+3 v KR+4 with the extra pawn on the the queenside. The fact that Black's king is already in position to block the passer makes it much easier than the classic version of this endgame. His very active rook is another plus. White is not going to lose but he can make at best token efforts to win.

  Without using engines, it seems logical to me to play 41.Re3 or 41.Rd3
  (instead of 41.Kc5 as played by Ding)

These moves make no sense. Black is then going to play Rxf2 and follow up with f4. Soon the kingside pawns will be eliminated and the draw becomes much easier.

Jonathan Rowson devotes 42 pages to this endgame in his book "Amateur to IM". If you want to find out more about this endgame then his book is highly recommended.


Is there value to learning openings as a new player?

The opening in those games depends on your opponent just as much as you, so with the sample size being so small, don't take the statistic too much into account.
The analogy with poker doesn't really work out too well. You definitely want to play "optimally" in chess against beginners! While in poker you can choose between different strategies that will lead to different expected amounts of cash/chips gained on a hand, in chess there are only three results: win, draw and loss. If you play "GTO-like", you'll win 100% of the time.
The problem is that, when you're still a beginner, studying openings won't make you much closer to being an "optimal player". We should distinguish two things here: you should definitely learn how to play the opening well (as in: develop your pieces, control the center, put your king into safety, prevent your opponent from doing these three things and similar strategic ideas). Don't just stick to the "slogans". Take a look at a variety of examples. However, this is not the same as learning a lot of moves deep into opening theory. Learn mainly by reviewing your own games (by yourself, not with a computer) and by watching how more skilled players treat the positions you reach.
The main reason why deep study of "opening theory" is not so profitable for beginners is that the difference between play "perfectly" and making a small opening mistake is much smaller than when those mistakes happen later in the game. The other main point I'd make is that it is much easier to remember opening theory when you are a skilled player that understands the underlying tactics/strategy and only has to rely on memory for a few critical situations. One of the opening mistakes I commonly see among beginners is making the "right move" in the wrong position (as in, thinking you are in a given theoretical position where the right move is X but it turned out it wasn't the same position)


Looking for a good chess program with a couple of features

Ubisoft's Chessmaster:  Grandmaster Edition fits the bill:

1) Randomisation

This is available as an option in ranked play:

2) Handicaps

Are dealt with in the setup position mode (but unfortunately there isn't a randomised colour option in this part of the software. I would suggest rolling a dice)

3) Difficulty levels

Elo ranges from 0 to 2928 with a range of personalities (attackers, defenders etc.)


What are good books for learning Queen's Gambit opening

The best for QGD is Mathew Sadler-Queen's Gambit declined in my opinion. Every line in the Queen's Gambit declined has been explained. It is dated, so you will need to do your own research to find latest theory. Still, QGD is "stable" opening so theory rarely changes here...

For Queen's Gambit accepted, you could try a book from Starting Out series, or Semko & Sakaev-Queen's Gambit Accepted. QGA is simple, its all about not letting Black to finish development. You just need the moves to survive the opening. Maybe you will need to learn how to play against Isolated pawn. If that is the case, you can start with this post on Chess SE.

As for Slav defense, again Black aims for solidity and White tries to hinder his harmonious development. The lines are sharp but easy to understand, and you need to know theory. Maybe sometimes you will end with "hanging pawns" but there is a book about this type of middlegame. The best book I found on Semi-Slav is one from David Vigorito. As for Slav, again you can Google for one of the Starting out series.

  Of course I understand that this is a huge topic. But at least a book that covers roughly QGA, QGD and the Slav would be nice.

Lars Schandorrf-Playing the Queen's Gambit 2nd edition could be what you want. It gives you most up to date theory at this point. Combine it with the above books and you should be fine. For latest opening theory you could consider getting 2 volumes from Avrukh ( Grandmaster repertoire 1 and Grandmaster repertoire 2 ).

CONCLUSION:

Shandorrf and Avrukh give opening moves but don't explain basic ideas. I have listed them so you can survive opening as there were recent novelties in the Semi-Slav and Slav. For basic ideas get Starting out series and Sadler's book, they should be enough for you to start.

In my opinion this is the best you can do to solve your problem at the moment. If you need further help leave a comment. Good luck!


Do you get moved down a section on a USCF chess tournament if your score is low?

You do not get moved out of your bracket.  If you're a B-player in the Expert section, expect to finish at the bottom.  I'm not even sure if you're allowed to 'play up' unless you play in the open section.


There are some possibilities that I can think of:

His 8 year old sister, dog, neighbor, etc suggested some of these 'great moves'
He was trying to handicap himself to make it more challenging
He tried something new or crazy, possibly to end the game quickly (e.g sacrificing his own pieces to expose your king or free his pieces)
Maybe he tried a chess gambit, first glance it appears you gain advantage, but this advantage is just an illusion.

My favorite is the Danish Gambit (it is rare that someone accepts it completely outside beginner level though)

[fen " w - - 0 1"]

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2

Update: now that I have seen the game, I can confirm it was a mix of points 3 (the move 23...Bxh2) and 4 (but he decided to improvise one instead of using an existing one). Maybe some of point 1 too.


Does the design of chess pieces affect professional chess players at all?

Am wondering if this will affect professional players or other strong
club players at all. Do designs of chess pieces affect them at all?

The short answer is "No" for the simple reason that they will never play any tournament chess with anything other than the standard Staunton design. The reason for that is given in the FIDE document Standards of Chess Equipment, venue for FIDE Tournaments, rate of play and tie-break regulations
According to the introduction -

This document defines the general standards for chess equipment and
conditions of play, rate of play and tie-break regulations to be used
in FIDE competitions.

On the subject of chess equipment it says this:

1. Chess Equipment
1.1 The chess equipment offered by the organisers (hosts) of a FIDE or Continental Championship, Olympiad and other FIDE registered
tournaments shall conform with the standards mentioned below, and
shall be approved by the Chief Organiser and the Chief Arbiter.
1.1.1. It is recommended, that the chess pieces, boards and clocks, used in the World or Continental top level competitions be
approved by participating players. Their approval shall be obtained
for other equipment the table, chairs etc. In case either side
disagrees, the equipment to be used shall be decided by the Chief
Organiser or the Chief Arbiter of the event, bearing in mind the
standards for its size and form as mentioned below.
1.1.2. It is highly recommended that the chess equipment used in a competition is the same for all participants and all games.

On the design of the pieces it says:

2.3 Form, style of pieces
Recommended for use in FIDE competitions are pieces of Staunton style.
The pieces should be shaped so as to be clearly distinguishable from
one another. In particular the top of the King should distinctly
differ from that of the Queen. The top of the Bishop may bear a notch
or be of a special colour clearly distinguishing it from that of the
Pawn.

Note that in the US lower level tournaments often require players to bring their own equipment. The USCF has its own regulations regarding equipment detailed in Chapter 4 of their US Chess Rulebook. Chapters 1, 2 and 11 are available free online but the USCF sees fit to charge for the rest of their rulebook. I would be slightly surprised if this allows non-standard designs.


What is black's best sixth move in the Sicilian Grand Prix?

Things don't look too difficult for White after the natural 7.Bc4 (in your 6...a6 line); not that I think White has some great position, but I at least don't see why you write "it seems White has some difficulties." Since you didn't elaborate on what you think these difficulties are, I'm going to guess that they revolve around White's light-square bishop getting harassed by expanding black pawns. Assuming that is the concern, I don't think there's really any reason to worry.

For instance, if Black immediately lashes out with 7...b5, White can keep the bishop active on the a2-f7 diagonal without fear of getting trapped by ...c4 since he can gain time against Black's rook: 8.Bd5 Rb8 9.d3, when 9...e6 can be safely met with 10.Bb3. After say 10...Bb7, Black has a perfectly good position, but the same goes for White. (Note that White should welcome 10...Nxb3 11.axb3 with good central control and play down the a-file. And in any case White shouldn't mind losing the bishop pair in this position, especially since he played into a line in which Black had the earlier option of 6...Nxb5 anyway.)

