Could two kings force checkmate against a lone king?

If these are two real kings, it is not possible. This is because one requirement of checkmate is that the black king is in check which cannot be achieved with any of the white kings, since it would put the white king in check.

If you say that white has only one king and a nonstandard chess piece that moves exactly like a king (i.e. this piece can be put next to the enemy king), then yes, it seems possible and quite easy to mate the black king.

For example, put the king and “king” for on c3 and f3, and the black king on d5. As you can see the two kings almost cover the whole 4th rank. Pushing the black king to the side of the board and into the corner is quite easy, e.g. if black starts with 1... Ke5, 2. Kc4 Kd6 3. Kf4 Ke6 4. Kc5. Once you have the black king around the corner you put white's real king on c6 and give checkmate with the "king", the piece that moves like a king but really isn’t one, on g7.

Here is a demonstration of said strategy in the replayer. Remember, white’s standard king is on b2 and their other “king” is on f3!

[FEN "8/8/8/3k4/8/5K2/1K6/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kc3 Ke5 2. Kc4 Kd6 3. Kf4 Ke6 4. Kc5 Kd7 5. Kf5 Ke7 6. Kc6 Ke8 7. Kf6 Kd8 8. Kf7 Kc8 9. Ke8 Kb8 10. Kd8 Ka8 11. Kb6 Kb8 12. Kdc7+ Ka8 13. Kcb7#


How important is playing chess games while you are working on to improve your chess?

Personally, I think that you have a very solid plan. When I was up-and-coming, I would study a lot every day, but I would only play about two tournaments a year. Up to a certain point, I would pick up about 200 rating points per tournament in the beginning, and later about 100. Of course, as I got over 2000, that slowed down some. Back then, we did not have the Internet, so I would also go to the local chess club for about three hours one night per week.

I would point out that former World Champion, Mikhail Botvinnik, was a big proponent of studying a lot, and only then, playing. Unfortunately, you can still have too much of a good thing, and I believe his rust showed itself when he lost to Tal in 1960.

P.S. I also think it is fantastic that you spend so much time studying the endgame. I read Ruben Fine's "Basic Chess Endings" cover to cover as an 1100 player, and to this day, it has still influenced my endgame play. The great thing about endgame work is that not much of it ever changes, and thus, it stays with you for a lifetime.


Standalone chess problem solver for Android

Did you try Droidfish ?

It runs stock Fish engine + you can edit positions.


Why Anand and Carlsen insisted on playing the same opening/defense

One of Anand's strengths relative to Carlsen is better opening knowledge, and Anand also had the better analysis team. (UPDATE: According to Carlsen in a recent interview, his team of seconds during the Chennai match consisted of Hammer, Fressinet and Eljanov.) To repeat openings was a natural match strategy for him, trying to turn the match into an opening discussion.

By varying openings, especially with white, Carlsen cleverly avoided most of Anand's preparation. The only set-up that was repeated was d3 against the Berlin (played in two white games by Anand), but Anand couldn't find any weakness there. Anand has played 1.e4 most of his career, and it's understandable that he tried to catch Carlsen there. The one game Anand played 1.d4 he lost, although probably from a strong position.

Yes, Anand should have taken more chances, but even with hindsight it is difficult to devise a  match strategy for him leading to success.


You do not have to accept the gambit with 2... dxc4. This is chess, not draughts; capturing is not mandatory. (You know that, but this is a standard reply to gambits and other sacrifices.)

Both 2... e6 (the 'orthodox' Queen's Gambit Declined) and 2... c6 (the Slav) are solid choices, many grandmasters have them in their repertoire. Black's position might be a little cramped in some of the lines that follow, but (s)he'll keep a strong influence in the center.


Obtaining the correct move from syzygy tablebases (Python)

I can't be absolutely certain, as these particular tablebases are unfamiliar to me.  However, in all other tablebases that I've used, from the Thompson and forward, you had, basically, to:

generate all legal moves from the position,
for each move, make the move and look up the score for the resulting position, and then
select 'the right move' based on those retrieved scores, compared to the score for the starting position.


After 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6, should White play 3. cxd5?

After 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Nc3, if black plays 4....Nf6 or 4....Be7, then white indeed succesfully transposed to the mainlines of the QGD and avoided any transpositions to the Slav.

Black's best reply is probably 4....c6, after which white has 3 good options: 5.Nf3, 5.Bf4 and 5.Qc2.

After 5.Nf3 black can play 5....Bd6 or 5....Bf5.
After 5.Bf4 black's best moves also are 5....Bd6 or 5....Bf5. (Black has an extra tempo compared to 3.Nc3 Be7 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bf4 c6 6.e3 Bd6, as in Wojtaszek - Kraemer)
After 5.Qc2, both 5....Bd6 and 5....g6 (with idea Bf5) seem good moves for black.

In all variations, black has a good version of the QGD, as white cannot prevent him from developing his bishop to f5.

It seems that after 3.cxd5 black equalizes rather easily and that 3.Nc3 or 3.Nf3 are much more principle moves.
However, 3.cxd5 cannot be called a mistake. If the Carlsbad structure suits your playing style, then it is worth a try.

  [StartPly "4"]

  [FEN ""]
  1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.cxd5 (3.Nc3 Be7 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bf4 c6 6.e3 Bd6) exd5 4.Nc3 c6 (4...Nf6)(4...Be7) 5.Qc2 (5.Nf3 Bd6 (5...Bf5)) (5.Bf4 Bd6 (5...Bf5)) 5...Bd6 (5...g6)


Why did Bobby Fischer play the 1992 rematch with Spassky?

After beating Spassky in 1972, Fischer laid out terms that were deemed unreasonable for his title defense in the next world championship against Karpov. With no resolution, Fischer's title was forfeited and Karpov became the new WC by default. Fischer subsequently fades into obscurity.

Nevertheless, Fischer never accepted his title loss, and still considered himself to be the WC, having never actually lost a WC match. Thus, for what he considered to be his title defense, he plays a rematch against Spassky in 1992, with a prize fund of US$5 million.

Fischer wins the rematch, declares himself the undisputed world chess champion (a claim that isn't widely acknowledged, with Kasparov as the official reigning champion at the time), never plays competitively again, and the rest is history.

To explicitly answer your question: Fischer was trying to assert that he was the world champion, contrary to the official result that he had already lost his title in 1975. He also needed the money, which may or may not have been the more  significant factor.

  Source: Kasparov, Garry K. The New York Review of Books, Volume 58, Number 4 - The Bobby Fischer Defense. 10 Mar. 2011

    It was therefore quite a shock to see the real live Bobby Fischer reappear in 1992, followed by the first Fischer chess game in twenty years, followed by twenty-nine more. Lured out of self-imposed isolation by a chance to face his old rival Spassky on the twentieth anniversary of their world championship match—and by a $5 million prize fund—a heavy and bearded Fischer appeared before the world in a resort in Yugoslavia, a nation in the process of being bloodily torn apart.

    [...] Fischer, who still called himself the world champion [...]


What first moves would be advantageous for black?


How to determine objectively if a move is passive or aggressive?

Let me answer your questions precisely and technically:

Q: I also know that some softwares like chessmaster...?

Nobody knows for sure because Chessmaster is closed source. Fortunately, it's not hard to replicate Chessmaster personalities. There're several ways to do it:

Define different piece-square-table (PST) for each personality
Define different tuning parameters for each personality
Scale the attacking parameters and/or defending parameters with a constant
Give an appropriate Contempt value

It takes some work to create a new personality, but it should be just minor changes to a working chess engine.

The Stockfish engine had an UCI option for optimizating attacking and defending parameters. This was done by scaling the evaluation score accordingly. For example, if you scaled your own king safety score by a positive constant greater than 1, the engine would be more defensive.

Q: How to determine if a move is aggregative or defensive?

Tony, Brian and others gave good suggestions, but their suggestions are for human players and too abstract for a computer. If you want a computer to tell you whether a move is aggressive or defensive, you may need:

Null move
Monte-Carlo tree search

Null-move is simple and it's been implemented in various chess softwares. The idea is simple - if the move doesn't threaten anything, it should not be an aggressive move.

Monte-Carlo tree search goes even further. You can use it to determine the distribution of your payoff. If a move is aggressive, the margin error should be smaller. If a move is defensive, the margin error should be bigger.


Productive tactical puzzles: random or themed?

In my experience if you are starting out it is better to solve same thematic tactical problems in a series and slowly moving onto other themes. After you get accustomed with the themes random problems or problems which doesn't tell you what to do helps.


What are good resources for how to play against the french as white?

The main problem you have playing against the French as white, particularly if you don't play it as black, is that there is just so much theory to learn. If you try and play either  the Tarrasch or the Winawer you don't know if you are going to get a wild tactical game or end up in a tame, boring Rubinstein. Your opponent makes the choice. Even if your opponent declines to play 3 ... de there are still many ways for black to play and they are ways where one small error can lead to an instant lost game.

