From my own experience the best way to maintain initiative is remain active. Don't make timid moves, you will occasionally overreach doing this but you will learn what is overly bold and what is simply active play. Also I have found that the better a plan I have the more active my play, it is when I am floundering around not sure where to go from here that I have the worst time keeping initiative.

Be familiar with the general opening principals, (open lines, knights before bishops, rooks on open ranks, don't make more than 2 pawn moves in the opening, don't move that same piece twice in the opening, etc) none of these are hard fast rules that should never be broken but they will keep you in the right direction in the first part of the game.

Finally I would be familiar with the basic weapons of chess, (pins, forks, etc) and learn to look for them not only in the current position but in positions that you could reach if you make whatever move you are contemplating. They will tell you both what to watch out for and what tactical opportunities you have to advance your own game, and extend, or update, your plan as the game proceeds.

One final thought, have a reason, tactical or not but a specific reason, for every move. If you move without a specific reason your are floundering and no longer on the initiative.


Should an arbiter claim draw at a K+R vs K+R endgame?

You can declare a draw and in fact you are required to declare a draw but only after you have counted 75 moves by each side without a capture or a pawn move. This is according to the FIDE Laws of Chess article 9.6.2:

  9.6 If one or both of the following occur(s) then the game is drawn:

  9.6.1 the same position has appeared, as in 9.2.2 at least five times.

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

Of course the players are also free to agree a draw between them.

EDIT: blues makes the following comment:

  III.5.1 may also apply. If the arbiter agrees that the opponent cannot
  win by normal means, or that the opponent has been making no effort to
  win the game by normal means, he shall declare the game drawn.
  Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim. This
  does not require 75 moves or fivefold repetition

I will answer that here since there is insufficient room in a comment to do so.

Guidelines III.5.1 almost certainly does not apply in this case. III.5.1 is not standalone. It is part of section III and is dependent on earlier parts of III.

Let's take a look.

  Guidelines III. Games without increment including Quickplay Finishes

  III.1 A ‘quickplay finish’ is the phase of a game when all the remaining moves must be completed in a finite time.

  III.2.1 The Guidelines below concerning the final period of the game including Quickplay Finishes, shall only be used at an event if their
  use has been announced beforehand.

  III.2.2 These Guidelines shall apply only to standard chess and rapid chess games without increment and not to blitz games.

First, according to the OP, the time control was all moves in 30 minutes, so a rapid time control and no increments mean it is possible that III applies. However according to III.2.1 these shall only be used at an event if their use has been announced beforehand. They were almost certainly not announced beforehand, else the two arbiters would have at least know of their existence and they appear not to.

Suppose they were announced beforehand. Then we come to:

  III.4 If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on
  his clock, he may request that an increment extra five seconds be
  introduced for both players. This constitutes the offer of a draw. If
  the offer refused, and the arbiter agrees to the request, the clocks
  shall then be set with the extra time; the opponent shall be awarded
  two extra minutes and the game shall continue.

The OP in one of his comments seems to say that both players still had 25 minutes left. This would mean this does not apply. Nevertheless supposing the player did have less than 2 minutes left, the arbiters cannot apply this rule unless the player specifically asks for it. The arbiters are not allowed to help the players in any way and may not volunteer this information during the game. They may only make announcements informing all players before the game.

Continuing, we finally reach the part blues references:

  III.5 If Article III.4 does not apply and the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw
  before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the
  chessclock (see Article 6.12.2). He may claim on the basis that his
  opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or that his opponent has been
  making no effort to win by normal means

First, this can only apply if III.4 does not apply. The only way that can happen is if there are no digital clocks capable of being set with the required time and increment. If such clocks are available then III.4 applies and III.5 does not apply.

Suppose, however, that all the previous counterfactual "if onlys" apply then III.5 can only apply if the player also knows the rule and makes the specific request in the correct manner. Again, even if the arbiter knows the rule he may not help the player by volunteering the information.

Hence my original conclusion that - Guidelines III.5.1 almost certainly does not apply in this case.


I would love to see the position; please add it to your question somehow (we can always edit it to look nice). However, there is no such rule. Either your computer doesn't implement captures en passant (improbable these days) or the capture was not valid for some other reason.


How to interpret lines of play computed by Stockfish during annotations

The above output from Stockfish is what's called the Primary Variation (PV), what it considers the best line of play for both sides. But the output is the PV at each search depth: 1 ply from the start position, 3 ply, all the way up to 21 plies.
So at a search depth of 21 plies (moves by both sides), it still considers 12. Bxc7 to be the best move in the current position, with an evaluation of the position resulting after those 21 plies to be +1.33 in White's favour.
If you want to see the evaluation of other moves, then hit the +V button in the toolbar. Click it once, and when Stockfish analyses the position again, it should show the two best variations at each search depth.
I tend to have Stockfish show either 4 or 6 variations, so I can see the relative scores between the moves -- to see if one move is significantly stronger than another.
Stockfish -- as with most "brute force" chess engines -- uses a min-max approach, which ensures that it's considering the best move for both sides. There's various algorithms for pruning and reducing the size of the tree as the search-depth grows, which could have the effect of ignoring what in the longer-term proves to be a stronger move.
If you are interested in the algorithms and patterns that make up Stockfish, try Stockfish on Chess Programming Wiki:  which gives a breakdown of the board representation, the searching algorithms and the evaluation algorithms that Stockfish, as well as other engines, use.


Do strong players (2400+) really not double-check their calculations?

At shorter time controls, there is little time for conscious double-checking - perhaps there is a kind of parallel awareness of tactical risks and opportunities?
But at longer time controls: there is still a question of what economists call “opportunity cost” - what must I forego if I spend time instead double-checking certain lines?
I am not a serious chess player, but I do compose and solve chess problems, and in both these areas, I reckon that one weakness is I don’t consider enough candidates. I can plunge prematurely into examining detailed lines.
Sometimes that’s productive, but other times I miss better possibilities that I would discover through breadth-first strategic thinking. Effective strategic thinking is hard, but at least I’m aware of the issue and consciously try to work against it. It’s best to do the strategic thinking first, before I go deep and get emotionally invested in particular lines. Once I have an idea of the space of different strategies, then I can triage the most promising ones, then allocating appropriating time to each of them becomes easier, and brief double-checking is a later stage.
By the way, I think this applies to life in general, not just chess. There is no doubt a rack of self-help books about the importance of strategic thinking.


How do I take part in an open FIDE tournament?

Head to the Youth and children Palace:

Loyal open
Organizer(s)    Kartoum Chess Federation
Federation  Sudan ( SUD )
Tournament director Khalid Osman
Chief Arbiter   Elatag,Khalid 12200409
Arbiter mohamed awad , Nazar Eltayeb
Time control    90 minutes, 30 sec
Location    Youth and children Palace
Rating calculation  Rating international
Date    2017/11/11 to 2017/11/17


The most efficient valid move generation for minimax

You should not stop after figuring out where the bottlenecks are, you should go on to identify them.  For example, do you invoke the get_xxxx_moves() every time around?
On the chance that you do:
Instead of listing all moves each time,  you may be able to reduce the work needed by
only updating the piece move lists that are affected by a move.   The other pieces (status and valid move lists) are unaffected, and don't need recalculation.
Thus, the opening move e2-e4 only affects pieces that cover/attack the start square e2 (wQ, wK, wBf1 and wNg1), so those are the only recalculations needed.  Nothing covers/attacks e4, so no more work to do right now.
And so on.
Bitboards can be more efficient, but as you explicitly said to exclude those, ...


Is 6...Bf5 inferior to 6...Bd6 in the Caro-Kann Tartakower after 6. Bc4? And if so, why?

It is a bit early in the game to be saying that one move is decisively better than another, but there are general principles that can be applied.

One of these is to ask whether you are already sure where certain pieces belong, and if you are sure, put them there at once unless there is some tactical reason not to. In this variation, where Black recaptures on f6 with the e-pawn, he has already conceded a slightly disadvantageous endgame because he cannot create a passed pawn on the K_side, but White can do so on the Q-side. As compensation, Black has achieved mobility for all of his pieces, and can try to use this to bring off an attack with ....Bd6, 0-0, Qc7 and Bg4 that makes any endgame irrelevant.

So Black is fairly sure that his KB belongs on d6. His QB could belong on g4, f5, perhaps e6, or it might stay where it is while Black plays Re8 and Nd7-f8. He might even consider ..f6-f5. So ..Bd6 has the advantage of preserving options for the QB. There is less value in maintaining options for the KB because we already know where we want it.

The possibility of 6...Be6 is dubious. After 7. Bxe6 (or first 7.Qe2) the Pawn on e6 will be a permanent weakness even it gets to e5.


How to evaluate and comment moves in PGN format?

Have you looked at python-chess-annotator? I think it does pretty much what you want, and if not, it might be easier to modify it than to start from scratch. It's based on python-chess, too.

I'll copy its usage example here to make this answer a bit more self-contained:

$ python3 -m annotator -h
usage: annotator [-h] --file FILE.pgn [--engine ENGINE] [--gametime MINUTES]
                 [--threads THREADS] [--verbose]

takes chess games in a PGN file and prints annotations to standard output

optional arguments:
  -h, --help            show this help message and exit
  --file FILE.pgn, -f FILE.pgn
                        input PGN file
  --engine ENGINE, -e ENGINE
                        analysis engine (default: stockfish)
  --gametime MINUTES, -g MINUTES
                        how long to spend on each game (default: 1)
  --threads THREADS, -t THREADS
                        threads for use by the engine (default: 1)
  --verbose, -v         increase verbosity

$ python3 -m annotator -f caruana-kasparov.pgn -g 15
[Event "Ultimate Blitz Challenge"]
[Site "St. Louis, MO USA"]
[Date "2016.04.29"]
[Round "18.1"]
[White "Fabiano Caruana"]
[Black "Garry Kasparov"]
[Result "0-1"]
[EventDate "2016.04.28"]
[ECO "A05"]
[WhiteElo "2795"]
[BlackElo "2812"]
[PlyCount "74"]
[Opening "King's Indian Attack: Symmetrical Defense"]
[WhiteACPL "252"]
[BlackACPL "141"]
[Annotator "Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT"]

{ Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT } 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 g6 { A05 King's Indian Attack:
Symmetrical Defense } 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. O-O O-O 5. c4 d6 6. b3 e5 7. Bb2 c5 8. e3
Nc6 9. Nc3 Bf5 10. d4 e4 11. Ne1 Re8 12. Nc2 h5 13. Qd2 h4 14. Ba3 $6 { -1.13 }
( 14. h3 g5 15. g4 Bg6 16. Rad1 Qe7 17. Qe2 a6 18. Ba3 a5 { 0.19/25 } ) 14...
b6 $6 { -0.04 } ( 14... Nh7 15. Nd5 Ng5 16. Bb2 Rc8 17. Rac1 Ne7 18. Nf4 h3 19.
Bh1 { -1.11/24 } ) 15. Rfd1 $6 { -1.15 } ( 15. h3 d5 16. g4 Be6 17. cxd5 Nxd5
18. Nxe4 f5 19. gxf5 gxf5 { 0.00/26 } ) 15... Bg4 16. Rdc1 Qd7 17. b4 Qf5 18.
Bb2 Rad8 19. Nb5 Bf3 20. d5 Ne5 $6 { -1.66 } ( 20... Nxb4 21. Ne1 Bxg2 22.
Nxg2 Nd3 23. Nxh4 Qh3 24. Bxf6 Bxf6 25. f4 { -3.14/25 } ) 21. Bxe5 Rxe5 22.
Ne1 hxg3 23. fxg3 Bh6 24. Rab1 Kg7 $6 { -1.08 } ( 24... Qh5 25. Rb3 Rf5 26.
bxc5 dxc5 27. Rc2 Ng4 28. h3 Bxg2 29. Kxg2 { -2.48/24 } ) 25. Rb3 Qh5 26. h3
$6 { -3.08 } ( 26. bxc5 bxc5 27. Nxa7 Rh8 28. h4 Qg4 29. Nc6 Rh5 30. Qf2
Bd1 { -2.00/23 } ) 26... Nh7 $2 { -1.37 } ( 26... Rg5 27. Qf2 { -2.89/24 })
27. g4 Bxg4 28. hxg4 Qxg4 29. Qd1 $4 { -5.69 } ( 29. Qb2 Ng5 30. Nxd6 Qg3
31. Nf5+ gxf5 32. Kf1 Nf3 33. Qf2 Nh2+ { -2.30/24 } ) 29... Qg3 30. Qe2 Ng5
31. Kh1 Rh8 32. Nxd6 Kg8 33. bxc5 Bf8+ 34. Kg1 Nh3+ 35. Kf1 Bxd6
36. cxd6 Rf5+ 37. Nf3 Rxf3+ 0-1

(Note: I'm not the author or affiliated to this project in any way, so for further questions I suggest contacting the author via github.)