Similarly, if Black prepares ...b5 with 7...e6, I think White should simply play 8.d3 with play similar to the above line, e.g. 8...b5 9.Bb3 Bb7, and again White should be content with something like 9...Nxb3 10.axb3 Bb7 as well.

Perhaps I'm wrong about what difficulties you see for White after 6...a6 (in which case please correct me with more detail in your post), but if that is where you think trouble lies, it seems to me that everything is fine for White (though fine for Black too).

[fen ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bb5 Nd4 6.O-O a6
    ( 6...Nxb5 )
7.Bc4 b5
    ( 7...e6 8.d3 b5 9.Bb3 Bb7
        ( 9...Nxb3 10.axb3 Bb7 )
    )
8.Bd5 Rb8 9.d3 e6 10.Bb3 Bb7
    ( 10...Nxb3 11.axb3 )
*


I don't think you should hard-core SyzygyPath because the ASM engine follows the UCI protocol. You can just send the SyzygyPath option to the engine.
If you insist to modify the assembly language (I don't recommend), goto https://github.com/tthsqe12/asm/blob/f34c20b25c2160b27efda5c5c388ff5e66636d3e/asmFish/guts/Uci.asm.

Find this:

.SyzygyProbeDepth:
        lea    rcx, [sz_syzygypath]
        call   CmpStringCaseless
        lea    rbx, [.SyzygyPath]
        test   eax, eax
        jnz   .CheckValue

Try to replace the path with 'C:\MyPath\'.

Note: My recommendation is not tested, but I am sure that's the code you'll need to change.


Chess GUI for windows that shows two boards?

The closest I've gotten to something like this is having separate accounts on whatever chess server you're using.

If you're using, say, FICS, you have two instances of your favorite client running, the first client is your main one and the second one you just join to the game through another account as a "watcher".

This requires a bit of manual labor, though. A more automated way is done through exploiting the macro functionality of most modern clients. You could, say, run the second client in the background at all times, and have the first client send an invite to the second to join the game, and the second client set to automatically accept invites coming from the first account.

At the very least, I think Winboard and BabasChess are capable of this. Others almost certainly are.


What are some good books for chess openings?

There are two excellent modern surveys of openings: Sam Collins' Understanding the Chess Openings and Paul van der Sterren's Fundamental Chess Openings. They both cover every major opening, demonstrating the main ideas and variations. I would start with Collins, since it is shorter and easier to read through in its entirety, but both are highly recommended.


Which time control was set in the following game?

I've looked all over the web and cannot find the specific time control used, but according to many sources I found via Google, this game was the 3rd round of the classical portion of the annual Russia vs China match, so definitely NOT a rapid/blitz game. I believe in recent years the classical time control for that event has been 40 moves in 90 minutes (relatively quick for that level).


if a tournament has 10 rounds, and I can only play the first 3 (and in
this example let’s say I win 1.5 points), will my initial rating
become the average of these 3 opponents or will this not count as a
part of my full initial rating?

No and no.
The FIDE rating regulations say

7.14 A rating for a player new to the list shall be published only if it meets the following criteria:
7.14a If based on results obtained under 6.3, a minimum of 5 games.
7.14b If based on results obtained under 6.4, a minimum of 5 games played against rated opponents.
7.14c The condition of a minimum of 5 games need not be met in one tournament. Results from other tournaments played within consecutive
rating periods of not more than 26 months are pooled to obtain the
initial rating.
7.14d The rating is at least 1000.
7.14e The rating is calculated using all his results as if they were played in one tournament (it is not published until he has played at
least 5 games) by using all the rating data available.

So, if you only play 3 games you will not have a rating. However if you later play another tournament then the results of those 3 games will be carried forward.


Since you are a 1400, Silman's book is the way to go. His book will give you the solid endgame foundation that you need. Only once you read his book up to "Endgames for Class A" should you get the other book.


Where can I find a list of mutual zugzwangs from Queen vs Rook?

In this particular endgame, there are no mutual-zugzwang-positions.

An overview over the positions is at

http://chess.jaet.org/cgi-bin/mzugs


From a guy that drinks for too many energy drinks.

Don't.

They give a rush for 40 minutes tops and then a crash.

Anxiety is also massively induced/increased.


I'm not sure which database you are looking at: I see 3.e4 as the second, not third, most popular choice on chess.com, though not by much:

Here's what one author says about 3.Nf3:

  Throughout the history of the Queen’s Gambit Accepted, this has been
  White’s most popular move in this position. White does not hurry to
  win back the pawn that he has sacrificed. He calmly develops his
  pieces and offers his opponent as few targets for an immediate
  counterattack as possible.

Sterren, Paul Van der. FCO: Fundamental Chess Openings (Kindle Locations 1487-1489). Gambit Publications. Kindle Edition.

and about 3.e4:

  For a long time this very natural reaction to 2... dxc4 suffered the
  same fate as 3 e3 and 3 Nc3: it was thought to be inaccurate because
  of 3... e5. The difference is that in this case White has the
  promising pawn sacrifice 4 Nf3! exd4 5 Bxc4!, when his development is
  swift and aggressive and Black will have to take great care in getting
  his king into safety. This is in fact a lively variation with chances
  for both sides.

  [...]

  Another standard device for counterattacking against the white centre
  consists in 3... c5.

Sterren, Paul Van der. FCO: Fundamental Chess Openings (Kindle Locations 1438-1441). Gambit Publications. Kindle Edition.

My take is that it is not that 3.e4 is bad (it actually has better statistical results for White!), but it is a matter of taste and more people prefer to play more solidly.


The general rule of thumb is that: if the queens are off the board then it's generally safe to keep the kings central in order to use them as active pieces (specially in endgames) instead of tucking them away into a safe corner.

But that's just a general rule, and like any other rule in chess it is to be taken with caution, because at the end of the day everything still depends on the precise context (i.e. concrete assessment of main lines). Easiest cases to assess are when there are not many open files and diagonals towards the king, because otherwise, well-coordinated minor pieces can tactically exploit an exposed king's position to either win material or win tempi.

In your example, Kd2 is very natural because it successfully achieves two goals: it centralizes your king (so bringing it equally close to weak points such as b2 and f2) and it activates your rook. I emphasize successfully, because concretely speaking, there are currently no direct threats which prevent you from playing Kd2. If instead you castle (assuming it's legal in this position), sure the rook gets activated, but the semi-open b-file (e.g. ...Rb5 though currently prevented by the bishop on e2) will eventually bound your rook to the defense of the b2 pawn, potentially followed by a3, and that's a healthy initiative for black with a dangerously advanced a-pawn. But with the king on d2, your king starts covering your queenside (Kc3-Kb4, or Kc2), enabling your rook to create counter-threats.


I wouldn't call it a blunder, as White still has a large advantage after 1.b3. But more efficient is 1.dxc5 Bxc5 2.Bd2. Here White's attacking the knight, but has only spent one tempo developing his bishop. Your idea with 1.b3, 2.Ba3 would take two tempi.

In this kind of position where the opponent's king is vulnerable, each tempo matters more. You want to take advantage of things before the king gets to safety.


What is the earliest known appearance "Fool's Mate"?

In reference  @Rewan Demontay's answer, I know that Augustus, Duke of Brunswick published Das Schach- oder Königsspiel under the pseudonym Gustavus Selenus in 1616. I can't confirm that this work actually mentions Fool's Mate (I don't speak German, and I can't find the full text in online references) or that there is no earlier reference.


What software can I use to self-assess my own Elo rating?