Your best bet then is to either play the Advance variation with 3. e5 or the more boring Exchange variation with 3. ed. The Advance gives more scope for tactical play and the Exchange more scope for positional play, although you can still have sharp games in the Exchange. They just tend to have a longer fuse. Either one will leave you much less to learn than either the Tarrasch or Winawer with much less chance of a quick loss.

Whichever one you choose learn it thoroughly and stick with it.


Engine output: FEN string when blundering

You may want to do it yourself. Please take a look at a PGN annotation project on Github:

https://github.com/fsmosca/chess-artist

The source code is easy to follow.

To get the engine evaluation, you have:

  engBestMove, engBestScore, complexityNumber, moveChanges, pvLine = self.GetSearchScoreBeforeMove(gameNode.board().fen(), side)

To check whether a move you play is a blunder:

  if abs(engBestScore) > 3.0:

To print FEN:

  fen = gameNode.board().fen()

To print FEN and whatever you want to the console, follow the implementation in:

  def WriteNotation(self, side, fmvn, sanMove, bookMove, posScore,
                        isGameOver, engMove, engScore, complexityNumber,
                        moveChanges, pvLine, threatMove):


How does one promote a third queen in an over the board game?

Under USCF rule 8F7:, it is acceptable to place a rook upside-down if a spare queen is not available.

If the desired piece is not available to replace a promoted pawn, the player may stop both clocks in order to locate that piece and place it on the board. A player who cannot quickly find such a piece may request the assistance of the director. It is common practice, however, to play using an upside-down rook for a second queen. In the absence of the player’s announcement to the contrary, an upside-down rook shall be considered a queen.

Under FIDE rules, you can't use an upside-down rook as a spare queen, but you can find the answer hidden in the section about the clocks:

6.11.2  A player may stop the chessclock only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, for example when promotion has taken place and the piece required is not available.


Threatening the Queen in the bishop with Bg5

When your pawns are on the dark squares, as in your examples, it is often "Positionally" desirable to exchange your dark squared Bishop so responses like ...Be7? would leave Black weak on the dark squares.

But in chess you must be concrete, which means you must calculate.  What if Black plays ...f6 which is often a thematic assault on your pawn chain -- now with tempo.

Look over grandmaster games and learn from what they do.


What fraction of a Pawn do the most powerful chess engines (Komodo, Stockfish, Houdini, Fritz, Hiarcs, Gull, ...) use as their evaluation unit?

Chess engines use centi-pawns.

https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Centipawns


I would not normally answer this question since the other answer points out the basis for the first move of the variation, but only the first move. It left out why white is so lost in that variation, and why Byrne did not play it.

At the end of both lines below, there are written notes explaining the resulting position.

 [Event "New York Rosenwald-03"]
 [Site "New York"]
 [Date "1956.10.17"]
 [Round "8"]
 [White "Byrne, Donald"]
 [Black "Fischer, Robert James"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [ECO "D97"]
 [PlyCount "82"]
 [EventDate "1956.10.07"]
 [EventType "tourn"]
 [EventRounds "11"]
 [EventCountry "USA"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. d4 O-O 5. Bf4 d5 6. Qb3 dxc4 7. Qxc4 c6 8. e4 Nbd7 9. Rd1 Nb6 10. Qc5 Bg4 11. Bg5 Na4 12. Qa3 Nxc3 13. bxc3 Nxe4 14. Bxe7 Qb6 15. Bc4 Nxc3 16. Bc5 Rfe8+ 17. Kf1 Be6 18. Bxb6 (18. Qxc3 Qxc5 19. dxc5 (19. Rc1 Bxc4+ 20. Qxc4 Qf5 {And in this position, it is particularly hard to get the white king out because g3 is impossible due to Qxf3 (and if it moves or becomes defended, then Qh3 sealing in the Rh1), and again white is down a pawn with the worse minor piece, d4 is weak, and white is behind in development with a weak king. That the queens did not come off exacerbate that issue.}) 19... Bxc3 20. Bxe6 Rxe6 {And white is lost because he is down a pawn, the black bishop is much better than the white knight, both a2 and especially c5 are weak, and white is behind in development and has to deal with getting the Rh1 out. One more thing that would probably come into play also is that with the dark-squared bishop, f2 is particularly vulnerable too.}) 18... Bxc4+ 19. Kg1 Ne2+ 20. Kf1 Nxd4+ 21. Kg1 Ne2+ 22. Kf1 Nc3+ 23. Kg1 axb6 24. Qb4 Ra4 25. Qxb6 Nxd1 26. h3 Rxa2 27. Kh2 Nxf2 28. Re1 Rxe1 29. Qd8+ Bf8 30. Nxe1 Bd5 31. Nf3 Ne4 32. Qb8 b5 33. h4 h5 34. Ne5 Kg7 35. Kg1 Bc5+ 36. Kf1 Ng3+ 37. Ke1 Bb4+ 38. Kd1 Bb3+ 39. Kc1 Ne2+ 40. Kb1 Nc3+ 41. Kc1 Rc2# 0-1


Do longer games better your chances of honing chess skills?

Yes, more longer the game you can play, it can test your concentration, visualization and memory power.

When I initially started playing Chess, I was always excited to play blitz Chess. I kept playing and finally I couldn't improve my Chess as I didn't improve what was needed.

Recently I played with a time control of 1 hour in my debut FIDE tournament, I took the most time for my moves against my opponent. All 9 players I met in the field were having Class C rating but then they had the basics right. I could win against 6 and drew with one while losing the remaining two because of minor blunders. Luckily, I could open my FIDE rating in my very first tournament, though the rating is not much to be proud of. It set a platform for me to concentrate more on longer games and less on blitz.


1. Do you agree on the above? 2. How would you define chess strategy?
From Chess Strategy: Move by Move by Adam Hunt, he defines chess strategy in his introduction as:

Chess strategy is concerned with the correct evaluation of a position and the formulation
of an effective plan based upon its characteristic features. When the word ‘strategy’ is
mentioned, people tend to jump to the conclusion that we are talking about long-term
middlegame planning, and that you have to be some sort of psychic who can see the future,
but that is rarely the case. Many features of a given position which are strategically
important will evolve out of the opening and finish in the endgame, so it would be foolish
to completely ignore these phases of the game. Plans can be short or long term, depending
on how the landscape in front of you is changing as the game progresses. This is why the
subject is so complex and so much material is available on it.

Emphasis is mine.
So, to contrast to your definition:

Hunt does not restrict himself to long term planning in his definition
It spans all phases of the game, including the opening
There is no explicit mention of tactical/positional devices, but I think it is covered in his "characteristic features"

3. If you had to choose only 1 game that illustrates chess strategy in action what would that game be?
On the basis of the complexity of the subject, no one game will highlight all elements of chess strategy.
4. What methods do you use to evaluate a position to determine your strategy?
This is covered in How To Reassess Your Chess by Jeremy Silman. He calls Hunt's "characteristic features" imbalances, i.e. differences in the Black and White armies. He considers:

Superior Minor Piece: Bishops vs. Knights
Pawn Structure—Weak Pawns, Passed Pawns, etc.
Space
Material
Control of a Key File (or indeed control of a key line)
Control of a Hole/Weak Square
Lead in Development
Initiative
King Safety


What is the probability that a position has been played before?

You can't calculate a percentage. But there are some interesting points to make on that topic.

1) The possibility of a position being played before goes down the more moves you make (obviously)

2) However, positions in openings with more book moves (ex. Ruy Lopez and Sicilian) come up more.

3) If an opening was played long ago but with a terrible loss, you might be surprised how few games there are with that opening.


Stockfish - Function that predicts checkmate

I don't understand why this is an issue. What you're asking is just chess engine search. Nothing more.

Generate all possible moves to a list
Make a move to the position
Search the new position with Stockfish (the search<> function)
Check the returned negamax value if the move leads to forced mate
Undo the move
Get the next move from the list, go back to (2) and repeat


It comes with the threat of Qa8+, which forces black to return the knight.
And white is up material, so exchanges are good.


Are there any 'romantic' chess programs?

Houdini may be worthwhile checking out.  See link.

http://www.cruxis.com/chess/houdini.htm
(4th paragraph down)

  "The Chess Club Live Facebook page phrased it like this: "If there
  ever was a computer descendant of the romantic players like Morphy,
  Anderssen, Spielmann, Marshall, Bogoljubow, Tal, Nezhmetdinov, Shirov,
  Morozevich it would be Houdini. Houdini is the current World number 1
  chess engine and plays in a very romantic style."

I didn't notice when the quote was from because the last time in the TCEC Championship that Houdini was #1 was 2013.

I use Houdini 5.  I can attest to the romantic style of play.  Quite a change when you are used to seeing how Komodo or Stockfish play.  Settings are relatively user friendly.

It is a commercial engine but the developers do offer Houdini 1.5 for free.


Is there a list of hidden/deleted Stockfish commands?

Look at the source code:

  https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/blob/master/src/uci.cpp

   // Additional custom non-UCI commands, mainly for debugging
      else if (token == "flip")  pos.flip();
      else if (token == "bench") bench(pos, is, states);
      else if (token == "d")     sync_cout << pos << sync_endl;
      else if (token == "eval")  sync_cout << Eval::trace(pos) << sync_endl;

Your "d" command is there, and others.