If this only concerns playing in tournaments just play casual non-tournament games.

I am not sure how you would judge the "quality of your games" if the outcome (win/loss) is not important to you.

If you haven't done so already, perhaps joining a chess club and playing in team competitions could motivate you.


Is it good to have a tendency to exchange pieces?

Now is this really the way to play chess?

Well, it is certainly a way to play chess. It's the way Aryan Tari chose to play Magnus Carlsen in the Altibox Norway tournament a couple of days ago. Swap as many pieces off as you can, get to a more or less equal endgame, maybe have to survive a bit of pressure then shake hands for a draw. It didn't work out that way. He got positionally crushed from a position which, to this patzer, looked fairly even.
It certainly didn't look roughly even to the chess24.com commentary team of Judit Polgar and Vladimir Kramnik. "60% lost / 40% drawn" said Kramnik, "Go back to school, Aryan" said Judit during the commentary after move 18.
After 21. Nd2:

The strategical battle is over at that point. It's very nice when you
can just follow a plan and you don't need to calculate

was Carlsen's comment afterwards.
I have to admit I have lost a fair number of games against stronger opponents like this just as I have won games against weaker players like this. The biggest difference between good players and bad players is not tactical ability (although it is often also a factor). It is the ability to accurately evaluate positions. Weaker players happily aim for bad positions because they don't know any better and stronger players can't believe their luck. Ask Magnus.
Bottom line: you are going to lose if you try and follow this plan against stronger players and if you try it against a weaker player who is weak tactically but strong positionally then you are also going to lose.
Here is the game.
[title "Carlsen - Tari, Altibox Norway Chess 2020"]
[fen ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. d3 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. a4 Bd7 9. c3 Na5 10. Ba2 c5 11. Bg5 O-O 12. Nbd2 Rb8 13. axb5 axb5 14. Re1 b4 15. Nc4 Nxc4 16. Bxc4 bxc3 17. bxc3 Qc7 18. Qc2 Bb5 19. Bxb5 Rxb5 20. Bxf6 Bxf6 21. Nd2 Qc6 22. Qa4 Rfb8 23. Nc4 Be7 24. g3 Qc8 25. Qd1 g6 26. Kg2 Bf8 27. Qf3 Rb3 28. Rec1 Qe6 29. Ra7 R8b7 30. Rxb7 Rxb7 31. Ra1 h5 32. Ra8 Kg7 33. Ne3 Rc7 34. Nd5 Rc8 35. Ra7 Rb8 36. h3 Rd8 37. g4 hxg4 38. hxg4 Rd7 39. Ra8 f6 40. g5 f5 41. Qh3 Rf7 42. Re8 Qxe8 43. Qh6+ Kg8 44. Qxg6+ Kh8 45. Nf6 1-0


Can you manually type moves into Arena? (copy pasting notation)

PGN file format is a simple text format.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Game_Notation

So ideally you should be able to save your text as pgn and import in GUI.

However it depends on GUI how strict the rules are for importing pgn.

For example, you can copy paste your text or import your pgn here and it works perfectly.

https://lichess.org/paste


It's true that a middle game plan is to push the rest of central pawns?

This might be a valid plan, if you opponent doesn't fight for the centre at all. But in almost all games such a plan is either impossible or carries the risk of overextending.

It is true that pawn levers are important. Such a pawn lever might be the advance f4-f5 or c4-c5. But usually you only play a pawn lever at the side of the board where you are stronger and ready to exploit the opening of the position. Not just everywhere …

In my view it would be much more correct to state the building of an ideal pawn centre as a standard plan. But the "ideal pawn centre" consists only out of the e and d-pawn, both advanced two squares. And even the building of this modest 2-pawn centre is usually fought tooth and nail by your opponent.

[FEN ""]
[Event "Nanjing Pearl Spring Tournament"]
[Site "Nanjing CHN"]
[Date "2010.10.24"]
[EventDate "2010.10.20"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Magnus Carlsen"]
[Black "Veselin Topalov"]
[ECO "C78"]
[WhiteElo "2826"]
[BlackElo "2805"]
[PlyCount "63"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.d3 b5 7.Bb3
d6 8.a4 Rb8 9.axb5 axb5 10.Nbd2 O-O 11.Re1 Bd7 12.c3 Ra8
13.Rxa8 Qxa8 14.d4 h6 15.Nf1 Re8 16.Ng3 Qc8 17.Nh4 Bf8 18.Ng6
Na5 19.Nxf8 Rxf8 20.Bc2 Re8 21.f4 Bg4 22.Qd3 exf4 23.Bxf4 Nc4
24.Bc1 c5 25.Rf1 cxd4 26.cxd4 Qd8 27.h3 Be6 28.b3 Qa5 29.Kh2
Nh7 30.e5 g6 31.d5 Nxe5 32.dxe6 1-0

Take this brilliant game as an example: On move 14 Carlsen creates the "ideal pawn centre", it persists until move 30, where is proves its power by advancing and initiating a deadly attack. There is even a pawn lever thrown in at move 14, which opens up the f-line for the rook. But Carlsen didn't try to just move his c,d,e and f-pawn forward. He created the ideal pawn centre, which controls a lot of squares and can at times advance with deadly effect. He used a pawn lever to open up lines for the attack. Every move had a purpose.


Black's reply against anti-Grünfeld (3.d5)

In Volume 1 of his high-quality series on the Grünfeld for black, GM Avrukh recommends 3....b5!?, "playing in the spirit of the Benko Gambit". On page 6 of the PDF excerpt, you can find his analysis.

However, this may not be to everyone's taste. Instead, he also gives the line 3....c6 4.Nc3 cxd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 Bg7 etc... "with equal chances". To me, this seems a good way to play: black has several ways to develop his pieces on the queen side and to create counterplay (e.g. Nbd7-c5, e6) and it is not necessary to memorize any complicated lines.

With 3.d5 white indeed avoids any Grünfeld structures, but it is relatively harmless and black can develop quite harmoniously.

      [StartPly "5"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.d5 c6 (3...b5) 4.Nc3 cxd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 Bg7 7.Nf3 O-O 8.Be2 Nbd7 9.Be3 Nc5 10.Nd2 e6


How long would it take China's Tianhe-2 Supercomputer to produce an 8-man tablebase?

From the bottom of this page:

  Unfortunately the size of 7-man tablebases (sic. - the author means 8-man here) will be 100 times larger than size of 7-man tablebases. To fully compute them, one will need about 10 PB (10000 TB) of disk space and 50 TB of RAM. Only top 10 supercomputers can solve 8-man problem in 2014. So don't hold your breath expecting new breakthroughs too soon - the first 1000-move mate is unlikely to be found until 2020 when a part of a TOP100 supercomputer may be allowed to be used for solving this task.

This doesn't give a complete answer, but it would suggest that if you could find an estimated time for the Tianhe-2 to generate a 7-man tablebase and then multiply that result by 100, you should get a ballpark figure for the time required, probably accurate to within an order of magnitude.


If you are looking for a way to restore the original position back, you need something totally unlike Zobrist, because the main goals when constructing a hashing algorithm are absolutely opposite to what you want:

A hash should fit into the computer representation of an integer (32 bits or 64 bits, or, maybe in the future, 128 bits). Anything beyond that slows down things considerably.
Hashes for the similar positions (which tend to arise during the game at the approximately same time) should be as different as possible to avoid hash collisions that, again, impact the performance.

So, basically, you don't have enough bits for the full representation, and even if you had, the use of easy-reversible conversion will harm the quality of the hashing and will slow down the engine.

Not sure, why you need this, but if you need to store positions somewhere, I'd recommend to use a dictionary or a map, that maps the Zobrist value to the FEN string or something similar. Maps have O(1) access time, so it's going to be quite fast, and you're only limited by the amount of memory.


Why didn't I get a FIDE rating?

Probably because you didn't meet the requirements to get a rating.

According to FIDE Rating Regulations effective from 1 July 2017 (sorry no link currently because FIDE have munged their site and you have to search withing the site):

  Official FIDE Rating List

  7.1 On the first day of each month, the QC shall prepare a list which incorporates the rated play during the rating period into the previous list. This shall be done using the rating system formula.

  7.11 The rating period (for new players, see 7.14) is the period where a certain rating list is valid.

  7.12 The following data will be kept concerning each player whose rating is at least 1000 as of the current list:
  FIDE title, Federation, Current Rating, ID Number, Number of games rated in the rating period, Date of Birth, Gender and the current value of K for the player.

  7.13 The closing date for tournaments for a list is 3 days before the date of the list; tournaments ending before or on that day may be rated on the list.
  Official FIDE events may be rated on the list even if they end on the last day before the list date.

  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.

Without more information it is not possible to say exactly why you didn't get a rating. If you can give a link to the tournament and your real name it would be possible to have a look and see why.

EDIT: Thank you for giving details of the tournament that you played in.

It was played on 12th October 2019. This will be rated in the list that comes out on 1st November. In the meantime FIDE have recorded that they expect your blitz rating to be 1503. You can see here. They don't know yet for sure because maybe you played in another tournament and they didn't get the tournament report file yet.

  What do I need to do to get FIDE blitz rating?

Basically you need to score at least 0.5 points against at least 5 players who are already FIDE rated at blitz in one or more FIDE rated blitz tournaments over a period of 26 months or less and get a rating of at least 1000.

If you want to calculate your initial rating then FIDE provide an initial rating calculator in a part of their site which has not yet been munged.

If you think you satisfied these requirements and still didn't get a blitz rating you can email the chairman of the Qualification Commission, Nick Faulks (armadillo@northrock.bm) or the secretary, Alex Holoczak (alexholowczak@gmail.com).


Yes, you take the same formula and do absolutely the same calculations. Elo formula has very little to do with chess (except of it is used to calculate rating in chess). You can take any event that has win/lose/draw and apply elo formula to calculate the rating.