How to master 1.e4 repertoire from scratch

The special feature of a 1.e4 repertoire is that transpositions are rare. You can have independent repertoires against each of black's replies. This is very different from 1.c4, 1.d4 and 1.Nf3 where moves can often be played in many different orders and you always have to watch out for transpositions between your various lines.
Then these are the "big four":
1...e5 -- The Open Game
1...c5 -- The Sicilian
1...e6 -- The French
1...c6 -- The Caro-Kann
Most of your time should go to those, especially the first three (the CK is also very good but not as popular at amateur level).
Then there is the rest, like
1...d5 -- the Scandinavian
1...d6 and 1...g6 -- the Pirc and Modern (there are transpositions between those)
1...Nf6 -- the Alekhine
And other lines that you can skip for now.
The reason for this is that 1.e4 puts an undefended pawn in the center, and the intended follow-up 2.d4 is hard to prevent as it will be defended by the queen. This is different from 1.d4 where 2.e4 is easy to prevent. That means all replies must immediately have some specific way to deal with that, and the different ways of doing that immediately prevent transpositions.
1...e5 -- black just does the same. 1...c5 -- black will exchange his c-pawn for the d-pawn if it arrives on d4. 1...e6 and 1...c6 -- black will also put a pawn on d5. 1...d5 black immediately puts a pawn on d5 but can't recapture with a pawn. 1...Nf6 -- black attacks the undefended e4 pawn. 1...d6 and 1...g6 -- black lets white play 2.d4 and intends to attack the center later.
Hope this helps.


Can someone still get the title of "Club Master?"

Yes. According to the ECF website it costs £10 and a number of different titles are available for ECF members:

  (a) Chess Maestro
  A player must achieve a grade of at least 95
  on any ECF official grading list.
  (b) Team Master
  A player must achieve a grade of at least 120 on any ECF official grading list.
  (c) Club Master
  A player must achieve a standard play A or B grade of at least 145 on an ECF official grading list.
  (d) County Master
  A player must achieve a standard play A grade of at least 170 on an ECF official grading list.
  (e) Regional Master
  A player must achieve a standard play A grade of at least 185 in two successive seasons on ECF official grading lists (note – grades must be 12 months apart e.g. July 2012, July 2013).
  (f) National Master
  A player must achieve a standard play A grade of at least 200 in two successive seasons on ECF official grading lists (note – grades must be 12 months apart e.g. July 2012, July 2013).


The solution is

 1.Qxf7+.  If Kh8, then Qxf8#.  And if Rxf7, then Rd8# - the rook cannot block because it is pinned by the bishop.


Can one improve his chess without playing online?

I'd like to start with this comment of yours:

"I fear that without this abusive online playing my abilities OTB will be damaged."

I know where you are coming from, because I've been there, too. I used to be ridiculously addicted to chess - and I wasn't even very good lol. Now it's a hobby, which is much more healthy.
I also know that fear you speak of - I, and people like myself (which presumably includes you) strive for depth, rather than breadth in life. Being very good at one thing seems so much more important than being kind of good at a lot of things; trouble is, I picked the wrong thing.
Personally, I had to completely stop playing chess for a while. When I came back to it (in a more recreational fashion), I was indeed worse at chess, and though I have improved, I'm still not completely back to where I was (although I strongly suspect I'll get there).
It was completely worth it.
I had free-time. I had sleep. I had better grades. By golly, I even had more friends - not fair-weather friends, but honest-to-goodness friends that cared about me and my life.
I say all of this to encourage you that even if your playing ability drops off, please don't worry about it. Chess is not your life. Your life is your life. Go out and live it! Study with all of your strength, go on dates, hang out with your friends, work your rear end off and become the absolutely amazing, incredible person that you are - one that's always up for a relaxing game of chess with a friend, of course.

Now for the practical suggestions:

Here are some suggestions for maintaining playing strength while limiting online chess:

Study master games. Seriously, doing this will get you way more chess knowledge than playing oodles of blitz games.

Read some chess books, playing out the games on the board if you wish. These books are almost always entertaining as well as being extremely helpful.

Play casually OTB with some friends, analyzing various lines at a relaxed pace - chat with a friend (or maybe even a date) over a nice, no-pressure, slow game (although if it's a date, make sure that she likes chess first XD).

Visit you local chess club, and play some games there when you're in a good spot with your schoolwork and workplace work.

TL;DR: it really is possible to enjoy chess and have a life.


Are score sheet booklets allowed to be in use?

According to an annotated version of the FIDE rules, it's banned in some tournaments, which presumably means it's not banned in all tournaments.  The relevant annotation says:

  Article 11.3.1 has resulted in some tournaments banning the use of scorebooks.  Where these are allowed arbiters should ensure that players do not refer to earlier games.

I've never played in a FIDE tournament, but I've played in USCF tournaments. The relevant USCF rules are similar to the FIDE rules. A tournament can prohibit using scorebooks, but in my (amateur) experience they don't; probably many tournament directors are happy to not have to provide as many scoresheets.

USCF rule 15A (similar to FIDE rule 8.1.1) states that you are to record your moves "on the scoresheet prescribed for the competition".  This is clear, but it's also only relevant if the competition prescribes a scoresheet.

USCF rule 20B (simiar to FIDE rule 11.3.1) states you are forbidden to "make use of" notes or recorded matter - it doesn't prohibit having them in a place where you can't see them. Generally a notation booklet will be open in such a way that you only have the current game visible, and not any previous games. Browsing notes on previous pages would of course be cheating, but it would also be fairly obvious to your opponent and any bystanders.  The only legitimate reason to flip a page after the game has started is if you get to move 50 or so, and by that time any opening notes would be rather useless.

While USCF rule 15G (similar to FIDE rule 8.3) does state that the scoresheets are property of the sponsoring organization, I've never had a tournament ask me to rip a page out. I get the feeling that this rule is mostly there so a player can't refuse to show it during a dispute, and it allows the arbiter/TD to insist that the opponent be able to use it to fill in his own sheet.

And finally, the USCF sells these score books on their website, calling them "A must for the 'organized' tournament player!". Presumably, they would not do so if it was ordinarily illegal to actually use them for their intended purpose.


Chess variants where black is considered equal?

In Synchronistic Chess, both players make their moves simultaneously. Black must be quite equal in this variant!

Additionally, a bunch of the variants listed on the Wikipedia page could likely be considered "equal" for Black, as they may involve elements of chance that would be far more significant than the first-move advantage normally conferred on White. Some variants have arbitrary rules that change from game to game, though these may be getting so far removed from actual Chess that their inclusion is a bit questionable. ;-)


What is the 'combustion point' of a game? This was in an upvoted answer

The question you mention is here: In ChessBase 12, when viewing an Opening Tree, why do all the games always stop near move 26?

Personally, I think it is just a general English statement he used to describe the middle, and most heated analytically, part of the game based on the context. I doubt anyone else would repeat it.

Frankly, if I downvoted a lot, I would probably have downvoted that answer since it does not really begin to answer the question. The real answer is either the user was doing something wrong, and should have been shown how to do it (probably not), or simply that was the way it was in the code because that is where they arbitrarily cut off the opening, and cannot be changed (probably).

P.S. If I were to ever describe a part of a chess game as such, it would be where everything came to a head, and the tactics started to fly.


Why do houdini and stockfish give this seemingly stupid move?

In the given position, Black ultimately has no way to avoid an impending checkmate, hence is lost no matter what. The engines you're consulting are just trying to push that unavoidable mate as far into the future as possible. 1...Qxf2+ does that the best; any other defensive tries lead to a quicker checkmate. For instance:

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "3r3k/1rp2p1p/4b2B/p3P1Q1/3q4/1P1P2P1/P4PBP/1R4K1 b - - 0 28"]

1...Qxf2+
    ( 1...Rg8 2.Qf6+ Rg7 3.Qxg7# )
    ( 1...Qxe5 2.Qxd8# )
2.Kxf2 Rg8 3.Qf6+ Rg7 4.Qxg7# *


How do I find people to play chess with me through correspondence?

I have never been particularly interested in correspondence chess, but the internet is full of chess servers. On many of them can you play correspondence chess:

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

Here is a similar question, with a possibly useful answer:

Best websites for correspondence chess?


Why doesn't Stockfish (DroidFish) try to flag me?

They are programmed to play the best chess, and there is simply no programming added in that attempts to account for the opponent being low on time. The way it played it was the best chess-wise. A human might try to flag you, but not the computer. Personally, I like it that way.


What is the current highest rated chess engine?

CCRL has not tested Komodo 10.1 yet.

IPON has:  http://inwoba.de/

2016.07.23
Komodo 10.1 with a plus of 8 Elo in the full list and 11 Elo from one RRRL to the next.
This version would not be tested because it is to close to the last release but as it is the reigning world
champion it should be integrated.