Generally the first advice is always to train lots of tactics.

That means you should start solving tactical exercises regularly. On your level this will lead to rapid improvement. You can train online on a variety of sites or get a good beginner's book.

The second important point is just to play. Over time you will get an idea of where your weaknesses are and you can start to look up opening lines, specific endgames or strategic themes.


About how to compose retrograde analysis problems

See my answer to About retrograde analysis. The Retro Corner is not about composing. but it has lots of easy and hard examples with detailed solutions, comments, etc.


Is it still back-rank mate when there aren't friendly pieces blocking?

First ask yourself why the differentiation of a 'back-rank mate' is meaningful.

Generalized patterns that we call 'tactics' have names because it helps us to learn from them and respond to them. For example, I personally find the distinction between 'pin' and 'skewer' meaningful because it helps to separate the concepts of attacking 'through' either a less valuable enemy piece or a more valuable enemy piece. Likewise, understanding that pins with enemy kings on the other side are 'hard', and pins with enemy knights on the other side are 'soft' helps to make you wary of 'desperado' attacks that might help break your pin.

Really a back-rank mate could be seen as just a partially smothered mate. But it's important to see the distinction because of how common it is, so you can be aware of preparing for it. It is an acknowledgement of the fact that at the start of the game, your king only has 6 possible moves (being on the 1st rank), of which 3 are taken up by pawns, leaving you with just 2 open squares if your other pieces have developed already. Even after you castle, your king can remain vulnerable because it has only 2 squares of freedom, and both of those are on the same rank - meaning 3 of the opponent's pieces can checkmate your king with no support!

So, is it helpful to consider your examples above 'back rank mates'? I would argue yes. To me, being wary of back rank mates simply means I need to make sure my king has an 'escape path' when necessary; it is not so critical for me to say "back-rank pawn only" mate vs "back-rank my pieces only" mate vs "back-rank-2-of-my-pawns-and-by-the-way-a-bishop-is-attacking-h7" mate. In all 3 of those 'back-rank sub-types', I have failed to provide my king with enough mobility to avoid a common mating pattern.

Edit to consider your new example of mate with a knight, on the back rank. I would say that is not a 'back rank mate', because it does not involve an attack along the back rank, by the queen or a rook. Without that key element, the mating pattern is simply very different.


Issue with ChessBase results when filtering by "Good Games"

The issue isn't with the software but more with the database itself.
I rebuilt the Good Games Index, and that appeared to fix the issue you are facing for me.
That being said many of the Blitz Games that would often get captured in your scope are actually really pretty solid games and worth reviewing.


How to use a Polyglot book in C# with a chess engine

Sorry, I don't have C# code. Can we do it in C++?

https://github.com/Warpten/Fruit-2.1/blob/master/src/book.cpp

Polyglot book is defined like:

struct entry_t {
   uint64 key;
   uint16 move;
   uint16 count;
   uint16 n;
   uint16 sum;
};

You may want to wrap the C++ code inside your C#. How to do that is out of scope here.


What rating system does the Play Magnus app use?

This is a list of Magnus Carlsen’s ratings at each of his birthdays.

9 years old: 900
Norwegian rating.
10 years old: 1645
Still Norwegian rating.
11 years old: 2127
FIDE rating now.
12 years old: 2250
Magnus became an FM at age 11.
13 years old: 2450
Magnus became an IM at age 12.
14 years old: 2581
Magnus became a GM at age 13, the youngest in the world and the second youngest ever at the time.
15 years old: 2570
Magnus went through his only real slump that year.
16 years old: 2698
Magnus played in his first super tournaments right around this time.
17 years old: 2714
Magnus reached 2700 at 16 as the youngest ever, a record that has since been beaten by Wei Yi.
18 years old: 2786
Magnus was now number four in the world.
19 years old: 2801
Magnus reached 2800 at 18 as the youngest ever. The record still stands.
20 years old: 2802
Magnus became the highest rated player in the world at 19, as the youngest ever.
21 years old: 2826
Magnus solidified his top spot on the world rankings this year, and has held it since.
22 years old: 2848
Magnus was really closing in on Kasparov’s rating record now, and surpassed it shortly after his 22nd birthday.
23 years old: 2870
At this point there was a whopping 70 point difference between Magnus and the second rated player, Aronian.
24 years old: 2863
Magnus peaked at 2882 (unofficially 2889) that year, the highest rating ever.
25 years old: 2850
A minor dip in form.
26 years old: 2853
Still number one by a good margin.

About the app - of course there may be flaws, concerning its system there is no information. Although I don't see any reason why they would deviate from the ELO system (which is used in official FIDE games), whose formulas aren't secret and can be found even on Wikipedia.


Is memorizing tactics a sign of improvement?

I think it is a sign of greater awareness of certain patterns and positions. So my answer is Yes, I do think it is a sign of improvement.
I doubt that there is anything wrong with going back through an old chess book, even if you remember everything -- rather I think it is good; it is something that I have done quite often as well. It will certainly reinforce what you already know. I would advance and get more exercises to work on, but you will find that all the previous exercises that you have done will help a great deal with your new exercises.


White is in a positional bind on the queenside. When cramped, a general strategy is to exchange pieces, but you must be careful not to allow all of your best pieces to be exchanged, e.g. if all the minor pieces in this position are traded off except for white's dark squared bishop, he will be in trouble.

Re1 with the idea of e4, to free white's position, is a standard idea that seems unstoppable in this position (black can try putting a piece on e4, but the exchanges that follow are favorable for white). An important point about closed positions is that you tend to be able to get away with slow maneuvers. So for this game, you could alternatively try Be1, Qe2, play Bxb4 if you can, and try to play e4 when the time is right. You may want to include Nd1-f2, and then c4 becomes an option.


How did the engines improve since Deep Blue?

Maybe you can take a look at TalkChess, a forum dedicated to computer chess. I found a recent thread that might be interesting for you: Progress in 30 years by four intervals of 7-8 years

A couple of matches between (former) top engines are played on the same hardware. The test suggests that in the recent years (2002-2017), the gain is mainly made by software improvements. In the test, Stockfish (2017) scored an impressive 94/100 against RobboLito (2009), while RobboLito, on its turn, crushed Shredder (2002) with 92/100.

An important remark: as parallel computing is not implemented in the older engines, the test was performed on a single core. As a result, the hardware gain by parallel machines is not measured. On the other hand, you could argue that parallel computing is also a software gain: it is not easy to design and implement an efficient and well-scaling parallelization for the search algorithm.

The Stockfish engine is open source, so the algorithmic improvements are public. A lot of documentation can be found on https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com


Is this endgame scenario winnable for white?

Looks rather lost (for white) to me.  Black basically has a fortress except for the a3 pawn.

If white wanted to win this (with black not doing anything), you'd have to win the a3 pawn, play a4 and promote a pawn. I don't think white has time for this as black's e,f-pawns will run very fast.

So the only realistic chance is a perpetual.


How to setup ChessX to tell the name of the current opening?

Easy, post a feature request on chessx.sourceforge.net, as ChessX only displays eco codes. But this can easily be changed, as the names are part of the eco file loaded at startup.


Which openings offer the best chances to reach an endgame quickly?

The Berlin comes to mind.

White can avoid this famous endgame, but only at the cost of relinquishing any prospects for an opening advantage.

Generally I have a hard time coming up with openings leading to endgames. There are rather variations within openings that are endgame prone.

To find variations like the Berlin I advice you to look at the games of Ulf Andersson. He is famous for going into the endgame as quickly as possible.


Is it inadvisable to analyze or play long chess games on a smartphone?

Advisable to use smartphone?  Not really. Okay occasionally if you must look at a position.

As you noted a PC is more helpful to seeing the board and planning your moves.

I have found no difference between using PC screen adjusted to my preferences and using a real chessboard with physical items on it.
For me the difference between chess sets and boards is more than the difference between my preferred set and board and the PC screen with my choice of size and font.

Note that moving the men on your phone or pc will negate any OTB experience for a tournament that you would get by analyzing without moving them to improve your analysis vision for 'real' chess in an OTB tournament.


Can you recommend a closed opening for black against 1.e4?

In principle, a "good" system that leads to a closed game is not possible to achieve unless the opponent co-operates in achieving a closed position.

You probably already know how White can achieve an open game with the French or Caro Kann or Alekhine or simple symmetrical king pawn openings.

  [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
  1. e4 e5 (1...e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. c4) (1...c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4)
  (1... Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. c4 Nb6 4. d4 d6 5. exd6 )
  2. Nf3 (2... Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d4) Nc6 3. d4
  (2. f4!?)

So I think your best bet would be those openings which do not move a pawn in the center very early on. The only "good" openings among those (regularly played by Grandmasters) would be the Pirc or Modern Defense.

The Modern Defense does tend to be an off-beat line (good for you since that's what you're looking for). It can often transpose into the Pirc. The general principles of the Modern and the Pirc are the same - develop the Bishop on the flank and counter in the center at a later stage. If White co-operates in closing the position, which usually happens if Black plays e5 followed by White's d5, then Black can counter with the f5 break.