In bughouse you play in a team of two, so you will end up with a rating for a team.


Where can I see all my friends on lichess?

When you go to followers there's a button for following.

I also found the URL:

  https://lichess.org/@/USERNAME/following


I looked you up on FIDE's website, and as a roughly 1500-player, the KIA naturally fits your question "How to play king's indian attack aggressively?" If you play it correctly, it already IS an aggressive opening. You cannot get any more aggressive than an opening that basically says "I want to mate your king".

The reality is that at higher levels, it is mostly de-fanged, and considered only good for equality, which is why you do not see Carlsen, and other world champions, play it often (at best). At the top levels, it is played mostly as a surprise opening, typically, to avoid home preparation, or when a player just wants a playable game where the opponent is mostly on their own. Generally, black is considered to have adequate defensive systems that should render that attack harmless. However, black cannot underestimate white's kingside attacking chances, and even GMs can make mistakes in that opening, and lose to an attack.

You can play the KIA against the main black 1.e4 defenses: The Sicilian, French, and Caro-Kann. It becomes more difficult to get the type of game you want if black knows what you typically play, and plays and early g6, Bg7, and 0-0. It is just harder to go for mate against that setup.

As far as books go, there are dozens of books on the KIA. For your level, I would focus on books that explain the ideas rather than rely heavily on regurgitating a ton of theory. I have many books, but unfortunately, during a move, I lost most of my opening books, so I literally have no books on this opening, but if I were to recommend two book just based on a search, I would try these two: "King's Indian Attack: Move by Move" by GM Neil McDonald, and "Starting Out: King's Indian Attack" by GM John Emms. They seem to be more of the explaining type (you can look at the first few pages on Amazon).

A word of warning: If you have any real intentions of trying to get to 2200, you may find that you have to develop a new opening repertoire from scratch at some point, as this opening is will limit your chess development in the long run since you will be easy to prepare for.


How does one look at hundreds of master games a day?

That depends on what you want from the games.

If you are looking for deep human style analysis, it is of course not possible.

If you are interested in shallow computer automated analysis (like lichess evaluation graph), then it’s possible.

If you are interested in opening theories, it’s possible again. For example, a French player would skip Ruy Lopez games.

Professional players generally don’t study chess games randomly. They would have an objective like rook endgames with two pawns down. Good database search would be useful.

Please define what you want from the games.


Can you recommend a variation in the English opening for a technical player?

It's a good question. Just a quick answer with some thoughts to give you some starting ideas, hopefully to be improved later.

I've always liked the English exactly for its rich transpositional possibilities, they're endless aren't they?

Your intent to divert towards d4 lines via the English is very common. For example Magnus Carlsen often employs it to avoid main theory lines (it's very hard to prepare against 1.c4). So make sure you look into his games on 1.c4. Some exemplary games off the top of my head:

One of the 2013 world championship matches (specially because you're a d4 player and you seem to like endgames): Notice how by move 7 we've reached a completely off-book position, though very natural to play for white:

[FEN ""]
[Event "WCh 2013"]
[Site "Chennai IND"]
[Date "2013.11.15"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Carlsen, M."]
[Black "Anand, V."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D31"]
[WhiteElo "2870"]
[BlackElo "2775"]
[PlyCount "115"]
[EventDate "2013.11.09"]
[EventRounds "10"]
[EventCountry "IND"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2013.11.18"]

1. c4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 c6 4. e4 dxe4 5. Nxe4 Bb4+ 6. Nc3 c5 7. a3 Ba5 8. Nf3 Nf6 9. Be3 Nc6 10. Qd3 cxd4 11. Nxd4 Ng4 12. O-O-O Nxe3 13. fxe3 Bc7 14. Nxc6 bxc6 15. Qxd8+ Bxd8 16. Be2 Ke7 17. Bf3 Bd7 18. Ne4 Bb6 19. c5 f5 20. cxb6 fxe4 21. b7 Rab8 22. Bxe4 Rxb7 23. Rhf1 Rb5 24. Rf4 g5 25. Rf3 h5 26. Rdf1 Be8 27. Bc2 Rc5 28. Rf6 h4 29. e4 a5 30. Kd2 Rb5 31. b3 Bh5 32. Kc3 Rc5+ 33. Kb2 Rd8 34. R1f2 Rd4 35. Rh6 Bd1 36. Bb1 Rb5 37. Kc3 c5 38. Rb2 e5 39. Rg6 a4 40. Rxg5 Rxb3+ 41. Rxb3 Bxb3 42. Rxe5+ Kd6 43. Rh5 Rd1 44. e5+ Kd5 45. Bh7 Rc1+ 46. Kb2 Rg1 47. Bg8+ Kc6 48. Rh6+ Kd7 49. Bxb3 axb3 50. Kxb3 Rxg2 51. Rxh4 Ke6 52. a4 Kxe5 53. a5 Kd6 54. Rh7 Kd5 55. a6 c4+ 56. Kc3 Ra2 57. a7 Kc5 58. h4 1-0

But it must be admitted that Magnus makes these endgames look easy when for us it's a nightmare to convert.

Personally I really like the Catalan and Larsen transpositions, so I would definitely recommend those. The Catalan and all its variants are very natural to play (with sound endgame structures, because you always have a choice how you commit your central pawn strcuture, unlike most other d4 lines).

Two other examples that come to mind, are the two times Magnus employed 1.c4 vs Nakamura in classical chess:

One leading to a Catalan with a delayed d4:

[FEN ""]
[Event "8th Tal Memorial"]
[Site "Moscow RUS"]
[Date "2013.06.22"]
[Round "8.5"]
[White "Carlsen, M."]
[Black "Nakamura, Hi"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A13"]
[WhiteElo "2864"]
[BlackElo "2784"]
[PlyCount "93"]
[EventDate "2013.06.13"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "RUS"]
[EventCategory "22"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2013.06.24"]

1. c4 e6 2. g3 d5 3. Bg2 c6 4. Qc2 Nf6 5. Nf3 dxc4 6. Qxc4 b5 7. Qb3 Bb7 8. O-O Nbd7 9. d4 a6 10. Ne5 Qb6 11. Be3 c5 12. Nxd7 Nxd7 13. d5 e5 14. a4 b4 15. Nd2 Bd6 16. Nc4 Qc7 17. f4 O-O 18. Rac1 exf4 19. Bxf4 Bxf4 20. gxf4 a5 21. e4 Rae8 22. e5 Ba6 23. Rfe1 Kh8 24. Nd6 Re7 25. Qe3 Qd8 26. b3 g5 27. Kh1 Qb8 28. Qf2 gxf4 29. Qxf4 Bd3 30. Re3 Bg6 31. Rf1 Rxe5 32. Rxe5 Qxd6 33. Re8 Qxf4 34. Rxf8+ Kg7 35. Rxf4 Kxf8 36. d6 Ne5 37. Bf1 Bc2 38. Bb5 f5 39. Kg2 c4 40. Bxc4 Be4+ 41. Kg3 Nxc4 42. bxc4 Ke8 43. c5 Bc6 44. Rxf5 Bxa4 45. Re5+ Kd8 46. Re7 Bc6 47. Rc7 1-0

The second leading to a Larsen (1.b3) type of middlegame: (with black playing the Dutch)

[FEN ""]
[Event "2nd London Chess Classic"]
[Site "London ENG"]
[Date "2010.12.11"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Carlsen, M."]
[Black "Nakamura, Hi"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A10"]
[WhiteElo "2802"]
[BlackElo "2741"]
[PlyCount "117"]
[EventDate "2010.12.06"]
[EventRounds "7"]
[EventCountry "ENG"]
[EventCategory "19"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2010.12.13"]

1. c4 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 d6 4. Nc3 g6 5. e3 Bg7 6. Nge2 O-O 7. O-O e5 8. b3 Nbd7 9. d3 c6 10. Ba3 Qc7 11. Qd2 Re8 12. Rae1 Nc5 13. h3 e4 14. dxe4 Nfxe4 15. Qc2 Nxc3 16. Nxc3 Be6 17. Rd1 Rad8 18. Bb2 Bf7 19. Rd2 a5 20. Rfd1 Be5 21. Ne2 a4 22. b4 Nd7 23. Bd4 Nb6 24. Bxb6 Qxb6 25. Rb1 Qc7 26. Nd4 Rc8 27. Rc1 Qe7 28. Rd3 c5 29. bxc5 Rxc5 30. Qxa4 Rec8 31. Rb1 Rxc4 32. Qd1 b6 33. Nb5 R4c5 34. Nxd6 Bxd6 35. Rxd6 Bxa2 36. Ra1 Rc1 37. Rxc1 Rxc1 38. Rxg6+ hxg6 39. Qxc1 Qd6 40. h4 Bf7 41. h5 Kh7 42. hxg6+ Kxg6 43. Qc2 b5 44. g4 Qe5 45. gxf5+ Kg7 46. Qe4 Qd6 47. Qh4 Bc4 48. Bf3 Qf6 49. Qxf6+ Kxf6 50. Be4 Ba2 51. f4 b4 52. Kf2 b3 53. Bd5 Kxf5 54. Kf3 Kf6 55. e4 Kg6 56. Ke3 Kh5 57. Kd4 Kg4 58. f5 Kg5 59. Ke5 1-0

Here's another 1.c4 into Catalan, though it was only a rapid: Notice how white intentionally delays the pawn to e3 committment until black has made a decision with the b4 bishop (8...Bc5 now you repond with e3. Otherwise, with the black e4 pawn, a preemptive e3 would weaken your light squares). This is a good example of what I meant earlier with "not committing too early" with the pawn structre you want to achieve.

[FEN ""]
[Event "Amber Rapid"]
[Site "Nice FRA"]
[Date "2008.03.22"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Carlsen, M."]
[Black "Anand, V."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A20"]
[WhiteElo "2733"]
[BlackElo "2799"]
[PlyCount "95"]
[EventDate "2008.03.15"]
[EventType "rapid"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[EventCountry "FRA"]
[EventCategory "21"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2008.03.24"]

1. c4 e5 2. g3 c6 3. d4 e4 4. d5 Nf6 5. Bg2 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 Qe7 7. Nc3 O-O 8. a3 Bc5 9. e3 d6 10. Nge2 cxd5 11. Nxd5 Nxd5 12. cxd5 Nd7 13. O-O Nf6 14. Bc3 Bg4 15. Bxf6 Qxf6 16. b4 Bb6 17. Bxe4 a5 18. bxa5 Rxa5 19. Bxh7+ Kxh7 20. Qb1+ g6 21. Qxb6 Rfa8 22. Qd4 Qf3 23. Nc3 Re8 24. h3 Bf5 25. Qf6 Kg8 26. Rab1 Rxe3 27. Rxb7 Bc8 28. Qd8+ Kg7 29. Qxc8 Rxc3 30. Rxf7+ Kxf7 31. Qd7+ Kf6 32. Qd8+ Kf5 33. Qxa5 Rxa3 34. Qb4 Ke5 35. Qd2 Rd3 36. Qg5+ Qf5 37. Re1+ Kxd5 38. Qxf5+ gxf5 39. Kg2 Ra3 40. h4 Kd4 41. h5 d5 42. h6 Ra7 43. Kf3 Rh7 44. Re6 Kc3 45. Rc6+ Kd3 46. Kf4 Rf7 47. Kg5 Ke2 48. Rd6 1-0

Here's a crazy one: a 1.c4 turning into a Caro-Kann leading into a IQP middlegame:

[FEN ""]
[Event "Corus A"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee NED"]
[Date "2009.01.31"]
[Round "12"]
[White "Carlsen, M."]
[Black "Smeets, J."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B10"]
[WhiteElo "2776"]
[BlackElo "2601"]
[PlyCount "57"]
[EventDate "2009.01.17"]
[EventRounds "13"]
[EventCountry "NED"]
[EventCategory "19"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2009.02.02"]

1. c4 c6 2. e4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. cxd5 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nxd5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Bb5 e6 8. O-O Be7 9. d4 O-O 10. Re1 Bd7 11. Bd3 Rc8 12. Nxd5 exd5 13. Ne5 Bf6 14. Bf4 g6 15. Qb3 Na5 16. Qb4 Be6 17. Bh6 Bg7 18. Bxg7 Kxg7 19. h4 Re8 20. h5 f6 21. Nf3 b6 22. Bb5 Re7 23. Re2 Rcc7 24. Rae1 Kf7 25. Qd2 Qf8 26. Qf4 Bf5 27. g4 Bc8 28. b4 Nb7 29. Bc6 1-0

The list can go on, but it's up to you to carefully study these games and figure out which ones really suit your style of playing, no one can know it better than yourself.
As for the English-Botvinnik system, I'm surprised you don't like it, it's a sharp weapon specially in faster time controls, just watch how Nakamura plays it frequently in blitz. I recently read this article on the Botvinnik variation on chess.com, it may change your mind.