1 Komodo 10.1    3253
   2 Stockfish 7   3228


Trading off two rooks for queen and pawn

If anything, it would be advisable to trade one's queen for the opponent's rooks, not vice versa.  But it all depends on the position.  If my opponent's queen is particularly useful to him and dangerous to me, and my rooks haven't been well developed, especially if I'm already ahead in material, I wouldn't hesitate to exchange my rooks for the queen.

Also, in the middle game, if my opponent's rooks are passive, and his king is exposed, I might prefer to exchange away my rooks in favor of having my queen to worry the king with.  In some positions, a queen and minor piece can be more effective than two rooks and a minor piece.  Such positions generally occur during the middle game, when the opponent's many pawns and minor pieces hamper most offensive rook moves.  In contrast, the queen can do very well with her great scope, especially when supported with one or two well-situated minor pieces.

Two rooks for queen and pawn - well, it would depend a lot on the pawn, and on the position.  I would almost certainly trade two rooks for a queen and passed pawn, but I'd regard the opportunity with suspicion if the pawn in question was an underdeveloped doubled pawn already amply guarded against by my pawns.  More than likely, I'd be able to pick up such a pawn later, if it turned out to be necessary.

However, I would consider it a definite material advantage at most times to exchange my queen for two rooks.

The likely reasons why you don't see it much are that 1) the opportunity isn't all that common, and 2) the side getting the two rooks generally becomes stronger, so his opponent will want to avoid it.


What rules (if any) cover a situation like this?

3.10.2 of the FIDE Laws of Chess defines when a move is illegal -

  3.10.2 A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9

Articles 3.1 - 3.9 basically describe the moves of the pieces. Inarkiev's move was illegal because it breached 3.9.2 -

  3.9.2 No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.

3.10.3 defines when a position is illegal -

  3.10.3 A position is illegal when it cannot have been reached by any series of legal moves.

After Inarkiev made his illegal move the position was illegal because his king was in check and it was not his turn. After Carlsen made his (perfectly legal) move the position was legal again because Inarkiev was in check and it was Inarkiev's turn. Inarkiev was wrong to stop the clocks and claim an illegal move. The first arbiter made a mistake. Presumably Inarkiev said that Carlsen had made an illegal move and the arbiter took his word for it without checking - very unprofessional.

Article 7.5.1 defines when an illegal move has been completed (different from "made") and what should happen next in standard play games -

  7.5.1 An illegal move is completed once the player has pressed his clock. If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been
  completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be
  reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot
  be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable
  position prior to the irregularity. Articles 4.3 and 4.7 apply to the
  move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from
  this reinstated position.

The same definition for the completion of an illegal move applies to rapid and blitz however the way the illegal move is handled is different unless certain strict conditions apply.

In blitz illegal moves are handled like this (i.e. "Competition Rules apply") only if -

  B.3.1 The Competition Rules shall apply if:
  B.3.1.1 one arbiter supervises one game and
  B.3.1.2 each game is recorded by the arbiter or his assistant and, if possible, by electronic means.

With 69 games they would need 69 or more arbiters. I don't believe they had that so according to B.4 Rapid rules apply -

  B.4 Otherwise, play shall be governed by the Rapid chess Laws as in
  Article A.2 and A.4.

The relevant article is A.4.2 -

  A.4.2 If the arbiter observes an illegal move has been completed, he
  shall declare the game lost by the player, provided the opponent has
  not made his next move. If the arbiter does not intervene, the
  opponent is entitled to claim a win, provided the opponent has not
  made his next move. 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. If the opponent does not claim and the arbiter
  does not intervene, the illegal move shall stand and the game shall
  continue. Once the opponent has made his next move, an illegal move
  cannot be corrected unless this is agreed by the players without
  intervention of the arbiter.

So, the sequence of events was -

Inarkiev makes an illegal move
Neither the arbiter nor Carlsen spots it and Carlsen makes a legal move.
Inarkiev incorrectly tries to claim the game.
The arbiter who deals with it incorrectly believes Inarkiev without checking and awards the game to Inarkiev.
The Chief Arbiter correctly overturns the decision and rules that Inarkiev must make a move in the position in which he made his incorrect claim.

I don't know if the Chief Arbiter did this but in his position I would also award Carlsen an extra minute on the clock in accordance with article B.2.

  B.2 The penalties mentioned in Articles 7 and 9 of the Competition
  Rules shall be one minute instead of two minutes.

EDIT: Checking on the FIDE web site I see that they have published the regulations for the World Rapid and Blitz Championships which confirm that Rapid rules apply in the case of illegal moves -

  6.14 Tournaments will be played according to the rules of the inadequate supervision of the Rapid play Laws of Chess (FIDE Handbook,
  E.I.01B Appendices, art. 1 to 4). In addition, if a player displaces
  the pieces during the game: for the first time he receives a warning
  but for the second time he will be forfeited.

EDIT2: Perhaps I should just also point out for anyone reading this after 1st Jan 2018 that FIDE are unhappy with the "one illegal move loses in rapid and blitz" rule and this is changing from 1st Jan 2018. The new rules have a new article A.4.2 -

  A.4.2

  If the arbiter observes an action taken under Article 7.5.1, 7.5.2,
  7.5.3 or 7.5.4, he shall act according to Article 7.5.5, provided the opponent has not made his next move. If the arbiter does not
  intervene, the opponent is entitled to claim, provided the opponent
  has not made his next move. If the opponent does not claim and the
  arbiter does not intervene, the illegal move shall stand and the game
  shall continue. Once the opponent has made his next move, an illegal
  move cannot be corrected unless this is agreed by the players without
  intervention of the arbiter.

This basically says that in the case of an illegal move in "unsupervised" rapid and blitz the rules regarding when an illegal move is spotted and handled remain the same (if neither the players nor the arbiter spot it and stop the game then the game continues) but the penalties are as in standard play with a time penalty and restored position in case of a first offence and losing the game in case of a second offense.


Queens Gambit Declined vs Slav: Exchange Variations

White happens to have a couple of nice concrete plans in the particular QGD Exchange variation you mention (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5). One involves e3, f3, Nge2, and a break in the center with e4. The other is a minority attack on Black's a7-b7-c6-d5 pawn structure with b2-b4-b5. You will note that White's stats are much worse in the variation 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5, even though the pawn structures are the same, because he no longer has the f3/e4 plan. So it is not nearly as simple as "the exchange of pawns favors White in the QGD but favors Black in the Slav."


The position after 1. d4 g5 is close to the worst Black can possibly have after the first move. If you really want to give up a pawn on the first move, the Englund Gambit (1. d4 e5) is better, relatively, without being popular.


Chess Tournaments Without Studying Theory?

There is nothing wrong in entering a tournament if you have the time and if you can afford the entry fee.

However, I think you should really consider your first tournament as a discovery experience and enjoy the pleasure of chess and the atmosphere of the tournament rather than worry at once about winning prize money.

Whether you can win something depends a lot on the specifics of the tournament, the field, and of course your own level. I wouldn't put too much faith in online estimates of your strength: real-life chess is quite different. Playing your first tournament will actually give you a much better evaluation of where you stand vis-à-vis competition chess, and the experience will probably make you pretty stronger for your second one!

In a typical Swiss-system open tournament, you won't get crushed in all your games: whether your 1900-elo online estimation translates to real-chess 1900, or 1700, or 1500, there are many players of every level entering such events, and there will almost certainly be some opponents that you can beat. Probably you will get crushed in a few games, but not throughout the tournament, and you will have your revenge in others.

Some tournaments have prize money for unrated players. This may be a nice plus at the end, or a goal to aim for if your are well-placed before the last couple of games. But don't worry about it at the starting line, concentrate on your chessboard!

Finally, studying chess, reading books or training is up to you. It certainly doesn't hurt to play over some grandmaster's games collection, for instance. In any case, don't overestimate the importance of opening theory: it does help, but you wouldn't be the first tournament player to reach decent results without delving into it.

Welcome in the world of competitive chess and have a nice tournament!


The weights for main networks are here. The best weights depends on whether you are using a cpu or gpu. For cpu, the best weights file is probably LD2 which is a small net trained off of data for t40. For strong gpus or longer searches, one of the recent t40 networks will be very strong.