      [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
      1. e4 g6
      2. d4 Bg7

This is the basic position of the Modern Defense. As you can see, this position can be reached even after 1. d4, so it's very flexible.

There are many different ways for White to continue in this position. Black's usual idea is to play d6 followed by a later e5, although there are games where Black has tried to break white's center with c6 and d5 or even c5.

Here, I give some sample lines which may lead to closed positions, including all three ideas of c5, d5 and e5. Note that even in these lines, White has the option to open the position, but it doesn't necessarily give White an advantage in doing so. In fact in many lines, White prefers to close the position to cramp Black for space.

   [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
   1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 (3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. Qe2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Bb3 Bg4
   8. Nbd2 e5) (3. c4 d6 (3... c5 4. d5 d6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Nf3 O-O 7. Be2 Bg4 8. O-O
   Nbd7 9. h3 Bxf3 10. Bxf3 a6) 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. Be3 e5 6. d5 Nce7) 3... d6 (3... c6
   4. Nf3 d5 5. e5 Bg4 6. Bf4 Qb6) 4. Nf3 (4. f4 Nf6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Bd3 Na6 7. O-O
   c5 8. d5) (4. Be3 Nf6 5. Qd2 c6 6. f3 b5 7. g4 h5 8. g5 Nfd7 9. f4 Nb6 10. Nf3
    O-O) 4... c6 5. Be2 Nf6 6. O-O O-O 7. a4 Nbd7 8. h3 Qc7 9. Be3 b6 10. Qd2 Bb7
   11. Bh6 a6 12. Bxg7 Kxg7 13. Qe3 e5 *


Fried Liver Attack in the Scotch Gambit - Two Knights Defense?

Given the moves in your post, the position favors White.  I think most White players would enjoy the seeing the Black King out there, suffering a pin, sitting on an open file, and flapping in the breeze on move 8 with Queens on the board.

Here's what Stockfish thinks after a reasonably long think:

[fen ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.Ng5 d5 6.exd5 Nxd5 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.Qf3+ Ke6
 9.O-O Ne5 10.Re1 c6 11.Bf4 Bd6 12.Qg3 Qf6 13.Nd2 Re8 14.Nf3 Kf7 15.Nxe5+ Kg8 16.Nd3 Rxe1+ 17.Rxe1 Bf8 18.Be5 Qh6 19.Bxd4 Be6 20.Bb3 a5 21.a4 Bf7 22.h3 Rd8 23.Ne5

...with a small advantage for White.  I see both players having a good game here.  However, I suspect Black is walking a tightrope.  That is, to maintain parity, Black must play much better than White.


What is the fastest way for a player to reach the stage where they are not opening with nonsense moves?

The concept that caused me to stop making nonsense moves is control the center.

That meant moving out the d and e pawns, possibly with the c and f pawns, either abreast, or in support. More likely, I'd move a knight to c3 or f3 (c6 or f6 if Black), then a bishop or two. Castle as soon as possible, before undertaking activities on the wings.

That eliminated a lot of bad opening moves like b3, g3, and worse, a4 and h4.


Good online database, or do I need ChessBase?

Chessbase is by far the best preparation tool - almost all of the top players use it for a reason (as well as most serious players in general).

I wouldn't recommend using the online version though, for a couple of reasons.  As you have found, a few features seem to be missing.  In addition, having wifi access is required if you want to look someone up (which can be inconvenient if you're at a tournament and need to prepare for an opponent quickly).

The ChessBase program is the way to go.  I've been using it for around 10 years now and it's been great.  It's straightforward to look any player up in any database.  The program also supports the top chess engines (like Komodo, Stockfish), and allows you to save your games in databases.

The normal version would be fine.  The more premium versions give access to a few perks, but I think it's overrated.


When does the middlegame end and the endgame begin?

There isn't a clear-cut definition of endgame, or a set of criteria where you could draw a line and say "after this move, we have reached the endgame."

Quoting Glenn Flear in his excellent book Practical Endgame Play - Beyond the Basics:

  The word 'endgame' is widely used and generally implies the final phase of the game  (however long!), assuming that there already has been significant simplification.  If we had to define the word more rigorously in terms of material then opinions vary.  Some specialists consider all queenless positions to be endgames, others those where both sides have limited material, for instance less than queen and rook.

So basically, once the position becomes 'simplified' to the point where more often than not you are using your few remaining pieces (including the King) to try and queen a pawn, rather than organize an attack.  Also included would be the end result of queening a pawn (or winning significant material), i.e. positions where you mate the King with only a few pieces on the board, like King and Rook vs. King.


Looking for a real game ending by ... Nf6! leading to a perpetual check by White

This game meets the criteria of Black plays the best move Nf6, and after one move, White has nothing better than a perpetual. However, it's probably not quite what you're looking for. If Black plays the second best move, Stockfish evaluates the position as +0.12, which is a rather slim advantage for White. So it's hardly the "only saving move". Furthermore, White has the option of not pursuing the perpetual and playing on - according to Stockfish, the resulting position is "nothing better than" the perpetual, but it's not really worse either.

The Nf6 move that is relevant occurs on move 44 by black, and soon thereafter white perpetually checks black with their rook. 17 moves later a draw occurs.

White was rated 2500, and Black was rated 2537. Both were grandmasters at the time.

[Event "Redbus KO"]
[Site "Southend"]
[Date "2002.04.01"]
[Round "4.2"]
[White "Ward, Chris G"]
[Black "Lalic, Bogdan"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "2500"]
[BlackElo "2537"]
[ECO "A20"]
[EventDate "2002.03.29"]
[PlyCount "122"]
[Source "ChessliB"]
[SourceDate "2003.01.21"]
[FEN ""]

1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 c6 4.Nf3 e4 5.Nd4 d5 6.cxd5 Qxd5 7.Nc2 Qh5 8.h3 Bc5
9.b4 Bb6 10.Bb2 Nbd7 11.Ne3 O-O 12.Nc3 Re8 13.Qc2 Qg6 14.b5 Bd4 15.bxc6
bxc6 16.Qa4 c5 17.Rb1 Nb6 18.Qc2 Bd7 19.a4 Bxc3 20.Bxc3 Bxa4 21.Qa2 Nfd7
22.h4 Qe6 23.Qxe6 Rxe6 24.h5 Bc6 25.h6 g6 26.O-O f5 27.Ra1 Na4 28.Bg7 Ndb6
29.Rfc1 Rd8 30.Ra2 Bb5 31.Kf1 a6 32.Ke1 c4 33.Nc2 Red6 34.Na3 Nc5 35.f3
Nb3 36.Rcc2 e3 37.dxe3 Nd5 38.Nxc4 Rc6 39.Ne5 Re6 40.Rcb2 Nc5 41.Rd2 Red6
42.Kf2 Ne6 43.f4 Nxg7 44.hxg7 Nf6 45.Rxd6 Rxd6 46.Rc2 Kxg7 47.Rc7+ Kg8 48.
Rc8+ Kg7 49.Rc7+ Kg8 50.Ra7 Nd7 51.Nf3 Nf6 52.Ne5 Nd7 53.Ra8+ Kg7 54.Ra7
Kg8 55.Ra8+ Kg7 56.Ra7 Kg8 57.Nf3 Nf6 58.Ne5 Nd7 59.Nf3 Nf6 60.Ne5 Nd7 61.
Nf3 Nf6 ( 61...Nf6 32:+0.00 62.Ne5 Rd2 63.Ra8+ Kg7 64.Ra7+ Kg8) 1/2-1/2


[Date "1910.01.07"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Carl Schlechter"]
[Black "Emanuel Lasker"]

1. e4 {Notes by J. R. Capablanca} e5 {This is Black's second move!} 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 *

This is a sample PGN game. You'll just need { and } to enclose your comments. But you should use a chess program to do it for you. SCID is free and can do it for you.


Is there a Windows based command line tool to convert cbh to pgn?

If you have Chess Assistant (CA), it will do the conversion for you.  For example, within CA just right click game on the game and go to Edit --> Copy to Clipboard and pick pgn.


First of all, everything on Github can be downloaded freely.  Normally, there should be a download button somewhere.  Do you have a specific project in mind sou want to download?  There seem to be several tablebase generators available.  One is available from https://github.com/syzygy1/tb it seems to have decent documentation.  There is a green button on the top right labeled "Clone or download", which allows you to download the whole thing as a zip file.  From there you will have to follow the provided instructions to compile it.  For questions on this another, more programming-related SE, may be more appropriate.


Why is the "Queens Gambit" referred to as a gambit?

The fact that a gambit involves a sacrifice in no way means that the sacrifice is permanent. Very few mainline gambit openings for White leave the gambit player with no means of retaking his material.

While Wikipedia does not necessarily make the distinction between a gambit and a sacrifice, I would contend that there is a difference:

A sacrifice is intended as a permanent loss in material in exchange for a superior position.
A gambit is a temporary loss to hasten development or secure a position.