Another very interesting use of the English is to dodge the Grünfeld, as it is also pointed out on the wikipedia page, e.g.: 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.e4... But there are many such examples and that's why the English is so much fun to play.
Finally, there's one response that I dislike the most vs 1.c4, and that is 1...e5 leading sometimes to a reversed Sicilian...This is an example of black making use of the versatility of the English. But even if black decides to not play the Sicilian, a simple plan with e5 Nf6 Bc5 d6 a6 and tucking the bishop back to a7 is not obvious to face as white. So make sure you have a line (or at least some ideas) vs this.

This was just to give you some ropes. You will have lots of fun playing the English opening, and the more you play it the more resourceful you'll become with it, and hopefully you'll grow to appreciate its unique potentials. Enjoy!


Do you mean the the retrograde analysis as a part of problem chess? In this case, I think the main thing in retrograde analysis is to ask the right questions. What kind of pieces should arise in the past? Where should the pawns come from? Also, experience with chess itself is very helpful..
Here is simple classic.
[FEN "4k3/8/8/7K/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

Stipulation: White and Black retract a move and then helpmate in 1 move
It is obvious White needs material to mate (what piece and where) and it is remarkable to see the black king on its initial position e8, so castling could have been possible in the last position. (experience). But where is the black rook?! It seems helpful for the kings to come nearer (experience).
All this together gives the solution. Retract these moves: 1. Kg6xRh5 Rh8xQh5, and the helpmate happens: 1...0-0 2. Qh5-h7#.
[Title "Retrograde Analysis"]
[FEN "4k2r/8/6K1/7Q/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... O-O Qh7

I hope this helps.


Why doing the Engine suggested move worsen my position?

Stockfish (at a search depth of 99 moves) evaluates the initial position as actually a mate-in-19.

[FEN "2n5/1p6/1P3k2/R1K1p1p1/2p1PpPp/5P1P/8/8 w - - 4 1"]

1.Ra8 Ne7 Kxc4 Nc6 Kc5 Ke7 Rc8 Nd8 Kd5 Ne6 Kxe5 Kd7 Kd5 Ke7 Re8+ Kxe8 Kxe6 Kf8 e5 Kg7 Kd6 Kg8 e6 Kf8 Kd7 Kg8 e7 Kf7 e8=Q+ Kf6 Kd6 Kg7 Ke7 Kh6 Kf8 Kh7 Qh5#

The next position is a mate in 18 moves.

[FEN "R7/1p2n3/1P3k2/2K1p1p1/2p1PpPp/5P1P/8/8 w - - 6 2"]

1.Kxc4 Nc6 Kc5 Ke7 Rc8 Nd8 Kd5 Ne6 Kxe5 Kd7 Kd5 Ke7 Re8+ Kxe8 Kxe6 Kf8 e5 Kg7 Kd6 Kg8 e6 Kf8 Kd7 Kg8 e7 Kf7 e8=Q+ Kf6 Kd6 Kg7 Ke7 Kh6 Kf8 Kh7 Qh5#

The final position is mate in 17 moves.

[FEN "R7/1p6/1Pn2k2/4p1p1/2K1PpPp/5P1P/8/8 w - - 1 3"]

1.Kc5 Ke7 Rc8 Nd8 Kd5 Ne6 Kxe5 Kd7 Kd5 Ke7 Re8+ Kxe8 Kxe6 Kf8 e5 Kg7 Kd6 Kg8 e6 Kf8 Kd7 Kg8 e7 Kf7 e8=Q+ Kf6 Kd6 Kg7 Ke7 Kh6 Kf8 Kh7 Qh5#

You probably didn't give the engine sufficient time to find the mate.

Another important fact to note is that the Lichess app uses the javascript version of Stockfish. The problem with this version is that it cannot make use of hash tables. So when the engine evaluates a position and then left to evaluate another position resulting from a move in the initial position, it evaluates the position as if it was restarted before evaluation. I am pretty sure if you give the engine some time to evaluate the second and last positions it will come up with the mate.


A good game between equally matched players.

3. e4 is more common and is one of the points of the gambit - you gain more space. You're going to use an extra move to get it to e4 on move 8. Might as well do it on move 3.

9. dxe5 allows a series of trades that sucks the life out of the game. I think 9. d5 is slightly stronger and is what I expected you to play.

14...Rf8 made my face hurt. Instead, consider Ba6 or Be6. The latter allows an isolated e pawn but it connects the rooks and removes White's best piece.

15...h6 I'd have Nxd5 to kill that good Bishop. That would be add sense to the Rf8 move.

After 16. Bb7, followed by ... c5, Black's Rook is not so badly placed and is closer to making a battery.

21... Nh5 A Knight on the rim is dim.

26. Rd7 is a strong move. Note this would not have been possible had Black not wasted a move with 22... Rb8 but instead simply pushed the c pawn per a previous comment.  That is, consider 18... Bxd4 19. Rd4 c5 20. Rd2 Re8.  White may be better, but there's no obvious win here.

The game didn't do a lot for me as the trades removed most of the tension. Had Black not blundered the Knight it was looking drawish though I did prefer White's more active Rooks.


How to counter white's attempt to get a massive center in the Giucco Piano?

c3 by white is called the Moller Attack. The reason you do not see it at high levels is that the sting has been taken out of it over the years. Basically, it comes down to breaking up the center with Nxe4, or hitting back in the center with d5, before white can finish developing and fortify the center.

There are a few lines you need to know.

 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 (6. e5 d5 7. exf6 dxc4 8. fxg7 Rg8 9. O-O Qf6 10. Re1+ Be6 11. Bg5 Qxg7 12. g3 h6 13. Bh4 Qg4 {and black is quite safe, and much better}) Bb4+ 7. Nc3 (7. Bd2 Bxd2+ 8. Nbxd2 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Qb3 Nce7 11. O-O O-O 12. Rfe1 c6) 7... d5 (7... Nxe4 8. O-O Bxc3 9. d5 Bf6 10. Re1 Ne7 11. Rxe4 d6 12. Bg5 Bxg5 13. Nxg5 h6 14. Qe2 hxg5 15. Re1 Be6 16. dxe6 f6 17. Re3 c6 18. Rh3 Rxh3 19. gxh3 g6 20. Qf3 Qa5 21. Rd1 Qe5) 8. exd5 Nxd5 9. O-O Be6

And you play a standard isolated queen-pawn position.

The main line I gave with 7...d5 is probably not as good at taking on e4, but that line is much more dangerous and has a number of side roads that white can try.


Why isn't 6. Be3 popular in this Sicilian Defense line?

There is the following line, similar to what happens if black reacts the same way in the Najdorf:

[FEN ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Be3 Ng4 7.Bg5 h6 8.Bh4 g5
9.Bg3 Bg7

This is a mess, but Yermolinsky argues that the extra developing move (...Nc6 instead of ...a6) black has compared to the Najdorf version should make this relatively better.

So if white wants to play the English Attack here, it is more usual to play 6.f3 first and only then Be3.

But there is another reason that is at least as important: 6.Bg5 (the Richter-Rauzer attack) is really good, and there is no good road to equality known for black, as far as I know.


How can I play sharp in positional openings (English, Closed Sicilian, Giuoco Pianissimo)?

First of all, you must build an opening repertoire. One as White, one against e4, and one against d4. As a sharp player, I suggest you always play 1.e4 as White, the Sicilian Defence against 1.e4, and the King's Indian against 1.d4.

When you are white, I'm sure you won't get to play the English (since you are the one to choose not to play it!). If he responds with Sicilian, make it open. If he responds with French or Caro and you really want to open lines, exchange pawns. If he responds with 1...e5, I suggest you to go to the Italian. Avoid Giuoco Pianissimo with the Evans Gambit or even the Italian Gambit! If he responds with anything else, build up a big pawn center and crush him.

Now, when you are playing the Sicilian, I know that some of your opponents does not play d4 and give you the position you want (this is my own experience). Therefore, I have prepared a setup if he does not open the position. That is, Nf6, Bg7, e6, d6, g6, Nbd7, a6, b5, Bb7, Qb6/Qc7, Rc8/Rd8, c5-c4, Nc5, and so on. Break with d6-d5 if possible.

For the King's Indian, if you haven't tried it, I'm sure you'll love it. It's closed, but extremely aggresive, since it's a race between Q-side and K-side.

To sum up, never rely on your calculation skills alone. You must have a plan for every opening you play, and never hope for your opponent's mistake.

  A bad plan is better than no plan at all - Emmanuel Lasker, 2nd World Chess Champion.


You can setup lichess locally with this guide: github.com/ornicar/lila/wiki/Lichess-Development-Onboarding. The creator of lichess said this should work over irc.


Doubt on how move as black after pawn in e5

First, 2.e5 by white is probably not the strongest pure chess move, but it does have a huge advantage in that black is likely to be suprised by it. Anytime you can take your opponent out of his element, that is a small victory. In 40 years of playing, I have never seen that move played there, so that is saying something.

There is no question that 2.exd5 is the best move. It is one of the reasons that the Scandinavian Defense, aka the Center-Counter Defense, is considered sub-standard at higher levels. It is generally just considered a "tricky" opening, but it is also tactical in nature for those, who want that type of game.

2.e5 is likely to lead to French-Defense-type positions, which is a much more solid defense for black, so playing 2.e5 is not best, but there is nothing wrong with it chess-wise other than not being the objectively best move. That is where the intangibles of the game come into play, and black is not as likely to be as well versed in the French as white is there. That can easily outweigh the fact that 2.exd5 is better. I ALWAYS strive to take my opponent into a position they are not as comfortable as I am.