Bronstein timing vs. Simple Delay, Is there a formal definition of Bronstein Timing that specifies whether the increment should be added initially?

The Fide Laws of Chess state the following:

6.2. b. The time saved by a player during one period is added to his time available for the next period, except in the ‘time delay’ mode.
In the time delay mode both players receive an allotted ‘main thinking time’. Each player also receives a ‘fixed extra time’ with every move. The countdown of the main time only commences after the fixed time has expired. Provided the player stops his clock before the expiration of the fixed time, the main thinking time does not change, irrespective of the proportion of the fixed time used.

I'm under the impression that the literal interpretation is the correct one, and the delay should be added to the start time.
Technically, The Youtube video does not show whether the first 5 seconds of the first move are the delay (making the time control essentially 79 minutes 55 seconds for 30 moves etc. with delay starting from the first move) or not (the delay in the first move is completely skipped).
In addition, the video does not show what happens when the 30 move mark is reached, but the clock seems to be counting moves, and I assume it will add the extra time automatically, and I don't see any reason it won't also add the delay at the end of the 30th move.

While this was not your question, I think it's worth mentioning: The only other section related to this topic I could find in the Fide Handbook is in the section "Standards of Chess Equipment and tournament venue for FIDE Tournaments":

5.1. (b) The display at all times should show the time available to complete a player’s next move.

so it appears to me that in terms of the Fide rules, the correct method of showing time is the Bronstein method, as opposed to the delay method.


Can't seem to get back to winning consistently

I think you have hit the nail on the head with "Do I just need to get my mind Right?"

For many years I had very inconsistent form, I would try very hard and work on my game frequently, I saw gradual improvement but yet I would still find myself losing to players I really shouldn't...

Here is my last two years of form click here

Chess is a game which will never be played perfectly (not by any human), every game is riddled with mistakes from World Champion to absolute beginner, as players we tend to focus only on the bad things we do, "I just blundered a piece stupidly" or "I missed a simple tactic" rather than thinking about the deeper reasons for our mistake, oversights and tactical errors almost always occur when you don't understand the type of position you're playing or spending enough time to appreciate the finer points in the structure!

To play yourself into form, (or get out of bad form), you should spend a little more time getting to the bottom of why you've made the mistakes in the games you truly believe you should be winning!

Here is an article I wrote on my own improvement a year or so ago: If it looks interesting, play it!


Kasparov's Immortal: Why didn't he play 10.Qg7?

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

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


After installing GNU Chess run the command gnuchess from the terminal, it would look something like this:

~$ gnuchess
GNU Chess 5.07
Adjusting HashSize to 1024 slots
Transposition table:  Entries=1K Size=48K
Pawn hash table: Entries=0K Size=32K
White (1) : e4
1. e4

black  KQkq  e3
r n b q k b n r
p p p p p p p p
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . P . . .
. . . . . . . .
P P P P . P P P
R N B Q K B N R

Thinking...
Looking for opening book in book.dat...
Looking for opening book in /usr/share/games/gnuchess/book.dat...
Read opening book (/usr/share/games/gnuchess/book.dat)...
Loading book from /usr/share/games/gnuchess/book.dat.
40304 hash collisions...  Opening database: 265053 book positions.
In this position, there are 11 book moves:
 Nc6(71/77/22/32)  Nf6(54/113/88/113)  a6(75/3/1/0)  b6(67/11/3/9)
 c6(52/451/376/743)  d6(52/178/153/229)  e6(52/651/582/970)        g6(59/155/88/117)
 c5(56/2535/1691/2912)  d5(54/47/38/35)  e5(54/2518/1938/3369)

 c5(1322)  e5(1312)  e6(376)  c6(277)  d6(141)  g6(136)  Nf6(109)  Nc6(108)
 a6(76)  d5(76)  b6(70)

white  KQkq  c6
r n b q k b n r
p p . p p p p p
. . . . . . . .
. . p . . . . .
. . . . P . . .
. . . . . . . .
P P P P . P P P
R N B Q K B N R

My move is : c5
White (2) :


Why does white sacrifice their queen in this exercise?

Because white will lose the queen anyway after Nh3+, since otherwise Kh1 is answered with Rxf2 trapping and winning the queen. Just try to work out the tactics by yourself.

As to why white doesn't give up the queen for the rook instead (after Rxf2), it's because in this position the knight+queen are more apt at coordinating and creating threats. For example, to see that even after Qxf2 black can win back the rook if desired, here's a line:

 [title "lichess puzzle 61517"]
 [fen "4r1k1/p1b2pp1/1pp2r2/3p2np/1P1P2q1/P3P1P1/2R1NPQP/2R2NK1 b - - 1 28"]

 1...Nh3+ 2.Kh1 Rxf2 3.Qxf2 Nxf2+ 4.Kg2 Nd3 5.Ra1 Qe4+ 6.Kg1 Ne1 7.Rxe1 Qxc2

One must bear in mind that these are tactics problems, and in this case we know white is lost anyhow after Nh3+ but you should solve them with the mindset that you're playing against an engine, that is, assume the best resistance that exists, and sometimes since the position is lost, the best resistance is to delay the unavoidable exactly similar to how engines would go about such lost positions. Therefore, Qxh3 is presumably the move that yields the best resistance (lowest evaluation value for black's advantage from the engine's pov).


What is the most suitable position for a bishop here?

In the diagrammed position you have a material advantage but Black's position is a little bit better because his rooks are connected and he has a safer king position. His immediate threat is RxR, when you have to retake with the king followed by Qg1+ and after you move Kd2 he will play Bb6 and the pressure around your king will become intense. You are paying for your backward development with you queenside rook and bishop playing no part.

  Is the exchange of rooks (on move 22) wrong because there exists a
  stronger move or is it just a bad move in itself?

It is a bad move in itself because when you play RxR you immediately give control of the e file to your opponent. While you have a rook on e1 you are contesting the open e file.

If instead you play Bb2 you connect the rooks, complete your development and threaten Nxg7 which looks winning. It is a very hard threat to meet. You can meet Re6 with RxR and then carry out your threat. Probably Black has to play Be5. Then you swap bishops and play Ne7+ followed by Nxd5 and Black is just going downhill.

This course of action is much less effective if you start by exchanging rooks and ceding the e file to black. If you try the same tactic with your rook on a1 then black can comfortably play Be5 and retake with the queen after a pretty much forced BxB. With your material advantage you should still win but only after a grovelling defence as it is Black with the initiative making the threats. One of which is just to rush the h pawn down the board.


Can all UCI engines output a FEN for the current position or is it just StockFish?

From reading various chess source codes, mostly before 2005, I can state that most don't a FEN output.  Any that would allow for a non-starting position should accept FEN, as it's just a special form of PGN.
Crafty and san_kit both have a "fen" command.


What openings are recommendable for beginners to study?

To answer your question directly, your friends aren't wrong, and it's not a bad idea at all for you to play the Ruy Lopez, from both the white side and the black side. In fact, knowing nothing much about you or your exact level of play, it's still a safe suggestion that opening with either 1. e4 or 1. d4 with white, and responding with 1. e4 e5 or 1. d4 d5 with black is a solid way to begin to get your footing in the opening phase of the game. Of course, that's just move one (and only the two most popular options for that), and there are plenty of forks in the road beyond that point. Nevertheless, while my advice to you is that playing the Ruy Lopez is a great idea, studying it (or any other opening) in any great depth is not, at least not right now.

Instead, you should focus on a few principles, like aiming to get your king safely castled in a timely manner, trying to control the center of the board with your pawns (our first moves above are a good start), and developing your pieces with the idea of using them to further control the center of the board. All of these ideas are visible in the Ruy Lopez, and that's one reason it is a good suggestion. After 1. e4 e5, we see that 2. Nf3 develops a kingside piece and helps control the central squares d4 and e5, 2. ... Nc6 fights for control of those same squares (and defends the e5 pawn), and 3. Bb5 indirectly fights for those same squares by threatening the c6 knight, while also clearing the path for the white king to castle. Part of my point is that all of these moves make a great deal of sense, just for the principled reasons given here, and can be recognized as such and played confidently without needing to get your hands dirty with a lot of opening theory.