Based on this understanding, there is no reason NOT to consider the Queen's Gambit as a true gambit, unless you wish to state arbitrarily that there must be more than X number of plies between the loss and the subsequent regaining.


Simplest plan to stop my queen from getting trapped

I don't think that this is an easy win at all. In fact it is not clear who is the trapper and who is the "trappee". To close the trap, White has no need even to develop. He can simply play Kd2!! followed by Bg2. This refutes, for example, N6e7.
The only defence that I can see starts with 8..e4! 9.Qxe4+ Kd8! 10.fxg6 hxg6. Without analysing further White has a lot of compensation. However, this is all moot. Instead of the adventurous 7..Qxh1, Black has simply 7..Qxf5 with two extra Pawns and no real problems.


What is the English maxim for "Rather losing a material / piece, than losing a tempo / an initiative"?

I might not understand the Chinese idiom correctly, but to me it sounds like--

"Lose the battle but win the war"

--which has the meaning of, it is better to sacrifice some small thing for the bigger picture (to me, that sounds like the crux of the Chinese idiom you shared).


Learning steps of a non-professional or play-for-fun player

Go to your local chess club. They will match you with opponents of an appropriate skill level. In addition, there will be people there willing to help you improve.


Chess software to evaluate move and give marks

I want a software that will evaluate how much percent I am correct not just whether my move is the best move or not.

Chess engines do not usually evaluate moves as percentages (and I'm not even sure how that would work tbh), but by evaluating the position in terms of a normative standard (like the material value of 1 pawn, with +1 meaning white is up by 1 pawn, and -1 meaning that black is up by one pawn) assuming optimal play.

Simply put: every position has an evaluation based on positional and material considerations (which is  engine dependent, hence why different engines would often assign different evaluations to the same position). Every move you make causes a transition between two distinct positions, and the quality of your move is the difference of this evaluation from the before to after position.

If the engine got the evaluation right, the optimal move has value 0. The value is 0 because the engine believes that this is the optimal move, and assigned the evaluation based on that move. From white's perspective, a sub-optimal move would have a value of < 0. A value of -0.3, for example, would typically mean that the position after the move was made is now 1/3 pawn worse than before.

Almost every chess engine I've come across can show you the difference in evaluation between two positions, or it is at least easy to calculate (if the evaluation went from 1.2 to 0.7 after white's move, then the move quality was -0.5, or half the value of a pawn, which is typically considered a reasonably big blunder). Shredder and DroidFish (which is free and available on Android) are examples of chess apps that provide this feature, but there are many others on pretty much every conceivable platform.


Is there a GUI software that exports chess diagrams for chess authors?

Chessbase products have to capability to export an image or using a chess diagram font as rtf to be pasted directly into word.


What are the techniques one can use to for chess board?

To address the edit to the question
If you're receiving the pieces in a random order and you don't have any information about future pieces, the way to arrange the pieces would be to give pieces the least amount of scope. For example, if I were to receive a queen on the first turn, I would place it in one of the four corners. Some more rules would be to keep knights close to each other and pawns stacked one on top of the other. All of these strategies are a bit obvious, but it's difficult to have a consistent strategy to use as there are so many potential combinations of pieces.

This seems to me as more of a programming question than a chess one, but it's interesting nontheless! After thinking for a bit, I would hypthesize that the best way to approach this problem would be to use the knights as a baseline. It's well known that the maximum number of knights one can fit on a board is 32 (simply placing them on all squares of the same color), therefore having this as your starting position is logical as this is the maximum occupancy you can have with an individual piece. This strategy extends itself to an N x N board.

Afterwards, I would use pawns as their attacking prowess is limited to forward diagonals of one square in scope. They can occupy every other column (not rows as this would be limited to 2, 4, and 6 if following conventional rules), and this will add N/4 more occupied squares for an NxN board. This generalizes to a total number of occupied squares to N/2 + N/4, or simply 3N/4 total occupied squares.

This is the result of around 5 minutes of consideration, so my algorithm may be flawed. I hope this helps answer your question!


Why is it common to castle right after the opponent castles?

Castling is a certain 'committing' move; if you castle kingside, your king is stuck there until the late middlegame / early endgame, and you cannot easily launch a pawn storm on that side. The first allows your opponent to castle queenside and know he/she can launch a king attack (but possibly allowing your attack as well); the second allows your opponent to castle kingside and know his/her king is relatively safe.

Also, the castling move doesn't threaten anything (like capturing an undefended piece, or a fork), so if you castle, the opponent doesn't have to defend and has time to castle as well.

A final thing to note is that castling can occur as early as move 4, and really late (move 20 or later is not that uncommon), but in most games it happens between moves 6-12*. This makes the probability that both castling moves (if both players castle) happen right after each other much higher than if castling would happen throughout the entire game.

*: I'm just making an educated guess here; I'm very interested in the actual statistics.


Did predecessors of modern chess use dice to determine which piece to move?

Richard Eales addresses this question in Chess: The History of a Game (p.30):

  On one last matter, whether or not the early Indian chess was played
  with dice, there is simply no evidence on which to base a general
  conclusion. Al-Biruni saw dice being used in the four-handed game
  (throw two to move the chariot, three for the horse, and so on), but
  this is a practice which continually crops up in the history of
  pre-modern chess, particularly when gambling was involved. The
  Chatrang-namak described chatrang as a game of pure skill but the dice were not unknown in Islam, and certainly reappeared more
  frequently in medieval Europe. There is no clue preserved in the
  structure of the game to betray whether the 'original' chess was
  played with dice or not.

So it seems that this question is one on which we should remain agnostic.


"Pawn Power in Chess" by Hans Kmoch vs "Pawn Structure Chess" by Andrew Soltis

I haven't read either but here's an excerpt from Dan Heisman's Novice Nook #17

  A "break" move is a pawn move that “breaks up” an opponent's (fixed)
  pawn chain by attacking the opponent's pawns with that pawn. In his
  classic work Pawn Power in Chess, Hans Kmoch calls this move a
  liberation lever. Don’t be put off by Kmoch’s arcane nomenclature –
  Pawn Power is a great book for players in the 1300-1900 rating range.

[edit] Current world champion Viswanathan Anand also mentioned the book in this interview.

Hope this helps for something... I'm also thinking of buying one of these two books.


How can I migrate my openings from Chess Position Trainer to another database when the pgn too large to import?

You can export subsets of your tree of moves or export each variation as an individual game within the same file. Acording to the manual: "You can export an opening or topic as PGN file which then can be imported by many other chess programs. Several options let you configure the export to your preferences. The  most importantone might be the option to export as “One Game” or “One  Game  per  Variation” (the latter is only available for openings).


How do FIDE rated players perform on lichess?

I went through the list of LiChess classical top 200 players and collected the FIDE ratings of LiChess classical ratings of anyone who I could verify on FIDE's website as actually having a FIDE rating:

LiChess FIDE    LiChess username    Name

2585    2265    ClassyPlays         Thibault Dudognon [FM]
2389    1869    nikkon2006          Nikita Konstantinov
2373    2274    PchelkinVK          Andrey Ermolaev [CM]
2357    1780    LeProfessionnel     Xavier Bohaer
2329    1963    Callmoon            Lina Nassr [WIM]
2299    2249    Peristeria          Marcus Schmuecker
2290    2214    Crocodilu1976       Adrian Stanca
2278    1899    TonoyanRob7         Robert Tonoyan
2271    1900    CamelClutcher       Daniel Herman
2269    1985    Chess-For-All       Alexey Pugach
2242    2242    weichi              Eugeny Pankin
2241    2208    kirillgenius        Kirill Shcherbinin [CM]
2241    2247    Cizar               Srboljub Zaric
2236    2065    pepellou            Jose Doval Gonzalez
2235    2093    Suleymanov_Marat    Marat M. Suleimanov
2232    2155    Son_Of_Caissa       Hrvoje Vlahov
2228    2358    VadimCernov         Vadim Chernov [IM]
2221    2010    emiliooo            Emilio Profili
2219    2274    Josip_buje          Josip Bulic [FM]
2214    1455    diarbovi            Diego Armando Bonilla Viamonte
2206    1878    hebertvr            Hebert Valera
2199    1958    MrsBlunderqueen     Jan Oltmanns
2193    2215    aconeni             Ondrej Toman
2193    2187    teddyhh             Julio Fernandes
2187    2190    yichen              Yichen Han
2181    2298    jolle23             Johan Hultin [FM]
2171    2270    Konnov_Oleg         Oleg Konnov [FM]
2164    2138    FrankDischinger     Dischinger Frank [FM]
2162    1754    moldscaien1357      Dimitrios Makridis
2145    1898    shayanaghaie        Shahram Aghaei

(I use the current FIDE rating, not the one listed on the LiChess profile; this affects 6 players.  One player had a FIDE profile page, but no rating: LiChess (2174); FIDE.)

We see some major differences in several cases, so we cannot expect a simple relationship between the two.  However, perhaps it's fair to conclude that a typical low-2000s FIDE player could likely reach a 2100+ LiChess classical rating.  However, I feel like it depends heavily on how seriously they play on LiChess.