As far as what you are to do from there, you will play c5, maybe get the Bc8 out first (maybe even on that very move 2...Bf5), and then play e6, Nd7, Nge7-c6, Be7, and Qb6 but that is all very general. You will need to be careful putting your king on the short side as it may come under a big attack, but that is still where you want it if safe. Lastly, if you are going to face this often, I suggest you study the Advanced French, and use an engine to see if there are improved versions with Bf5 or Bg4 early.

There are a billion branches here, but here is a sample line I just ran on the computer. Black ends up slightly better.

 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 d5 2. e5 Bf5 3. d4 e6 4. Nf3 c5 5. c3 Nd7 6. Be2 Ne7 7. O-O Nc6 8. Be3 Be7 9. Nbd2 O-O {With the Bf5 able to go back to g6, if necessary, your kingside is pretty safe.} 10. a3 a5 $15


Knights on c3 & f3, bishops on d3 & e3 - what is this called, and is it sound?

I don't know a specific name to it, but what concerns the downsides of this setup, I could think of two. Of course, it is very situational, but since in the example black opted for a kings-indian setup, it is that 1) the bishop on d3 is rarely useful against the fianchetto (pawn on g6 is well protected), and 2) it blocks the d-file which sometimes can lead to weakening of the d4 pawn and/or square. For example, there is a line in KID where white plays Bd3 and Nge2, and one of the black's possible responses is Nc6 and e5, and he's ready to meet d5 with Nd4. This would be impossible in a classic white setup with the light-square bishop on e2.


You can get an .ics file for every major tournament on the broadcast page for that tournament on chess24.com. When you are on that page, click the Information tab, then download the file.

Now open Google Calendar, click the cogwheel icon, and then click Settings. On the settings page click Import & Export. There is a form where you can select the .ics file. Click Import to add it to your calendar. And that's all.


This link explores a way that white can force a draw. Perhaps this is game-breaking and makes the solution process much easier.
I am only an casual chess player and I’m mainly transcribing “5D Lexi”’s analysis.
My attempt at transcribing it (there’s no standard notation for 5D chess)

e3 Kf6
Bb5 c6
c3 ...

The idea is for white to go for Qb3 and then Queen to f7 to move 1. Black should not play cxb5 because he needs active counter play against this idea.

... Qc7
Qb3 d5 (defending this timeline)
Qf7 to turn 1 (check) Kxf7 (the following is all in this new timeline)
Kf3 Kf6
Ke5 one move back in the same timeline (critical move)

Note: the new timeline is an inactive timeline, so Black doesn’t have to play here. This might be the reason that it’s a forced draw, not a win.
Now, black has difficulties creating another timeline without losing. Because if Black time-travels to a location after move 2, then the present is shifted to move 2, but white’s Knight is checkmating Black’s King on the adjacent timeline.
Black can conceivably travel further back, to turn 1, to defend.
Honestly just watch the video :)


What should the opponent do when the player knocks over pieces as he presses the clock?

Indeed this can be a tricky matter to handle, specially in extreme time trouble.
Pressing the clock quickly again so your opponent adjusts their fallen pieces is fine in general as in most cases the player (or possibly both) will quickly re-adjust everything and nobody will mind, but every now and then you will face opponents trying to call you out on any potentially broken rule in order to claim the game. So to be on the safe side, in such circumstances, you should not press your clock but instead pause the clock and call the arbiter to explain the situation (this is almost always what you should do when your opponent is at fault regarding any rule). The arbiter then relaunches the opponent's clock telling them to re-adjust under their own time (and possibly a warning). This is essentially article 7.3: (this is the exact article, except I've substituted "he" and "his" by "they" and "their" respectively, as to make the statement agnostic to gender, it's shameful how the FIDE laws are written with such disregard!)

  7.3 If a player displaces one or more pieces, they shall re-establish the correct position on their own time. If necessary, either the player
  or their opponent shall stop the clocks and ask for the arbiter’s
  assistance. The arbiter may penalise the player who displaced the
  pieces.

Though I admit this scenario happens very rarely, at least in my experience, as most (courteous) players understand immediately that they have to set their pieces properly once you've quickly pressed your clock again, so there's no conflict. But if you see it's just a messy situation and your opponent couldn't care less about playing properly, then pause and call the arbiter.


Being an Anti-Sicilian vs. Sicilian player

The first question that needs answering is the following: what is your current playing level? The Grand Prix, and other anti-sicilians as well, can be a good way to trip up some sicilian players at lower to intermediate levels, but once your level of play gets higher these anti-sicilians will start getting less and less successful; there is a reason why they aren't the main lines after all.
But there is another aspect to this besides the result-oriented one, and that is your observation that many of these anti-sicilians require less memorization from the white player than the main lines in the open sicilian. At lower to intermediate levels this can be a good thing, since it means you can spend more of your time learning to play the middlegame and endgame properly rather than being tempted into thinking that studying more opening theory will bring you great levels of success. Another positive aspect of trying these anti-sicilians out is that you may encounter some nonstandard structures that you enjoy playing; this can prove very useful when trying to get to know oneself as a player. One final positive point in trying these lines out is that they will give you some indications as to why the main lines are what they are.
I would say that since these lines don't require as much study to pick up as the main lines, there is no real harm in trying them out. But you have to remember that they are a far cry from a silver bullet to the sicilian, and you should keep a flexible attitude about your choice of opening lines. Don't lock yourself to one specific set of lines to use for the rest of your career at this point when you haven't even reached master level yet. If you want to reach master level there is a high chance that you will eventually have to strongly consider adding some of the main lines to your repertoire, but this is something that can be done later. (who knows, maybe you end up adopting 1.d4 in the future?)
Although I don't think there is any harm in trying out slightly less common lines, I don't think it's bad to stick with the main lines either. One thing that you have to be very careful with is of course the risk of over-reliance on concrete lines. Don't just memorize the main lines thinking that you've learned them properly; after all, once you're out of the opening there is still an entire game left to be played, and if you don't know how to play these resulting positions you might as well not learn any theory at all. To understand these complex variations properly you need to play them many times, preferably against strong opponents, so that you can gain an appreciation of why the main lines are the way they are. You will also need to be able to find the optimal ways of playing when your opponent deviates from the main lines, and I will say the following: this is way, way harder to do consistently than it seems, so I will once again urge you not to place the memorization of main lines on a pedestal.
It may seem like the things I stated in the previous paragraph suggest that playing the main lines requires far too much work on your part, but this is not something that I wish to convey. While memorizing some lines is important in the open sicilian, I would say that the amount you need to actually memorize is less than you may think. You can get by surprisingly well with a shallow knowledge of concrete lines if you begin your study by going wide rather than deep; learn the basic gist of the lines (i.e., try to learn the main plans in broad strokes), and start playing as much as possible so that you can see how the plans work in action. Naturally you will have to learn your lines deeper and more concretely at some point, but if you have a solid foundation based on experience this will become a lot easier. Also, if you have experience playing without knowing the exact lines, it will be easier to play once you inevitably end up in a position that you haven't studied before.


A very interesting source is 100 Endgames You Must Know by Jesús de la Villa. Jesús focuses in most common endgames, with a very practical approach and only 100 pages (Spanish version) long. I miss the K+Q vs K+R ending here, but it's a very recommendable book.

More comprehensive books, and also longer and more dense, are Fundamental Chess Endings by Muller and Lampretch and Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual by Dvoretsky. I've actually used the first one to check missing endgames in de la Villa book, as the K+Q vs K+R.

These books are about theoretical endgames. Also both Dvoretsky's School of Excellence and Jacob Aagaard Grand Master Preparation series have a book each about practical endgames play. I have read none of them, so I cannot give you my impressions about them.

Another interesting book is Practical Rook Endings by Mednis, focused in rook endings that, as you know, are the most common ones.

My personal advice is to start with de la Villa Book, to have Muller or Dvoretsky's manual as a reference (at least I cannot afford to study them), and study a book about practical endings.


How to distinct a strategical move from a tactical move?

The difference between a tactical or a strategic/positional move lies in its justification. Almost all good moves have a positional and a tactical justification, otherwise they may be tactical or positional mistakes. The exception, of course, are moves that lead to mate or a big material advantage, those could probably be called purely tactical moves.

Which justification is more important to you depends on your abilities and your style. If the tactical justification of a move is obvious to you, it might seem like a purely positional move. On the other hand if a move has a deep strategic idea, but requires complicated calculation, you may regard it as a tactical move. I'll give you an example:

[Title "White to move"]
[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "rnb1kb1r/pp3ppp/2p1q3/4P2n/4Np2/5N2/PPP1Q1PP/R1B1KB1R w KQkq - 1 10"]

1.g4 Qxg4 2.Rg1 Qe6 3.Rg5 g6 4.Rxh5

g4 may strike you as a very tactical move: It is a pawn sacrifice and its justification involves a lot of calculation including an exchange sacrifice. But the final goal is really very strategic: Conquering the dark squares, especially f6 and f4. White is winning.

Incidentally this is the big difference between computer chess and human chess: For a computer every move is a tactical move. Every move is justified by the calculation of variations. For humans this is a gradual thing and if you are looking for purely tactical moves you should focus on combinations with a very clear result.

If you want only a crude distinction I would propose to let an engine calculate a few moves: If a move is only viable after a certain search depth, you can call it tactical. Every move viable even at very low ply would be strategic/positional.


The powerbook contains 1.5 million games of grandmasters (including the most recent ones).  For the power book, these games have been processed so you can see their openings, and for each opening position you can see all the moves that have been played as well as the associated winning/drawing/losing rates.  So basically, it is an up-to-date overview of opening theory at the top level so far.


What are the main ideas for White in the Queen's Gambit Accepted, 3.e4 variation?

Black has 4 main tries and one dubious line. White's plans vary based on the tabiya. The positions below are the lines given in Starting Out: Queen's Gambit Accepted by Reatsky and Chetverik:

3...e5

[FEN ""]
[StartPly "5"]

  1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 e5 {Best and thematic. A strong central counterattack that made the 3. e4 QGA unpopular in the '80s.} 4. Nf3 {White defends the pawn and prepares to castle kingside.}

Now Black has 2 choices: 4...Bb4+ and 4...exd4.