To learn more about important opening principles, and what you should be thinking about in the opening phase of the game, you might consider checking out John Emms' book Discovering Chess Principles: Building Opening Skills from Basic Principles, which is aimed squarely at developing in beginners a good sense of how to make good moves in the opening. (You'll find good reader reviews at that link; for good measure, here's a review from Chessville as well.) In addition to that, I'd say what's most important is just to play a lot and have fun, keeping guiding principles in mind while you do, and when things do go wrong, make a point of determining why. Try to figure it out yourself, and any time you can't, seek out an explanation from someone else. (Maybe come back here and ask!)


There's a "drawing line" in the Petrov Defense for White:

[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Qe2 Qe7 {Black has to play this or 6. d3 wins a piece} 6. d3 Nf6 7. Qxe7+

Playing 7. Qxe7+ loses White's opening half-tempo, but queens are off, and if that's what White wants he's gotten it. Not playing Qxe7+ can still lead to a queen trade, until either side decides to block the e-file with minors.

The Berlin Defense is another well-known opening with early queen trade:

[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8

This opening has gained a reputation for drawishness at GM level.


How can a >2000 player stop making basic errors?

From the way the question is written it seems like these flaws in your chess are uncharacteristic, and that you recently noticed that they've suddenly become way more apparent than before. The first point about putting pieces en prise does indeed seem uncharacteristic for any player >2000 Elo, unless we're dealing with very short time controls.

For a beginner, putting a piece or two en prise during a game is to be expected, but for someone of expert strenght it's indicating that something is going on. Most likely it has to do with momentary lapses of concentration, and it is very difficult in general to know why these happen. Has something happened in your life recently that puts you under a lot of stress? Then that is very likely the culprit affecting this area of your game, and you should work on improving your personal life in order to get rid of these annoying mistakes.

The second part, about getting winning positions and then not being able to convert them, is not uncharacteristic for a ~2050 Elo player in my opinion. Strong players tend to be remarkably resilient, and they will not yield an inch unless you force them to. Keeping this in mind, it becomes clear that it is very dangerous to think of your position as "winning". That way of thinking makes it much more likely that during a game you will start relaxing too early thinking the position will win itself, and consequently letting your opponent off the hook. Instead, I believe it is much more appropriate to always keep in mind that your position is nothing without you! Without you there to accurately improve it, your position will most certainly deteriorate, no matter how good it is to begin with. Don't forget this; do not relax until the game is over!

The part about "hope chess" should be taken care of if you remember that your opponent is not supposed to be your friend during the game. If they can avoid it, they will never actively cooperate with your plans. However, if the hope chess has increased in the last couple of months it could be caused by the same thing that is causing you to drop pieces. Stress has a way of making people mentally exhausted, and this will inevitably lead to chessplayers 'letting go' the moment they think they see a solution to their problems, unwilling to strain themselves mentally even further by double-checking to make sure the plan is air tight. In this case the solution to the issue should be to work on improving your personal life to eliminate mental exhaustion as a factor in your game.


No. The whole point of the game, the way you win, is by checkmating the opponent's king. If your opponent could exchange the king for another piece then you would no longer be able to win.
In any case, all the pieces except the pawns can move backwards. Without promotion any pawn which reached the 8th rank and couldn't promote would no longer be able to move. That doesn't apply to all the other pieces.
FIDE, the international chess federation publishes the laws of chess on their website. The first 5 articles describe the rules for general play. The articles from 6 onwards describe additional rules which apply to official competitions.


With only a king left, how many moves remaining until a draw?

Your opponent has 50 moves, but every time a pawn is moved the count is reset.  So, he could have hundreds of moves if he has a few pawns on the board.  If he has no pawns, then 50.

The count is also reset if any piece or pawn is captured.


Where can one get a large .bin opening book?

The Stockfish opening book works with scid, follow the directions there to use it with the engine.  To use it in scid itself copy the book.bin file to the same location you have all your other scid opening books. I hope you have scidvspc and not the original...


Chess Gym allows you to do that and much more (you can also try to find all the defended pieces in a given position). It's free and you can play without having to register.


File format/interface for home-brew engines (and implementation in lichess)

There are plenty resources available. First of all, you may be interested in the Universal Chess Interface protocol. This is a text protocol that many engines use. A compiled list is available here.

The protocol specification is available for download here (last link on the page).
There is also a python implementation of the protocol.

Last but not least, there exists a lichess API implementation in Python, so you could talk to lichess directly.


Implement a chess app for Android with Stockfish

@Glorfindel is absolutely correct (+1). To get you started, do this:

Read UCI specification (http://wbec-ridderkerk.nl/html/UCIProtocol.html)
Download Droidfish source and check how it interacts with the engine
Learn how to compile Stockfish with JNI
Create an empty Android project. Send the engine isready. Do you get anything back from Stockfish?


What is the longest forced mate optimally played in documented competition?

I discovered a game from a few weeks ago features a forced mate in 13 moves that was actually played out on the board.

The game in question is Dubov-Svane, and the claim for the mate in 13 comes from Agadmator’s analysis video of the game.

Testing the given position with the chess.com engine yields a mate in 13, so Agadmator is correct. But Black made a mistake in the real game, shortening the game, but overall, it is still a forced mate in 13 moves in my opinion.

What Black should have played is included as a sideline.

[Title "Daniil Dubov-Rasmus Svane. European Team Championship, Batumi, Georgia, 10/31/19"]
[FEN ""]
[startply "58"]

1. c4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Bf4 O-O 6. e3 b6 7. Qc2 Ba6 8. O-O-O dxc4 9. Ng5 Nc6 10. a3 g6 11. h4 Bd6 12. g3 Qe7 13. h5 e5 14. hxg6 hxg6 15. Bg2 exf4 16. Bxc6 fxg3 17. Kb1 Rad8 18. f4 Bc8 19. Rde1 Kg7 20. Nd5 Nxd5 21. Rh7+ Kg8 22. Rxf7 Rxf7 23. Qxg6+ Kf8 24. Qh6+ Rg7 25. Bxd5 Ke8 26. Qh5+ Kd7 27. Qh3+ Ke8 28. Qh5+ Kd7 29. Be6+ Kc6 30. Qf3+ Kb5 31. Bxc4+ Ka5 32. Qd5+ Bc5 33. b4+ Ka4 34. Qg2 (34... Bf5+ 35. Ka2 Rd5 36. Qxd5 Qd7 37. Qb7 a5 38. Ne4 Bxd4 39. exd4 Bxe4 40. Qxe4 Qf5 41. Qxf5 axb4 42. Bb3#) Bxb4 35. Qc6+ Kxa3 36. Bb3 Bd7 37. Qc1+ Kxb3 38. Qc2+ Ka3 39. Qa2#


Is "Rdxd2" algebraic chess notation valid?

If you have two rooks, standing on different files (one of them on the d-file), that could capture on d2, then Rdxd2 is the correct notation.
If you have two rooks on the d-file, and both can take on d2, then use the rank number to disambiguate, for instance R1xd2.
This is according to the Algebraic System required by FIDE's Laws of Chess (see appendix C, paragraph C.10).
In the very, very rare case that you have more than two pieces of the same kind that can capture on the same square, it might be necessary to use both rank and file to disambiguate. This could theoretically be needed for queens, bishops and knights, but never for rooks. As Martin Bonner explains in the comments, for this to be necessary you would need to have a piece which is on the same rank as another of the same kind and the same file as a third of the same kind, and all three attack the same square. That is not possible with rooks.


What is the shortest known GM level OTB game to end with checkmate?

Keres-Arlamowski 1950, comes very close

[FEN ""]
[Event "Szczawno Zdroj"]
[Date "1950"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Paul Keres"]
[Black "Edward Arlamowski"]

1. e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Nf3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Qe2 Nbd7 6.Nd6# 1-0

I heard Mr Arlamovski was an IM at the time - but given Keres' level, and the fact that there were many fewer IM's back then - probably puts the game into the GM level category.