Here's a plot of the above data, with a linear regression.  It's an incredibly weak correlation.


Does a typical pawn endgame from Classical Caro-Kann lead to a draw?

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

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

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

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

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


Is it possible to get DTM of a position from sygyzy tables?

No. It's not possible. People use Gaviota tablebase if they want to do DTM or the old Nalimov.

Syzygy tablebase is the most popular tablebase algorithm because it doesn't do DTM, better compression. You can't get both - information and size.


I'm going to ignore the "simple" openings and recommend to you good openings for beginners.

It is pretty common for chess instructors to recommend 1 e4 openings to beginners because they tend to be more dynamic and therefore helps beginners improve in their tactical ability.

My following recommendations are in the spirit of fostering tactical and attacking ability.

Against 1e4 e5, I recommend the Italian Game because you will often get the Fried Liver Attack
which will help your tactical ability as well as win you many games.
Against 1e4 c5, you could play the open sicilian though it has a lot of theory if you choose to stick to it. I recommend the Smith Morra Gambit which may not be completely sound, but it will give you great attacking chances.

As Black, you will face 1e4 or 1d4 most often.

e5 has a lot of theory and white can play many things, so I would recommend either the caro kann or french defense.
Against d4, the King's Indian Defense or the Benoni. Those two openings are pretty much the only way for black ensure a dynamic and tactical game against d4. You could try the Dutch defense, but I find it less tactical and difficult for beginners to play with.


At what Elo level does one benefit from studying master games?

What level does one need before studying master games is worth the
time ?

You need to have got to the stage where you stop playing "hope chess". If you are not currently capable of working out the purpose of your opponent's moves as well as your own then you are not going to get much from trying to work out the purpose of the moves in a master game. Once you do reach that stage then studying master games is a good way of making further progress.


How I tell the UCI engine to show less info during search?

I don't think it's possible unless you recompile the source code. It's very easy to do it at the source code; you'll just need to add an if-statement just before the PV is printed.

Otherwise, you can pipe the outputs to a text file and do a grep like this:

grep 'depth 8' output.txt


How long can a player hold off a draw by the 50-move rule?

The answer is trivially the starting position -
[fen ""]

This exact question hasn't been asked before (I think) but it has been answered here. Here is the relevant part of that answer -

The maximum number of moves in a chess game is not infinite, it's
11797 plies = 5898 moves and a half. This is due to the fifty-move
rule.

As an interim possibility here is an obvious extension of the OP's original position (before he made dozens of edits):
[FEN "5b1k/p1p1p1p1/P1P1P1P1/8/8/8/P1P1P2P/RNBQKBNR w - - 0 1"]

White makes the same starting pawn and king moves as in the OP's post minus allowing any captures and then brings a piece out to capture the a pawn, taking 49 moves to do that, then queens one of the a pawns taking 49 moves per pawn move, then takes 49 moves to sacrifice that queen next to the king, then same again with white's other a pawn, ditto taking the c pawn, etc., etc.


How likely is it that a non-orthodox promotion is optimal?

Thanks for your great question. Here's what I think about the relative frequency of different joke promotions, in games and compositions. Many such compositions are helpmates or selfmates, but the rationale for promotion choice is already a bit peculiar in those, so in this topic we'll focus on games, direct mates or studies.
Regular promotions
First, a quick review of the frequency of legal promotions, as quoted in the Wikipedia page you pointed at:

Piece      %
Queen  96.9
Knight  1.8
Rook    1.1
Bishop  0.2

Couple of points:
(1) A knight promotion is arguably not an under-promotion, in that the promoted piece gets immediate access to squares that the queen does not. The most common use of a knight promotion is in hot positions where a tempo is key.
(2) Rook and bishop are definite under-promotions: they may be used to turn a draw into a win by avoiding stalemating the opponent. But they might also be used (more in compositions than in real life) to turn a loss into a draw by entering a block position.
(3) I doubt that the need for a bishop promotion is as high as 0.2%. There are certainly cases where it is the answer, but I suspect that these are dwarfed by those where B under-promotion was selected for fun. I have certainly seen GM Hikaru Nakamura do this for grins against computers.
The Dummy Pawn
The dummy pawn takes the idea of under-promotion to its logical extreme. In principle, it would mainly be used in games to turn a lost position into a draw, since (unlike bishop or rook) it doesn't rely on other pieces to be blocked. But positions have also been constructed where the dummy pawn can turn a draw into a win. Here, the defensive player would have two alternative lines, one drawing against a bishop, the other to draw against a rook. For all the drama, I don't know of any tournament where the dummy pawn rule of 1862 was actually played. There are some good compositions though, but returning to the frequency comparison, dummy pawn would come in at approximately 0.0%!
Enemy unit
Moving on to promotions to enemy unit. There are numerous 19th century joke promotion problems relying on promotion to enemy officer. According to chess historian Mario Richter, one influence here was Bilguer's Handbuch des Schachspiels, which was for many generations of chess players the reference work on chess. Especially it refers to the paragraph defining the rule of promotion:

Gelangt [der Bauer] auf die letzte Reihe des Brettes, auf welcher anfangs die Offiziere des Gegners stehen, so muß der Besitzer ihn augenblicklich umwandeln und zu einem beliebigen Offizier machen. Hierbei kann man eine zweite Dame, einen dritten Springer u.s.w. wählen; nur versteht es sich, daß der Bauer nicht in einen zweiten König verwandelt werden darf.
(If the pawn reaches the last rank, which is occupied in the starting position by the enemy officers, it has to be immediately promoted to an arbitrary officer. In this way you can have a second queen, a third knight etc, but you cannot have a second king.)

So Bilguer forgot to specify that the promoted officer should have the same colour as the pawn!
There are many joke compositions involving promotion to enemy knight, bishop or rook. If one was looking for their movement capabilities, then these might be replaced by a  friendly dummy pawn instead, which cannot move at all. However, an enemy unit is that it cannot be captured by another enemy unit, in particular it blocks a flight square for the king. It can also serve to prevent stalemating the opponent, by giving him a new piece to move around.
It is normally assumed that promotion to enemy rook can be followed by castling.
So in summary, I think the enemy officer is less useful than friendly dummy pawn for getting one's self stalemated, and more useful for avoiding stalemating the opponent. The relative frequencies would reflect this, approx 0.0% again.
Open Cases
There are two open cases where I know of no existing compositions:
(1) Promotion to enemy queen. How could it be in my interest to promote a pawn to enemy queen rather than enemy rook or bishop?
(2) Promotion to enemy pawn. This would require a new rule: how does a pawn on first row move? And by analogy with the rook, can it double-step?
(Promotions to king, white or black are also found in problems, but let's follow Bilguer to exclude them from scope because the field of discussion here is already broad enough, and they would require an extension to the rules concerning how checkmate works against multiple kings.)


GMs resigning in theoretically lost endgames

They may as well try, since Q vs R is extremely difficult to win (even disregarding skewer tactics). The example of RB vs R is a great similar example, as it is a theoretical draw, but extraordinarily difficult to draw. There are numerous examples of top grandmasters being unable to convert Q vs R. As to a computer vs human- this was tested in 1978 in a special match between Belle (computer program, had the tablebase so it would play perfectly), and GM Walter Browne. Two positions were played, both with a win in 31 moves. He was unable to convert one but won the other (although barely avoiding the 50 move rule)
Example 1 - Gelfand-Svidler (two of the greatest players of their time, admittedly a rapid game. Black was pushing but Gelfand held.)
Example 2 - Morozevich-Jakovenko (Morozevich was a great player, but Jakovenko not so much. Morozevich was pushing, but Jakovenko held with what is known as a rambling rook idea, where a rook is sacrificed and keeps checking so either perpetual check occurs, or the king takes the rook leading to stalemate)
To add more to this- it's quite possible that the side with the queen is in time trouble, which heightens the difficulty of breaking through.


Two other sources:

Dangerous Weapons: 1 e4 e5 (2008) by Emms, Flear and Greet has a chapter on the variation with 8. fxg7.

Beating the Open Games (2007) by Marin also has a chapter on the Max Lange Attack. The nice thing about the latter book is that you can find an update for free at the site of the publisher. The Max Lange Attack is discussed from page 35 in the pdf document.


What is the best opening for a beginner who wants few pieces on the board?

If your rating is around 1000, you should definitely abstain from the King's Indian for now. It is not a bad opening by any means, but it indeed is one of the more complex ones (requiring some sound strategic knowledge) .. too complex for your current skill level most likely, no offense.

That said, there is no "best" opening for beginners or anyone else, everyone has their own taste and has to find out themselves. You have to try different ones and make up your mind what works best for you. In general, focus more on learning the core principles of opening play (development of pieces, fight for the centre, etc.) rather than on memorizing exact variations. As long as your opponents don't play along (because they have no clue about the "correct" continuations), they are not of much use anyways.

You should definitely have a look at the category of the open and semi-open games (everything where White starts with 1.e4) instead of the closed ones you tried so far. Each opening has its own sharp or quiet lines (and your opponent has a word to say on that too!), but 1.e4 openings generally have a tendency to be more on the sharp side and are usually advised to be learned first by beginners because they are more educative at this level (less strategic and more tactical on average).