4...Bb4+

[FEN ""]
[StartPly "7"]

  1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 e5 4. Nf3 Bb4+ {Black develops with tempo and blocks a defender of the d4 pawn.} 5. Bd2 Bxd2+ {Black is happy to trade, seeing as he is up material and has slightly less space when the c4 pawn falls.} 6. Nbxd2 {6. Qxd2 exd4 7. Qxd4 Nf6 8. Qxd8+ Kxd8 actually sucks the venom out of white's attack, as the queens are gone and the trades benefit black, whose king is open and has less space.} exd4 7. Bxc4 Nc6 8. O-O Qf6 {Black aims to play ...Nge7 and ...O-O.} 9. e5 {The queen has developed early and can be attacked, gaining space. The pawn cannot be taken due to tactics on the open e-file.} Qg6 10. Re1 Nge7 11. Nb3 {Thematically regaining the pawn.} O-O 12. Nfxd4 {The material is now even with quite even development and safe kings. But why was it the f3 knight that recaptured? Well: 1) 12...Na5, pestering the bishop, is prevented, and 2) The queen can develop to the kingside, e.g. Qf3 easily.}

4...exd4

[FEN ""]
[StartPly "7"]

  1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 e5 4. Nf3 exd4 {Black invites white to play 5. Qxd4? Qxd4 6. Nxd4 Bc5 which equalises. Similarly, 5. Nxd4? c5 6. Nf3 Qxd1+ is also good for black.} 5. Bxc4 {White should definitely develop the bishop to regain a pawn and take control of a key diagonal.} Nc6 6. O-O Be6 {Defending the diagonal leading to the weak f7 square, this almost forces a trade of a well developed piece.} 7. Bxe6 {7. Bb5 is playable. See Kaspaprov-Anand, Linares 1999} fxe6 8. Qb3 Qd7 {Why not 8...Qc8? Well this is too passive and can be punished by 9. Ng5!} 9. Qxb7 Rb8 10. Qa6 Nf6 11. Nbd2 Bd6 {The bishop develops to a flexible square that discourages e5.} 12. Qd3 O-O 13. a3 {Preventing any annoying ...Nb4 or ...Bb4 manoeuvres.} Ng4 {Black seeks to place a knight on e5, a well placed steed.} 14. b3 Nce5 15. Nxe5 Nxe5 16. Qxd4 Ng4 17. e5 Nxe5 18. Bb2 Rb5 19. Qe4 Nd3 20. Bd4 Rf4 21. Qa8+ Rf8 {With a likely draw by threefold repition.}

3...c5

[FEN ""]
[StartPly "5"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 c5 4. d5 Nf6 5. Nc3 b5 {Principle: attacked in the centre, counter on the wing} 6. Bf4 {The Bishop thematically comes to f4 as in some variations the bishop takes on b8, often in conjunction with a rook on b1.} Ba6 {Black has to develop rapidly, as the game is somewhat open and Black is being squeezed in the centre.} 7. e5 b4 8. exf6 bxc3 9. bxc3 gxf6 10. Bxc4 {This initiates a combination that simplifies into an endgame where white plays against the pawn weaknesses on c5 and the kingside.} Bxc4 11. Qa4+ Nd7 12. Qxc4 Nb6 13. Qb5+ Qd7 14. Qxd7+ Kxd7

3...Nc6

[FEN ""]
[StartPly "5"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 Nc6 4. Nf3 Bg4 5. d5 Ne5 6. Bf4 Ng6 {6...Nxf3 7. gxf3 Bd7 is not so strong for Black, as White now has a semi-open g-file to work with, and the White king is reasonably safe in the centre.} 7. Be3 e5 8. Bxc4 Nf6 9. Nc3 a6 {Black threatens to remove the defender of the e4 pawn with 10...b5 11. Be2 b4 12. Ng1 Nxe4} 10. Be2 {White would like to offer to trade the bad light square bishop with Nd2, when Black should preserve their light square bishop with ...Bd7} Bd6

3...Nf6

[FEN ""]
[StartPly "5"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 Nf6 4. e5 {White gains a bit of space in this line but not much else.} Nd5 5. Bxc4 Nb6 6. Bb3 Nc6 7. Be3 {7. Nge2 is also playable, but 7. Nf3?! walks into the pin 7...Bg4, which is uncomfortable, seeing as Black doesn't mind trading his bad bishop if the question is put to it.} Bf5 8. Nc3 e6 9. Nge2 Be7 10. O-O O-O

3...b5?!

[FEN ""]
[StartPly "5"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 b5 4. a4 {White challenges the base of the pawn chain.} c6 {Black reinforces the base...} 5. b3 {...so white attacks the head of the chain instead!} e5 {Thematic and best. Over and over we will see ...e5 as been a crucial move in the 3. e4 QGA variations.} 6. axb5 cxb5 7. bxc4 Bb4+ {Black is desperate to gain counterplay (and material!) seeing as white's central pawns are so menacing.} 8. Bd2 {Forced. Blocking with Nd2 enters into an uncomfortable pin, and Ke2 loses castling rights and blocks up the kingside.} Qxd4 9. Bxb4 Qxa1 10. Nf3 {Despite white being down in material, White has: 1) More space, 2) Better development, 3) A vulnerable enemy king, queen and rooks to go after.}


If an opponent's clock is pulled, how much extra time is given?

First of all: unbiased sources might be available. A spectator might have noticed it or a player might have recorded clock readings on the scoresheet. DGT boards record the exact time, too.
Naturally, the player who lost time should get back exactly the time he lost.
Now three unreliable sources of information are available to the arbiter: the person who accidentally pressed the wrong clock and the two players on the other board. They should be able to agree on a rough estimate of the time elapsed. (Has it been five minutes or ten? You should be able to tell.) The arbiter should adjust both clocks accordingly, maybe adding a minute for the disturbance caused.
This is governed by article 6.13 in the FIDE laws of chess:

If an irregularity occurs and/or the pieces have to be restored to a previous position, the arbiter shall use his best judgement to determine the times to be shown on the clocks. He shall also, if necessary, adjust the clock’s move counter.


Are there any books pamphlets or articles on how to train to play at GM level?

I do not think that there are any books devoted specifically to this topic, probably since the subject is not big enough, and most physical training is covered by books devoted to that subject, in general (not with chess in mind). The topic may be touched upon in other books.

For example, probably first to take a modern approach to training the body was Kasparov, and his trainer goes into that in his two-volume series on Kasparov's development. In fact, on the cover of volume 2, you can see a picture of them running. Even so, the book does not spend a lot of time on this aspect as most people are more concerned with the purely chess aspects of his training.

Coaching Kasparov, Year by Year and Move by Move, Volume I + 2 by Alexander Nikitin.

I believe that Botvinnik was probably the first to espouse the benefits of physical training SERIOUSLY, and I have seen this written about in passing, but again, there was not enough material for a whole book.

Here is a nice article on Botvinnik on "Sports Illustrated". It discusses his physical training a little.

Here is another webpage that discusses the training activities of various modern GMs.

Here is another very good article on the subject. "How physical activity can help you play chess better?"


Do chess masters think with the board flipped when playing black?

In Blindfold Chess (Hearst-Knott; reviewed and summarized here), a natural beginning place for studying the thought processes of chess masters, the authors discover this (quote from the link):

  blindfold chess masters consistently report that what they visualize are not images of pieces or chessboards, but abstractions of these with minimal or no physical features.

And later, they describe their mental state in a variety of telling ways:

  “no mental pictures,” “abstract knowledge,” “I know where the pieces are,” “only an abstract type of representation,” “only relationships,” “no real picture,” “the significance of a piece,” “knowing what combination or plan is in progress,” “lines of force,” “pieces are only friend or foe, carriers of particular actions,” “sort of formless visions of the positions,” and so forth. Many of the masters report that they have no mental image at all (p.151).

This suggests that your question is actually based on a faulty premise: that chess masters explicitly visualize a board while contemplating a position. Instead of colored pieces "visualized" on a board, they seem likely to think about the position in a more abstract fashion.

The source covers blindfold chess, naturally, but I would be astonished if the same concepts were not true for most masters in general.

I'm not master level myself, but for what it's worth, I would also describe my mentalization process in similar, abstract terms. I almost never "picture" the board.


Is it poor form to win a drawn position on time?

This is opinion based and therefore not a great fit for the Stack Exchange format, but here are my thoughts anyway.

The lower the time limit, the more acceptable it is from a sportsmanship view. In standard long time controls, this is really poor form. In 1-minute ("bullet"), anything goes, including this. The reasoning is that in these really fast forms of chess, the clock is as much a part of the game as the board is (so 15 vs 50 seconds is actually a type of winning position), whereas in slow chess the clock is more of a necessary concession to tournament organizers, not something equal games should be decided on.

I'm in doubt about 3 minute chess. It's very fast, but I'm not sure on which side of the fence it is, that'll be different from person to person.

Personally I always offer a draw when this position arises, but then I only play for fun, not for big bucks.

K + B vs K + B with bishops on opposite colors is even worse, it's hardly even possible to make a blunder in that. At least with rooks you have to watch out for skewers.


How many initial moves are possible in Chess, 20 or 21?

Your question essentially reduces to asking whether resignation is considered a move or not. To be exact, you are asking about legal moves, the topic of which is addressed in (and defined by) Article 3 of the Laws of Chess. Resignation isn't mentioned there, so it's not a move.

A heuristic argument: you are allowed to make a move and then resign immediately, i.e. if resignation was a move, you have effectively made two consecutive moves, which is not allowed.

Or more simply: since you can resign even when it's not your move, it follows that resignation is not considered a move.


I'm not sure what you're referring to. In shogi, any piece can capture any opposing piece, there are no restrictions like what you're speaking of. Be aware that all pieces capture the same way they move, though. There's no such thing as moving in one way and capturing in another (like the chess pawn, moving forward and capturing diagonally). See the Wikipedia shogi page for a full set of rules. If you have a more specific example of what you're wondering about, please post it.


In a simul what happens with timing when only one player is left?

The idea that there is a 5 second limit on thinking time in a simul is just nonsense. Early in the simul when the ordinary players have plenty of time while the simul giver is going round all the other players the player is expected to have his move ready and play immediately the simul giver arrives at the board.

That said, it is not unheard of for a player to "pass" or request a pass. Usually, in a well organized simul, there will be rules saying whether passes are allowed and if so how many (usually only one or two).

The simul giver is also not required to move immediately, particularly when it comes down to just 2 or 3 players. Believe it or not, he is often thinking about tricky positions in other games while he is making moves in the more routine positions and he is also affected by the cut down in numbers and the reduced thinking times.

Back in 1972 when I faced the late Viktor Korchnoi in a simul he rocked back and thought for a minute or two over one of my moves in the opening. He later accepted a draw which probably tells me a better player than me would have won my position ;-).


I'd like to recommend my own iOS app, SmallChess and SmallFish. They have time controls and playing strength.

In addition, there are many many other similar apps on the market. A simple "chess" keyword search in the app store will give you many results.

For MacOS, the Stockfish MacOSX program is good.


Looking for an aggressive opening for black vs 1. d4

You seem to enjoy tactical play, so there are a few options for you against 1. d4. As it appears you prefer gambits over other openings, consider looking at the relatively offbeat Budapest Gambit which is characterized by the opening moves 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 where after 3. dxe5 black can reply with either 3...Ne4 or 3...Ng4 with the latter being more popular. That being said, the Budapest is rooted in strategic themes, and the King's Indian Defense is certainly regarded as the one of the most aggressive replies to 1. d4.

For a more mainstream approach, I would recommend the Grunfeld as a great hypermodern choice. It's highly regarded from the amateur to world class levels. The general idea is to allow white to build up a center and then target it as a weakness, and the positional themes that arise in the middlegame focus primarily on undermining the pawns on e4 and d4.

For a more comprehensive response, please reference this excellent answer to a generalization of your question.


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


Why is 4...e5 not popular in the Smith-Morra Gambit?

Simply stated, it's because of Black's backward d-pawn; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_pawn -- as opposed to other lines of this Gambit it gives White a definite weakness to focus on well through the opening and possibly the middle-game and beyond.


Can we quantify the handicap for playing blindfolded?

It depends.
Some can play multiple games at once.
Others would struggle to play just one at a much lower level.
There is no way to apply a correction factor that would work for all players.
I played blindfold as an A player and beat an expert easily.


Why not 5.Bd2 in the French Defense: Exchange Variation?