I have no experience of playing it, but the Albin countergambit 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5 might be an option. It's relatively rare but doesn't seem to score too badly compared to the QGD/Slav, with significantly fewer draws than either (see stats here).


Yes, since it is not possible to produce a checkmate in these circumstances.
See also the FIDE rules:

1.3 If the position is such that neither player can possibly checkmate the opponent’s king, the game is drawn (see Article 5.2 b).
5.2 b The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.


Why is engine's speed slow at the start?

Right after starting the analysis of a position the engine has to prepare the hash table in the memory or check it if there is one allready. You can verify this by giving your engine a low ammount of RAM (e.g. 32 MB). You will notice that the nps accelleration will go up. However, this heavyly will decrease the strength of the engine.


Are there any computer vision chess programs which can be used for online games?

It seems this GitHub project provides what you're looking for:
"Program that enables you to play online chess using real chess board. Using computer vision it will detect the moves you make on chess board. After that, if it's your turn to move in the online game, it will make the necessary clicks to make the move."
https://github.com/karayaman/Play-online-chess-with-real-chess-board


What are the records for highest 1 year span performance rating?

Given Carlsen's 2882 current rating and the fact that he also reached this rating in 2014, it seems likely that at some point he had a year with a performance rating higher than your 2892 figure. (I calculated Carlsen's 2013 performance rating as 2890 [47 points in 69 games against an average opponent of 2757] but it's tedious enough to calculate that I don't want to do it for every year.)

However, if you use current FIDE rules on how to calculate performance rating, Fischer's performance rating in 1971 was even higher than the number you specified.

In 1971, Fischer participated in three official matches that I know of:

Fischer - Taimanov Candidates Quarterfinal
Fischer - Larsen Candidates Semifinal
Fischer - Petrosian Candidates Final

(He also played some blitz and simul games, but I assume those don't count.)

Taimanov was rated 2620, Larsen was rated 2660, and Petrosian was rated 2640 at the times of the matches. Fischer scored 6/6 in the first two matches and 6.5/9 in the third, for a total of 18.5/21 and an average opponent rating of 2640.

18.5/21 corresponds to a fractional score of 0.88. According to FIDE regulations, this in turn means that the performance rating is 336 points higher than the opponent's average rating. 2640 + 336 = 2976 performance rating.

It's hard to say whether that's the highest ever, but it very well might not be, even setting aside powerhouses like Carlsen. Since a 100% score results in a performance rating 800 points above the average opponent, anyone whose record for a particular year consisted solely of a 100% match score against a 2200 player would have a performance rating of 3000. I'm guessing that has happened to someone at least once.


How do computers play three-check chess?

https://github.com/ddugovic/Stockfish

Very active development, this is the Stockfish version used by lichess.

What you need to do is search this macro:

  #ifdef THREECHECK

Evaluation function:

  https://github.com/ddugovic/Stockfish/blob/master/src/evaluate.cpp

Checks are given extra bonus unlike normal chess:

    if (pos.is_three_check())
        score += ChecksGivenBonus[pos.checks_given(Us)];

pos.checks_given gives the number of checks already done. ChecksGivenBonus is an array of bonus values.

The bonus values are:

  S(444, 181),  // first check
  S(2425, 603), // second check

444 is the bonus for opening/middlegame, and 181 is the bonus for endgame. The bonus for the second check is much greater.

I'm not sure positional evaluations in three-checks is tricky. I can see the parameters have changed, king safety improved, but the overall structure is identical to regular chess.


My first thought was that black had won a piece by move 12, and should have been able to win without getting into such heavy complications. For instance, a move like 15...Qc7? is just a bad move from a strategic standpoint. It's not necessarily losing or anything, but black doesn't know for sure where the queen is supposed to go, whereas black knows for sure that the king should get to safety. This is a good rule of thumb: begin by dealing with the pieces you know where they are going before manoeuvring with the pieces for which it's unclear where they stand better.

Basically what went wrong for black in this game is not a one-move mistake in my opinion. Black went on with a standard plan in the open sicilian, ignoring the fact that white was preparing a kingside attack. This made everything very awkward in the end, and once white's attack was actually picking up steam it was already unneccessarily difficult for black to respond properly. I'm sure that one could make detailed remarks on many of the moves played in this game, but noting that this was a 10-minute blitz game I see little reason to make a detailed analysis of this game. One suggestion I would make for black in this game is that black should've played 11...Qxd4 instead of 11...Nxd4. The reason is that black is already a full piece up at this point, and if the queens are traded white is just doomed, since there will be no talk about kingside counterplay then.

As for the question about the draw offer, black has zero winning chances in the final position. In general, it's never a bad idea to accept a draw offer in a worse position even if your opponent is low on time, and this is no exception to that rule. 40 seconds is enough for white not to blunder a rook, and realistically black is the only one actually risking anything by playing on. But in the end I think the position is drawn and I see no good try for white to actually make any progress.


What does the FIDE do besides organize the international tournament?

(I am not an expert so the following list will be incomplete.)

FIDE does:

calculate Ratings
issue Titles (CM/WCM, FM/WFM, IM/WIM, GM/WGM)
defines the chess rules
umbrella organization for national organizations
issue "Medal of Merit Awardees"
and overall try to promote-improve chess (like try to make chess part of the Olympic games)


Additional openings that are Chess Position Trainer compatible

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

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

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


Lichess puzzle 87510: How much calculation would a strong player do before playing Bg4+ when white has a range of (all losing) responses?

I'm an FM, and my calculation process would be as follows:

1) See that after 2.Rxg4 Qxh6 2.Rg8 Bf8, I'm clearly winning and White has no follow up.

2) Look at White's king moves to get out of check. Immediately Kd1, Kd2, Kd3 can be discarded since they just let me play ...Rd8+ for free. Also, Kf1/Kf2 lead to the same thing after I play 2...Qf3+. So I'd just look at Ke1 and Kf2.

3) Everything looks good, so I'm done.

If I were in time trouble, I'd play 1...Bg4+ seconds after seeing it. Since 2.Rxg4 doesn't work, there's no practical risk to playing it.


How does Stockfish know if the king is in check?

If you're curious about the Stockfish code, it can be found here:
 si->checkersBB = attackers_to(square<KING>(sideToMove)) & pieces(~sideToMove);

We call the attackers_to method to figure out if any pieces are attacking the king's position, including pieces on the king's side.

 Bitboard Position::attackers_to(Square s, Bitboard occupied) const {

    return  (pawn_attacks_bb(BLACK, s)       & pieces(WHITE, PAWN))
         | (pawn_attacks_bb(WHITE, s)       & pieces(BLACK, PAWN))
         | (attacks_bb<KNIGHT>(s)           & pieces(KNIGHT))
         | (attacks_bb<  ROOK>(s, occupied) & pieces(  ROOK, QUEEN))
         | (attacks_bb<BISHOP>(s, occupied) & pieces(BISHOP, QUEEN))
         | (attacks_bb<KING>(s)             & pieces(KING));
 }

We then call the pieces function, which returns all the pieces owned by the opposite side

Finally, we run an AND operator to confirm if any of the opposite side's pieces are threatening the king.

The code is very well written and relatively straightforward to follow, in case you'd like to explore it further.


What is the power of team captain in team tournaments?

There are two levels of team captain powers, official powers / rights and powers that his/her national federation confers. Examples of these would be that a team player may ask his team captain if he may accept a draw offer. The captain's advice is non-binding. This is an official power. Normally players are not allowed to discuss their games with anybody and asking advice about a draw offer would count as such.

Note that the captain is not allowed to remind the player to press the clock and strictly speaking he shouldn't even tell the player his opponent has moved if the player has gone to the toilet or for a coffee.

Agreeing a draw on somebody else's board is a power that the national federation confers (or not) on the captain and the player involved acquiesces to this by accepting a place in the team. There have been cases where in the last round a team just needs a draw (2-2) to win or secure a particular position and even though they are playing a weaker team they come out, play a few moves and then everyone agrees a draw.

Deciding who plays and who rests is usually a question for the manager and captain although obviously players can also have input. "Captain, I'm absolutely knackered. I need a day off. Give me a rest, please" or "I just want to play every game. Rest somebody else." Ultimately these are management decisions and the captain and the manager will make the final decision.