For the pinnacle of aggressive openings, there's the group of gambits. They do have some added complexity though because you have to be very accurate to maintain your lead in initiative (if your attack ever loses steam without getting the gambitted pawn back, you are in a bad spot) unlike the "mainstream" openings where a standard developing move usually doesn't lose on the spot (unless you fail to parry an urgent threat). Most of them are not "sound" enough to be played at GM level, but that does not have to concern you as you will rarely play against GMs. You have to do more preparation of variations than in other openings, so I suggest you don't start with gambits until after you tried the conventional openings for a bit.


I am not familiar with this variant, but as most variants, pathguy has it. You can also play in http://brainking.com/ correspondence and using http://home.hccnet.nl/h.g.muller/CVfairy.html to play against an engine.

Also I cannot confirm it, but ICC has lots of chess variants. You might want to check it out.


Looking for a chess database with MCO style reports

My suggestion does not link to a database, but you can use Tex to format chessboards, add your own annotations and put the content into column format.

We even have a Tex stack exchange! The link is of a question regarding a new Tex user learning how to use the chess specific packages.

Please note Tex is just a text editor though. The times I have used it (for my mathematics dissertation), I've used it to neatly represent content only. As far as I know Tex doesn't have analysis features, databases of master games etc., it just is to display text and text like objects.


What is the proper etiquette in Team Chess Championships?

Officially most of it depends on the team competition, it will have regulations. But I think these questions will have pretty much the same answers everywhere.

Yes, you're sitting right next to them, and you can walk around as usual, so you can see their boards.

Usually teams have a team leader also, whose role is to advise you about offering or accepting a draw (but not in a way that gives you information about his opinion of your own position! If you ask him "Can I offer a draw?", he must answer yes or no immediately; he can't walk up to your board, think for a while, then say no. It would be obvious then that he thought you had the better position, which is a big no-no). He can otherwise watch all games all the time though.

You can leave if you want. The team leader has to sign the result form at the end, but the players are done when their game is over. Most of the time you'll be eager to know the end result and stay, though.
Re-entering the hall really depends on the regulations. You'll be a spectator. In most amateur leagues, spectators can just stand next to the boards if they wish, so so can you.
Officially you can not speak to anybody during any chess game, including team matches. Practice is slightly less rigorous. If you discuss the ongoing chess games, you're definitely over the line.
No, of course you can't analyze a game right next to ongoing games, that's clearly distracting for the players. Usually there will be a separate room where games can be analyzed.


I play better on the board than online. How can I play better online?

Have you tried setting up a chessboard by the computer and playing the online moves on the board before transmitting them?  This may be more difficult with rapid than classical games, but if you find seeing the pieces in 3 dimensions more desirable, it seems like a practical altenative to looking at them in 2 dimensions on the computer screen.  When I work on online problems, I set them up on a board before solving them for that reason.


Is the king actually in check if the attacking piece cannot be moved?

Still considered in check. FIDE handbook from the WCF website.

  3.9
  The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check. No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.


Are alphanumeric style chessboards becoming less popular?

They are still selling boards with coordinates and still using them in official competitions.

With experience you will see that you will no longer need numbers and letters to help you throughout the game (just think battleship).


How to get position evaluation with UCI?

lines info depth with score have something begining with  pv, whereis the move. cp is centipawn, so evaluation is -4.82

info depth 16 seldepth 3 score cp -529 nodes 3409 nps 10299 time 331 multipv 1 pv b5c4 d3c4 d5b4 a1e1 h8e8 g3d6 d7b6 c4b4 e7d6 b4d6 e8e1 f3e1 c8b7 d6e 7 b6d7 e1d3 a8c8 e7g7 c8c7 g7h6 c6b5 d3e1 c7c8 h6e6 c8c1 e6d5 b7b6 d5d6

uci protocol
http://download.shredderchess.com/div/uci.zip


Any book covering the Open Sicilian from White's point of view should have a line against it. From memory White has a queen exchange, Qc7 or Qd1 in one of those variations.

EDIT: For starters try Dismantling the Sicilian by De La Villa. As stated above I recommend any complete repertoire book for White with the open Sicilian.


Just for fun and curiosity: is there cheating on professional chess tournaments/games?

There have been cheating scandals in top level chess, most notably in 2010 involving French top 100 player Sebastien Feller and in 2012 involving German GM Falko Bindrich.

These two scandals involved computer assistance. There are other forms of cheating, like throwing games, which are harder to prove.

Illegal moves aren't an issue, but Kasparov allegedly violated the touch-move rule in a game against Judith Polgar.


Currently e5 is not playable due to pawn loss. b3 is good as if ever e5 occurs after preparing for it with Nbd7, dxe5 dxe5 would make the long diagonal accessible to the bishop forever. In double fianchetto positions, an open centre is desired for maximum range of bishops.

Obviously, It's not strict, e5 is a very important break in many dutch positions.

This is an opening position. Many things are possible here. You can read some books on classical dutch for more insight into this position.


"The Pirc Defence" by Mihail Marin (see e.g. https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/products/1/305/the_pirc_defence_by_mihail_marin/), part of the Grandmaster Repertoire series, covers this line from Black's perspective


Based on their separate and mutual records, what chance does Karjakin have against Carlsen?

One of the Russians (Filatov?, maybe even Karjakin himself?) brown-nosed to the media that every match is 50-50 odds on the face of it...

But more seriously, Carlsen's rating has consistently been 2850 plus/minus a small amount (20) for some time now, while Karjakin has been more volatile, currently 2775 (near his career best 2788 of July 2011). So I think a 75 Elo advantage in raw strength must be assumed from the outset. This is about 60% scoring per game, and if this were the only factor, then over 12 games then Carlsen should win 7.25 to 4.75 or so, or likely 3-1 with 8 draws. Mathematically, one can model it one way or another (Poisson process), and get that if Carlsen is 30% wins, 8% losses, 62% draws in any game (ignoring color as a first approximation), then he has a 86% chance of winning in regulation, 6% of losing in regulation, and 8% chance of reaching a tiebreak. So nominally a bit over 90% for Carlsen, by Elo.

OK, that's the pure stats version (like Chess by the Numbers might give). What sort of "corrections" to raw Elo might one give here? First there is the "hunger" factor, which I tend to discount. Second there is the preparation work of each (and their armies of helpers), where Karjakin might have a slight edge. But even if Karjakin wins one full game by prep (rather unlikely, at best he probably gets a superior position in two or three games, with a lot of work still to do), Carlsen still has about a 75% chance of winning by the above Elo estimation.

Finally there is the "grappling" aspect, whether the strength of one player matches up against the weakness of the other, or vice-versa. This is where the chess knowledge of their styles and past meetings would come into play. Karjakin seems assured that his Queen's Indian Defense against d4 can hold as Black, and I'd expect him to play the Berlin against e4. On the other hand, Carlsen has shown himself quite happy to play Nf3 systems (including early g3), just to divert from theory, so I can't think this means much.

As for later in the game, I would say that Karjakin's technical capacity (endings, maybe also material imbalances), both in conversion and defense, is probably slightly superior to Carlsen's, maybe simply because the latter is never pushed so hard in this direction. But Carlsen has the clear edge in semi-dynamic positions (think Fischer), and I don't think Karjakin can hope to avoid these for 12 games (including 6 Blacks).  Finally, both seem to play "messy" positions reasonably well, though perhaps not like a specialist might (Morozevich, just to name a name).

But this might be Karjakin's best meta-plan, to aim for chaos game-after-game, hoping that Carlsen cracks, and/or starts to doubt himself. Unfortunately, Karjakin's style is more typically "small-ball", where he nibbles away with a small edge, first ensuring two results (especially on the Russian team, they would give him White on Board 2 or 3 against a 2650-2700, and expect him to grind out a win this way), and then slowly applying pressure for a victory. I don't see this as particularly that effective against Carlsen (or some other 2800ish players for that matter). On the other hand, Karjakin has previously shown himself to be adaptable in style to suit occasions, and if he objectively looks at the Elo calculation of above, might very well decide to play a bit out of character.

This is all to say nothing of the media circus and other side events that can cause disturbance to the players. Carlsen didn't face the "Russian full-court psychology" when playing Anand, but in the end I don't think it will affect him much.


Because of the observation you make, that the tree of possible game paths for chess is finite, chess is indeed solvable in exactly the same sense that tic-tac-toe is. So optimal strategies for chess do exist; however, no one has any idea what they are. Whereas tic-tac-toe is solved thanks to a quite small space of possible games, chess is nowhere near solved because its space of possible games far outstrips what could be dealt with by current computing technology.

As noted in another answer, endgame tablebases exhibit optimal play for all positions with limited numbers of pieces. So in those settings, we have solutions that are as explicit and concrete as are those for tic-tac-toe. But it's important to note that while one can easily teach/remember the optimal strategy for tic-tac-toe and swiftly become a perfect unassisted tic-tac-toe player, the amount of information behind, say, the 7-piece Lomonosov tablebases, is 140 terabytes. There is no concise description of optimal 7-man strategy that one could learn/remember and then play perfectly without assistance.