It appears to be 4...Bb4+ that's the unusual move here. The chess.com database only shows one game with it, and that's the game that continued with 5.c3. When you have the position after Bb4+ on the board and it shows 5.Nc3 with a bunch of games, it's actually showing games that transposed into that position - the Nc3 was played earlier in the game.
Given that there's only one actual game in the database with Bb4+, there very well may be nothing wrong with Bd2. It hasn't been played simply because the position almost never came up.


What is the reason for 5...Bb4+ in this line of the Bishop's Opening?

5...Bb4+ looks like a weird move because you wouldn't play a move like that often, but it makes perfect sense because the white bishop in on b3.
White would definitely want to develop his knight with Nc3 on the next move and put pressure on Black's pawn center. By playing 5...Bb4+ you prevent 6.Nc3 (it'd lose a piece). If White goes for 6.c3, then Black can put his bishop on d6 without his position in the center being at jeopardy.
That's why the most successful move here is 6.Bd2!. Now 6...Bd6 is met with 7.Nc3!, so Black usually prefers to trade bishops.


How should I play against the Philidor defense?

3. d4 is the usual move after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6.  Chess Opening Theory states that it is probably the best move, and also concedes 3. Bc4:

The best move is probably 3. d4. White threatens a queen exchange with dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 and Black can forget about castling. It puts pressure on the center and the Black fortress may collapse at any time.
Another possibility is 3. Bc4 leading to a more positional game, playable for both camps.

Fred Reinfeld suggests the following line (exclamation marks are his) as in this game.  White maintains a sharp edge:
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4. Qxd4! Nc6 5. Bb5! Bd7 6. Bxc6 Bxc6 7. Nc3 Nf6 8. Bg5 Be7 9. O-O-O

A good resource to study would be shredderchess.com's opening database.


Why is the Advance Variation considered strong vs the Caro-Kann but not vs the Scandinavian?

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


I've been using fritz and that serves your purpose.

After you have installed fritz go to little arrow below the 'new game' and click on 'position setup'. After you finish setting your position, there is an option called 'copy FEN' on the same window and you can use that.

And if you want PGN, after setting up the position click OK, make moves you want to and click on 'copy game'and the pgn will be copied to the clip board and you can paste anywhere you want to.


You can try PlayOK, it's free and has quite a lot of players for Xiangqi, and supports westernized pieces (though I'd recommend just learning the chinese characters, it doesn't take long). It also has some players for Shogi (japanese chess), which I personally find to be a much more interesting chess variant, though if you want to play more of that there are better sites (for example 81dojo). For rules/tutorials, I guess the best place to start is simply the Xiangqi Wikipedia entry.


It's completely playable below master level, probably playable to IM level and probably useful occasionally as a surprise weapon at GM level. Combined with the English defense it gives black a very solid opening repertoire with very little theory to learn. The only caveat would be to just be careful castling kingside into a strong attack.
22 ply is 11 moves. How many players below master level analyze 11 moves deep in their opening prep let alone over the board? If you can see two moves ahead you're better than most of the players out there and probably wouldn't be asking this question.
A .89 evaluation is literally nothing below GM level. Analyze your games with an engine. How many times do you see a swing bigger than .89 on a single move? I'm guessing at least once a game. And even if you do play near perfect chess how big a difference is there between that and the alternatives? I'm looking at the 365chess.com database. It has 1...b6 at .66 at a depth of 38. It has other mainstream openings like the French (.53), Pirc (.6) modern (.62), Alekhine's (.55) etc. You're literally talking about tenths and even hundredths of a pawn. It's absurd for players below master level to be talking about differences that small.


Is it possible to download a big txt file containing many openings?

What you're looking for is a PGN file that contains several games. You can parse the game data and enter in the opening moves. A great resource is PGN Mentor where you can browse openings and download the appropriate PGNs.


Annotated games in the Makogonov Grünfeld?

chesspublishing.com has seven well-annotated (by GMs Glenn Flear and Neil McDonald) games starting with 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.e3 Bg7 5.Nf3 O-O 6.b4, ranging from 1999 to 2009. They're not free, though.

The games are:

Rabrenovic - Atalik 1999
Aleksandrov - Oral 2000
Bruzon Batista - Sutovsky 2004
Suvrajit - Harika 2004
Georgiev - Holzke 2007
Akobian - Perelshteyn 2007
Akobian - Ponomariov 2009

All have lots of verbal annotations and variations, at about the level of detail you'd expect to see in a opening book that is organized by annotated games.


I noticed you posted you'd mostly found answer for yourself in the comments,  but...it reminded me of when I faced this while trying out the Caro-Kann.

It doesn't look like ...b5 works to me, either. If I were white I would play cxb5 and then let Black decide if and how to take back. There is no hurry to take on c6. The knight on b8 looks restricted, and a move such as ...a6 to force White to decide what to do with the b5 pawn wastes a move, and Black can't even get Benko-ish pressure on the a/b files unless ...c5 is played (which also gives up a move,) since White can just take back with bxc6. If black plays ...Qb6, then Nc3 (or even a4) defends the b5-pawn enough.

So from what I see Black doesn't get enough development for the pawn, and White has a pretty easy game with Nc3, d4, Nf3, etc.

When I played Black I found another pawn sac worked rather well: 4 ... Nf6 and while White can play Bb5+, Black can get it back. ...Bd7 5. Bc4 Qf7 6. Na3 Nxd5 as 7. Bxd5 Qe5 gets the bishop. This seems like a straightforward and low-risk way to equality.


In one of my books I found this "uncredited" problem, it is probably not the problem you are referring to but I thought you may find it interesting, hope you like it.

2018 Update, thanks to user @Evargalo for adding some light about the author, we can know it was composed by Gijs van Breukelen.

8/3P3k/n2K3p/2p3n1/1b4N1/2p1p1P1/8/3B4 w - - 0 1

1. Nf6+ Kg7 2. Nh5+ Kg6 3. Bc2+ Kxh5 4. d8=Q Nf7+ 5. Ke6 Nxd8+ 6. Kf5 e2 7.Be4 e1=N 8. Bd5 c2 9. Bc4 c1=N 10. Bb5 Nc7 11. Ba4 Ne2 12. Bd1 Nf3 13. Bxe2

White, with material inferiority, must act energically:

1.Nf6+ Kg7 if 1...Kg6 2.Bc2+! Kg7 3.Nh5+ Kf7 4.d8=Q and black has lost the possibility of check on f7.

2.Nh5+ Kg6  The black King cannot go to the last rank, d7 will crown with check.

3.Bc2+ Kxh5 4. d8=Q Nf7+ 5. Ke6 Nxd8+ 6. Kf5 This is the first part of the study: White has accomplished to place the black king in a mate position. In the next set of moves each defensive move by black will be forced.

6...e2 7.Be4! Threat on f3 the only move to prevent checkmate is a sub-promotion.

7...e1=N 8.Bd5!! Threats 9.Bc4 10.Be2#

8...c2 9.Bc4 c1=N! 10.Bb5! With the idea of checkmate on e8

10...Nc7 11.Ba4! and 4 Knights cannot prevent checkmate

11...Ne2 12.Bd1 Nf3 13.Bxe2 followed by 14.Bxf3#


One Night in Bangkok- Murray Head
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9cNtrrCP0E&feature=kp

A cover of Adele's "Skyfall" with a chess-themed music video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiXJQ0SG888


How do you win with a queen against a rook?

There are several key positions from which it is easy to memorize the win. The basic idea is to drive the opposing king to the edge of the board, and then to the corner, where you can force the rook to separate from the king.

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "King and Queen"]
[Black "King and Rook"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/6rk/5K2/3Q4/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 0"]
[PlyCount "11"]

1. Qh1+ (1. Qh5+? Kg8 {this is the diagram we want, but the wrong side has the
move.}) 1... Kg8 2. Qh5 {This is the key position to have with black to move.
The rook must leave the king} Rg1 (2... Kf8? 3.Qh6) 3. Qd5+ Kh7 4. Qe4+ Kg8 5. Qa8+ Kh7 6. Qa7+ {
forks the king and rook} *

The first move in the diagram is Qh1+. Qh5+? is a mistake, though the position is the one we want the wrong side is to move.

After 2.Qh5 we have the position we want. The rook must leave the protection of the king, and a series of checks will allow a fork of king and rook by the queen.

If the rook is already separated, then there is usually a sequence of checks that produce the win.

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "King and Queen"]
[Black "King and Rook"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/8/8/4K3/r6k/8/3Q4/8 w - - 0 3"]
[PlyCount "9"]

3. Kf5 Kg3 4. Qd3+ Kh4 5. Qc2 Ra5+ 6. Kf4 Kh3 7. Qc3+ *


This is what I try to accomplish as white, but I play Nf3 first.
Although your can't take advantage this early, there are good moves depending on your temperament.

Qe4+ forces Qe2, else a pawn hangs, and the trade of queens.

Qa5 pins the d-pawn which gives you the opportunity to get in c5 (e5 is more drawish) and get a central majority.

With a normal game continuation, that is Qa5 => Nf6..., the d-pawn is slightly weaker as white can't play c3 to support it.

Just the opinion of a 2000 player.


What are the new FIDE regulations for arbiters?

There are two significant changes.

There is a re-registration requirement, although without having to also pay again. If you look through lists of inactive arbiters and check their arbiting records you find that many inactive arbiters have been inactive for not just years but for decades. In Europe there have also been new data protection laws for the past few years which FIDE has probably not been in full compliance with. I know that when I first became an NA FIDE published my home address and phone number without telling me. Now all FAs and IAs are required to visit the FIDE Database enhancement page on the the FIDE website, complete the form and submit before 31st October 2021 to maintain their active status.
All FAs and IAs are required, once every four years, to attend a Refresher Course to maintain their active status. The purpose of this is to ensure that arbiters kept uptodate with the latest FIDE laws. These laws are normally updated once every four years.

Notes on re-registration
The form includes a link to what you are agreeing to when you click on "Submit" and you should definitely first click on the link. The full title of the link is "INFORMATION AND CONSENT UNDER 2016/679/EU – GENERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATION – ART. 13 AND FOLLOWING AND FIDE DATA PROTECTION POLICY". It's probably worth noting that FIDE gives itself more powers than it currently exercises (at least in my case). In particular:

By giving your consent, you agree that:
• FIDE collects your Name, Surname, Birthday, Federation, Gender (M or F), email address, physical addresses, place and date of birth, nationality, phone numbers and bank details and local taxes details.
• FRS may host a picture of yours.
• Your data will be stored electronically and in paper.
...
• Your data will be visible to any visitor of FIDE website who may see: Name, Surname, Year of birth, Federation, Gender (M or F), rating, title and inactivity flag. [so, thank goodness, they are not going to publish our address, phone number and bank details]

Notes on "inactivity"
Details are spelt out in article 2 of B.06.3 – FIDE Regulations for the Classification of Arbiters. The effect of the changes, so I was told, is to bring FAs and IAs more into line with NAs. For NAs there is no penalty for becoming inactive. For FAs and IAs the implication is that they are not fully aware of the latest laws and so may officiate in low level FIDE rated competitions, like NAs, but not in higher ones in any position of great responsibility. This can be repaired by taking the refresher course with no additional re-registration fee although the course is not going to be free.
Significant points are:

2.1 An IA or FA is considered to be “Inactive” if in a period of four (4) years they have not successfully attended a Refresher Course organized by the FIDE Arbiters’ Commission. When an arbiter reaches his “end of activity” date, his status is changed to “Inactive”.
2.1.1 An inactive arbiter may not officiate as the Chief Arbiter in any FIDE rated tournaments, except in those where no possibilities of norms for players exist.
2.1.2 An inactive arbiter may not be selected to officiate in any official FIDE or Continental events.