FWIW a few years ago my team captain (at a level at least a dozen levels below Olympiad, I hasten to add) used to tell me I had to refuse draw offers if we were losing, regardless of the position on my board. Needless to say I didn't pay much attention!

Here are the official FIDE rules governing the role of the captain:

Team Captain’s Role in Team Tournaments

(a) The role of a team captain is basically an administrative one during play. Depending on the regulations of the specific competition, the captain shall be required to deliver at a specific time a written list naming the players in his team participating in each round, to communicate to his players their pairing, to sign the protocol indicating the results in the match at the end of the play, etc.

(b) Whenever the team captain speaks to one of his players, he should do so only through or in the presence of an arbiter, using a language the arbiter can understand.

(c) A captain is entitled to advise the players of his team to make or accept an offer of a draw or to resign a game, unless the regulations of the event stipulate otherwise. He must confine himself only to brief information, based solely on the circumstances pertaining to the match. He may say to a player, “offer a draw”, “accept the draw”, or “resign the game”. For example, if asked by a player whether he should accept an offer of a draw, the captain should answer “yes”, “no”, or delegate the decision to the player himself. He shall give no information to a player concerning the position on the chess board and/or the clock times, nor consult any other person and/or computer as to the state of the game. The captain shall refrain from any intervention during play.

(d) Players are subject to the same prohibitions. Even though in a team competition there is a certain team loyalty, which goes beyond a player’s individual game, a game of chess is basically a contest between two players. Therefore a player must have the final say over the conduct of his own game. Although the advice of the captain should weigh heavily with the player, the player is not absolutely compelled to accept that advice. Likewise, the captain cannot act on behalf of a player and his game without the knowledge and consent of the player.

(e) A team captain should encourage his team always to follow both the letter and the spirit of Article 12 of the FIDE Laws of Chess concerning the conduct of the players. Team championships, in particular, should be conducted in the spirit of the highest sportsmanship.


What is the number of legal positions in a chess game?

Upper bounds on the number of allowable positions are discussed on the Shannon number  Wikipedia page.
There is an accepted upper bound of 5×10^52 by Vicor Allis, and a less verified upper bound of 2^155 (approx 10^46.7) by John Tromp.
By comparison, the number of atoms on earth is about 10^50.


A friend of mine (and a stronger player) suggested one exercise which has helped me in developing my visualization skills.

Take a game, any game and read the first two moves of both sides (ie total four plies), visualize the position now on board, then make these moves on board, see if your visualized position was right.

Read the next two moves and visualize the current position then make the moves on board and check if you got it right.

Go through the entire game in these steps of two moves.

once you are fairly comfortable,  try in steps of three moves, Gradually increase the number of moves.

I am doing this for about 8 months now and now I can visualize boards over ~10-12 moves.

Already I play blindfold chess in lichess.org, by making the site speak out opponents move and I entering move through the keyboard. (Even though I look at the board once in ~10 moves)


Why does 6.Bg5 prevent 6...e5 in the Sicilian Najdorf?

The lines presented below are from the Chess Informant ECO 1984, but I doubt the assessments have changed since:

[fen ""]
[White "Sicilian defense"]
[Black "Najdorf variation"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e5?! 7.Bxf6 Qxf6 ( 7...gxf6 8.Nf5! Bxf5 9.exf5+/- ) 8.Nd5 Qd8 9.Nf5 Bxf5 ( 9...Be6 10.Bc4 Nd7 11.O-O Rc8 12.Bb3 Nc5 13.Qf3 Nxb3 14.Qxb3 Rc5 15.Rad1 Rb5 16.Qg3!+/- ) 10.exf5 Be7 11.c4+/-

Although my edition of the ECO is old, I doubt anything has changed here.

In the main line Black has no counter-play-his only plan of attack-b5 is useless as White will take with the bishop thus eliminating every Black's counter-play.

White has strong grip on the light squares, and presence of the bishops of the opposite color increases his advantage-remember this rule:

Presence of the opposite colored bishops favors the side with the initiative. Although they may end up as a draw in the endgame, in the middle-game side that has an attack usually wins.

In the first sideline, Black tried to generate some counter-play with f5 but White's Qh5 keeps advantage. If Black continues with passive play then White keeps advantage due to the initiative and presence of the opposite colored bishops.

Black's last sideline features Be6 trying to ignore Whites plan, but we see that White develops strong pressure again.

I am not an 1.e4 player, so I was unable to find more concrete lines but these illustrate well enough why e5 is dubious move for Black. If you need better coverage then try to find some repertoire books-at this point I can not recommend any.

Best regards.

EDIT IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS:

In comments, it was suggested that 7...gxf6 is playable, by applying the ideas from the Sveshnikov sicilian.

I am not an e4 player but let me try to explain why the above is not true.

First, let us see what the actual plans behind the Sveshnikov are. In order to preserve space and provide minimal yet sufficient info, I will quote Wikipedia article:

  8...b5! was Sveshnikov's innovation, controlling c4 and threatening
  ...b4 forking White's knights. Previously, Black played 8...Be6 (the
  Bird Variation), which allowed the a3-knight to return to life with
  9.Nc4.

These are the compensations Black gets, which are important to mention here, that eventually help him equalize:

  White's powerful knight on d5 and Black's shattered kingside pawn
  structure are compensated by Black's bishop pair and White's offside
  knight on a3. Also, Black has the plan of playing 10...f5, followed by
  ...fxe4 and ...f5 with the second f-pawn, which would give them good
  control of the centre. An alternative plan is to play 10...Bg7
  followed by ...Ne7 to immediately trade off White's powerful knight;

OK, this is enough for us to see why the line in the OP is bad for Black. Before we continue let us do a quick summary for the Sveshnikov:

White has horrible knight on a3 that Black harrasses with ...b5. This move prevents Nc4 and Bc4, indirectly fighting for the light squares and giving Black time to finish development/organize counterplay, since White is forced to reposition Na3 to a better square (not to mention Black threatens to win a piece by forking the knights with ...b4).
Black has bishop pair, which is good asset for the endgame
Black can destroy White center and establish himself there, with moves ...f5 + fxe4 + f5

[Title "Black to move"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rn1qkb1r/1p3p1p/p2p1p2/4pP2/8/2N5/PPP2PPP/R2QKB1R b KQkq - 0 1"]

In the above position the only thing identical to the Sveshnikov is the Black pawn structure with everything else different, and that matters as we shall see!

White has no Na3 which means that thematic ...b5 simply wastes a tempo and has no real strength as in Sveshnikov.
Without Na3 and ...b5, White really has no coordination problems (no fork threats, all of white pieces are idealy placed) as in Sveshnikov, which makes his development and slight space advantage more dangerous.
Black has no way to establish central dominance as in Sveshnikov, because ...f5 + fxe4 + f5 plan is stopped by White pawn on f5
Black has no bishop pair, as in Sveshnikov
Black can not play d5, because he is late with ...Nc6 + Ne7, which leaves Bf8 passive since d6 + e5 chain is hindering him
Black will have problems finding safe place for the king
Black queenside play with ...b5 + Rc8 is weak, it lacks the effect it has in other lines of the Sicilian
White has no weaknesses, apart from f5 pawn, which can be sacrificed in some lines but also easily defended as well

White can find an effective plan here, simple computer analysis will do. I have no access to an engine here, but I believe that g3 + Bg2 plan is very strong here. White can attack everywhere. Any minor piece duel is advantageous for White ( Nc3 vs Bf8, Bf1 vs Bf8 if heavy pieces stay on the board which is very likely, Bf1 vs Nb8, even Nc3 vs Nb8). White also has advantage in heavy pieces only middlegames. White has better pawn structure and faster development.

Meanwhile, Black's only good piece could be Nb8, because it can swiftly go to d4. Still, White can consider exchange sacrifice and still end up better! Black really has nothing to attack, nor we can envision any plan that achieves any meaningful, long-term counterplay.

To conclude, after ...gxf6 Black gets worse version of the Sveshnikov, painful "fight-for-a-draw" position without any counterplay.