Basically inactive FAs and IAs can't be the Chief Arbiter in a norm event.
Since currently no arbiters have done this course there are transition rules regarding the date you have to take it by as follows:

2.6 Transition 2021 – for a smooth implementation of the new regulations. The initial end of activity date will be calculated as follow, as the new regulations come into force:
2.6.1 Active arbiters with a last tournament in 2016 or before: 31/12/2020, status set to inactive.
2.6.2 Active arbiters with a last tournament in 2017: IA 31/12/2021 – FA 31/12/2022
2.6.3 Active arbiters with a last tournament in 2018: 31/12/2022
2.6.4 Active arbiters with a last tournament in 2019: 31/12/2023
2.6.5 Active arbiters with a last tournament in 2020: 31/12/2024


You can search up Armageddon games on chessgames.com or any other database. Black always has drawing odds in those games, so there's bound to be games where black wins by getting stalemated.


First, I agree that f6 is both weakening and a waste of time.

The real crux of the matter is that in most double-king pawn openings, white tries to play d4 and after the trade e5xd4, he tries to outpost a N on d5, which exerts great pressure on black. If black can play d5, and I do not agree that he has the initiative there after the better d3, he does get easy equality with plenty of space.

In both this opening, and in most Sicilians, you should be on the lookout for when black can play d5. If he gets it in, then he usually has gained equality, so you want to think prophylactically, and play moves that inhibit d5.

Your plan of trying to put two pawns in the center is admirable, but if it were possible, it would be excellent, however, it is just not possible there.


Reversed Sicilian - What's wrong with my plan?

8. ... h6 was unprovoked. Until White threatens to double Q+B on a c1-h6 diagonal, or places the piece ag g5, there is no reason to weaken the Kingside. The plan calls for immediate 8. ... f5, e.g. 8... f5 9. Bg5 h6 10. Bh4, and it is up to Black to decide between 10. ... g5 and 10. ... Bf6, whichever suites your style.

Along the same lines 9. ... a6 seems off. Black shouldn't help White in opening Queenside files. If you want to secure Queenside, 8. ... a5 is in order of the day.
Did you consider 12. ... e4?


What is the name of this mating pattern?

No, it's rather unusual (but beautiful!) to mate a King in the middle of the board. Because it's rare, probably nobody (that I know of) has coined a term for it yet.


What's the highest rating any computer has ever attained?

This page has a lot of good info.  Kasparov is the highest at 2851.  However, such comparisons are fraught with peril as ratings inflate, and they really can't be compared from era to era.  I don't think it will be long before Magnus Carlsen takes the 'highest rating' crown. This won't mean he's stronger than Kasparov at his peak.

Computer ratings are trickier.  Rybka 3 claims over 3200 Elo.  If this is the true, then only about 6 GMs in the world have a statistical chance of defeating it.

EDIT - that 3200 rating is on specialized hardware.  I think on a common (but beefy) PC, the rating is about 100 pts lower.  This means that currently there are about 30 players in the world who have a statistical chance of not losing.  None of them have an appreciable chance of winning.  Don't be depressed - no human has an appreciable chance of beating a car at a race.  Somehow this didn't make track and field less interesting.


Could you help me to find which game this is?

https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-to-avoid-blunders-part-two

In one of his books GM Alexander Kotov even coined a term "Dizziness due to success" which describes Chigorin's blunder that we just witnessed pretty accurately. Kotov even tells his own story. He was playing a game and achieved a completely winning position. His opponent lost any interest in his game, and mostly watched the games of other players. Moreover, he wrote "White resigned" on his score sheet, folded it and put it in his pocket.  Kotov knew that his opponent was just waiting for a good moment to stop the clock and concede the defeat.  Fortunately, such a moment was very close and Kotov took the White Bishop on f7. Guess what happened after that.
When Kotov's opponent executed his winning move, he took his score sheet out of his pocket, crossed out "White resigned" and it was Black who had to resign the game. It doesn't even matter to me if the White player did this little trick (with folding his score sheet) on purpose or he genuinely thought that the game was over.  The point is once you start thinking that the game is over and your opponent is about to resign, blunders are almost unavoidable!


What happens if a player suffers a time penalty but doesn't have enough time left?

According to the FIDE Laws of Chess:

  12.9 Options available to the arbiter concerning penalties:

  12.9.1 warning,

  12.9.2 increasing the remaining time of the opponent,

  12.9.3 reducing the remaining time of the offending player,

  12.9.4 increasing the points scored in the game by the opponent to the maximum available for that game,

  12.9.5 reducing the points scored in the game by the offending person,

  12.9.6 declaring the game to be lost by the offending player (the arbiter shall also decide the opponent’s score),

  12.9.7 a fine announced in advance,

  12.9.8 exclusion from one or more rounds,

  12.9.9 expulsion from the competition.

In such situations, for a first offence, the arbiter would always add time for the opponent. He would never reduce the time for the player. Only if it were a third or later infraction of the same rule and the player had been warned would more serious action be taken like defaulting the player.

There is a general principle in the arbiting world, which is seen in the move away from allowing quickplay finishes, that the actions or decisions of the arbiter should not decide the game. Reducing the player's time to less than zero would do just that and would never be done.


What is the maximum number of passed pawns in a position?

EDIT: record is now 20.0 moves! (See below.)

If we like pawns undoubled...

[title "16 non-doubled passed pawns in 21.0 moves"]
[fen ""]
[startply "42"]

1. g4 h5 2. g5 Rh6 3. gxh6 g5 4. h4 g4 5. b4 e5 6. f4 e4 7. Nf3 exf3 8. e4 f5 9. e5 Qg5 10. Nc3 a5 11. Ne4 fxe4 12. c4 a4 13. Qb3 axb3 14. a4 b5 15. a5 d5 16. c5 Bd6 17. cxd6 c5 18. Ra4 c4 19. d4 Na6 20. hxg5 Nc5 21. dxc5 bxa4 *

If we like all our pawns doubled, there's just a small improvement possible...

[title "16 passed pawns (all doubled) in 20.5 moves"]
[fen ""]
[startply "41"]

1. a4 b5 2. a5 d5 3. c4 h5 4. Ra4 bxa4 5. c5 e5 6. g4 Bd6 7. cxd6 c5 8. e4 f5 9. Ne2 h4 10. Ng3 hxg3 11. h4 Rh5 12. gxh5 g5 13. Bc4 dxc4 14. d4 f4 15. Be3 Bf5 16. exf5 fxe3 17. f4 e4 18. d5 Qb6 19. axb6 a5 20. b4 g4 21. b5 *

But best of all, curiously, is if we mix doubled and undoubled...

[title "16 passed pawns in 20.0 moves!"]
[fen ""]
[startply "40"]

1. d4 c5 2. f4 e5 3. f5 d5 4. Bf4 Be6
5. fxe6 exf4 6. e4 f5 7. e5 c4 8. Bd3 Bc5
9. dxc5 cxd3 10. c4 a5 11. b4 a4 12. Qb3 axb3
13. a4 b5 14. a5 h5 15. g4 Rh6 16. g5 d4
17. gxh6 g5 18. h4 g4 19. Ra4 Qg5 20. hxg5 bxa4 *

I don't think this can be beaten, and the other 20-move positions are quite narrowly defined: the captures from a file to h file must be R,Q,B,B,B,B,Q,R/N.


What are some popular anti sicilians and what are their respective strengths and weaknesses?

For me it was very helpful to pick one opening (continuation) from moves available in big chess database like here

http://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=3&n=3&ms=e4.c5&ns=3.3

I wouldn't recommend going with most common move  2.Nf3: that is what your opponent (a Sicilian player) is most used to, prepared and comfortable with.

For example Sicilian player played Smith Mora Gambit in less than one percent of all his games against 1.e4. But I played Smith Mora Gambit in 100% games against c5. Which can be considered an advantage.

Best thing is that you don't have to spend many hours studying all Sicilian dragons and other variations. But if your opponent wants to be ready for you he will have to study all variations of Smith Mora on top of all his previous studies of usual Sicilian theory.

(Don't forget to check sanity of variation with the best engine available.)


Can I resign if my opponent only has his King?

The FIDE laws of chess contain two parts: Basic rules of play (Sections 1-5) and Competition rules (Sections 6-12).

The first part is what defines how the pieces move, when the game ends, and so on. These rules indeed allow players to resign at any point before the end of the game, so you can resign right before you would give a checkmate, but not after you have released the piece after the final move. The second part explains things such as the chess clock, scoresheets, the role of the arbiter etc. Curiously this part seems to have nothing to say about deliberately losing.

So technically, one could say that resigning in a won position on purpose "is allowed" by the rules of chess.

However, the FIDE tournament rules, which are used in international tournaments, say that

  8.(f) Where it is clear games have been pre-arranged, the CA shall impose suitable penalties.

I don't have a good credible source, but I think that deliberately losing games (which has happened) are usually considered in a similar way. In addition, deliberately losing games is generally considered unacceptable behaviour in sports [citation needed]. So in my opinion, it is clear that deliberately losing a game is against the rules of a tournament (unless explicitly specified if the tournament organizers want to allow such tactical manoeuvres). You can always ask the tournament organizer if you want confirmation.


Why is the f7-g6-h5 pawn complex so important for black in rook endgames?

So just why is that f7-g6-h5 setup so important?

Compare the two pawn structures below, one on the kingside where Black has achieved the f7-g6-h5 structure and one on the queenside where White has achieved an advanced equivalent pawn structure.

[FEN "8/p4p2/Pp3Pp1/1Pp3Pp/2P4P/8/8/8 b - - 0 23"]

Now imagine kings on the board and one minor piece, say a knight for each side. White has more space, Black less so White is attacking. How could White win? How could Black defend?

Well, on the queenside Black has to guard against a sacrifice on b6. If White sacrifices on b6 then Black needs to be in the square of the White pawn on a6. That means no closer to the center than c7 or c8. Otherwise the piece capturing on b6 can't be taken.

Now look on the kingside and ask the same question. This time the equivalent sacrifice is on g6 and the Black king has to be no further away from the action than e6 or d6. Note that f5, taking the sacrificed piece with the king, is also possible.

e6, d6 and f5 are much closer to the center of the board than c7 and c8. Clearly if Black faces a situation on one side of the board like that on the kingside with pawns and rooks elsewhere on the board his king will be able to both defend and be much better placed for action, much more active, than if he faces the same situation but with pawns arranged as on the queenside.


Why didn't the Black rook capture the White bishop?

When a "total newbie" achieves such an overwhelming position against a computer, it most probably means that the computer was forced to make a "sub-optimal" move from time to time - to give the player a chance to win the game. The problem is that the computer has no clue what is a "reasonable" mistake from a human point of view.
"Rxf4" might have been the best choice (not avoiding defeat eventually). But the computer decided not to make the best move, since the programmers told him to do so. In this particular case, this resulted in choosing the second(?) best move, which from our human perspective is absolutely incomprehensible.


How can I train myself in pawn endgames?

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

You have several options:

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

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

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

Hope that helps.