Why didn't Carlsen try to force exchanging Queens on move 23 against Vokhidov?

This is a tricky one, and really the only person best placed to answer it is Carlson himself.
I ran the analysis through a few engines and in all instances the best move was Qxe5. This makes me think it was an Inaccuracy as the second best move Nb5 was played. Just goes to show even the the best make mistakes.


Pawns in the center: strength or weakness?

Yes. The main reason to move your d- and e-pawns forward is to control the center with them. The fact that they allow the bishops to be developed is secondary. (Often bishops are fianchettoed anyway.)


What to play as black after Bishop's Opening: 1. e4 e5; 2. Bc4

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

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

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

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

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

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

      [StartPly "3"]

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


Does it make sense to use an online ELO-rating-test for a beginner as a monthly test tool in order to see my progress?

Well, the main problem with these tests is that they aren't reliable. They can only give you a rough indication of your playing strength, nothing more. Maybe something accurate to 100 rating points, and it's very hard to gain 100 points in a month, even for a beginner. So it will be hard to measure your progress on that scale.

Also, taking the same test over and over again makes you recognize certain test questions, instead of solving them with pure chess skills. And lastly, they measure your ability to solve chess diagrams, instead of your playing strength. That encompasses many more things like an opening repertoire, knowing how to spend your time over the game, etc.


What was Anand thinking in the 1994 Armageddon blitz semifinal?

From a YouTube comment section dedicated to the game (I did not find the primary source, so it may be untrue):

Anand was asked about this in the interview after. Smirin did not
play the opening Anand was expecting. In a finale like this, White
must win and so will play something dangerous to avoid Black forcing a
simple draw. When Anand saw that Smirin was deviating from his usual
opening, he says that he stopped to think what players and tournaments
Smirin had been in recently. He was trying to figure out if there was
some new trap or opening that had been developed recently using that
move. Once he had an idea what Smirin was going for (which could have
been ten moves out), he decided what opening he would play to avoid
that line.
The plan worked. Anand was able to prevent Smirin from getting any momentum in his attack. He sacrificed a piece to try to get a clear
path for his center pawns (to try to queen one of them), but Anand was
able to trade away enough pieces that Smirin couldn't keep the
position active enough to win.


Yasser Seirawan's Winning Chess Endings - Very good book, especially for beginners. Written by one of the best instructional authors out there. This book is written for beginner-intermediate level so it is very easy to understand, but has many lessons that can carry through to advanced levels.

Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual - Very indepth guide. Has just about anything that most players would need until professional level, and even there it has strong value. Can be fairly complicated at times, and assumes at least intermediate level skill from the reader. It can be a good reference manual however, as each topic is clearly outlined. Just be warned that there are many complicated situations that almost never arise in anyone's game, so you should focus your study on more important endgame techniques before conquering specific situations.

Silman's Complete Endgame Course - More like a guide than Dvoretsky's Endgame manual, allowing beginners to pick up the book, and progress through until master level endgame technique (as suggested by the front cover). This is the one I most recommend as it is much simpler for most players with less clutter.

Of course, there are loads more out there! Chess.com has asked this question before, and produced fairly consistent answers from players on the website. In the end, it will largely come down to your skill level, dedication to study and personal preference.


Create a private Lichess study and add your game references there. As you keep adding more of your learnings and research, the study will develop into a full repertoire. You can also export as png, so you can always switch to other software if you find a better option.
https://lichess.org/study


Is the French Defence good against 1.e4 for tactical play?

French defense is often thought of as solid positional defense. However, French defense can be used as tactical weapon and many GMs use it that way. See two games by Alexander Morozevich below. Therefore, you should be able to play attacking chess using the French. If the French is working out for you, play it!

Polgar-Morozevich:

[FEN ""]
[Event "Wijk aan Zee Corus"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee NED"]
[Date "2000.01.18"]
[EventDate "2000.01.15"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Judit Polgar"]
[Black "Alexander Morozevich"]
[ECO "C11"]
[WhiteElo "2658"]
[BlackElo "2748"]
[PlyCount "72"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 dxe4 5. Nxe4 Be7 6. Bxf6
gxf6 7. Nf3 a6 8. g3 b5 9. Bg2 Bb7 10. Qe2 Nd7 11. O-O O-O
12. Rad1 Bd5 13. Rfe1 Kh8 14. Nfd2 c6 15. c4 bxc4 16. Nxc4 a5
17. Nc3 Re8 18. Ne3 f5 19. Nc4 Qb8 20. Na4 Qb4 21. b3 Bf6
22. Qc2 Rg8 23. Qc1 Rg4 24. Ne5 Nxe5 25. dxe5 Be7 26. Rd3 Rag8
27. Red1 f4 28. Qc3 fxg3 29. hxg3 h5 30. Bxd5 cxd5 31. Rf3 Kg7
32. Qc7 h4 33. Kg2 hxg3 34. fxg3 Qe4 35. Qc3 Qe2+ 36. Kh3 Rg5
0-1

Adams-Morozevich:

[FEN ""]
[Event "Sparkassen Cat XXI"]
[Site "Dortmund GER"]
[Date "2001.07.21"]
[EventDate "2001.07.12"]
[Round "9"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Michael Adams"]
[Black "Alexander Morozevich"]
[ECO "C03"]
[WhiteElo "2744"]
[BlackElo "2749"]
[PlyCount "54"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Be7 4. e5 c5 5. dxc5 Nc6 6. Ngf3 Bxc5
7. Nb3 Bb6 8. Bd3 f6 9. Qe2 fxe5 10. Nxe5 Nf6 11. O-O Nxe5
12. Qxe5 O-O 13. Bg5 Bc7 14. Qd4 h6 15. Bh4 e5 16. Qc5 Be6
17. Rad1 Rc8 18. Qe3 e4 19. Bxe4 Bxh2+ 20. Kh1 Qd6 21. Bxf6
Bf4 22. Qf3 Rxf6 23. Bxd5 Be5 24. Bxb7 Qe7 25. Qe4 Rf5
26. Rfe1 Rf4 27. Qe3 Rh4+ 0-1


Was playing with both hands ever allowed in chess?

Yes, before 1997. Hence in 1995 Kasparov was not breaking the rules.

The key article in the the FIDE Laws of Chess is:

  Article 4: The act of moving the pieces

  4.1   Each move must be made with one hand only.

This first appeared in the 1997 edition of the FIDE Laws of Chess.

The previous edition, in 1993, did not have this rule.


A position with the only legal move resulting in checkmate

I want to offer a semi-realistic example. I think I have seen something like this in a game by masters in some book, but of course I cannot recall where. But this is something that at least can be realistically missed in calculations from far away.
[FEN "6k1/5ppp/6r1/3b4/4r3/8/1Q5P/1R5K w - - 0 1"]

White just gives a back rank mate, right? :)
Update: actually, I found a real game with a very similar motive, though not quite self-mate in one:
[FEN ""]
[Event "Simul"]
[Site "Copenhagen DEN"]
[Date "1924.03.15"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Aron Nimzowitsch"]
[Black "Paulsen"]
[ECO "D32"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[Source "Skjoldager and Nielsen pp.399-400"]
[PlyCount "43"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c5 5. e3 Nc6 6. a3 cxd4
7. exd4 Be7 8. c5 O-O 9. Bd3 a6 10. O-O Qc7 11. b4 e5 12. dxe5
Nxe5 13. Nxe5 Qxe5 14. Bb2 Ng4 15. f4 Qd4+ 16. Kh1 Nf2+
17. Rxf2 Qxf2 18. Nxd5 Qxb2 19. Bxh7+ Kh8 20. Qh5 Qxa1+ (20...Bg4!)
21. Bb1+ Kg8 22. Nxe7# 1-0

An old Russian book by Judovich also lists the following position in a game between two amateurs "whitnessed by J. Krejcik in a local club":
 [Fen "8/4N1p1/7k/4B2P/5KP1/3q4/8/7R b - - 0 1"]

The story goes that after 1...g5, both players resigned, because white forgot about the en passant rule, and black only remembered it after they made the move. I think we can safely assume it's made up, though.


Yes.

Otherwise this would be an illegal move because during castling the king moves two squares, but apart from castling it is only allowed to move one square.


Is this a kind of training software that actually exists?

I'm not going to answer your question directly, but will attempt to address the root cause of your problem. The skill of seeing which move your opponent played in your absence is something that you should acquire naturally over time. In the beginning I also struggled with this, but after a few months I found that I can easily pick up which move my opponent played. This is probably due to:

Becoming familiar with popular moves in your opening choices.
Anticipating opponent responses. It goes without saying that you should have an expectation of how your opponent will respond whenever you make a move, which cuts down on the number of potential moves you need to actively remember.
An improved ability to keep track of all the pieces on the board - in the beginning, 32 pieces feel like a lot, but over time your mind start to keep track of the individual pieces.
Improvement over time at spotting common tactical themes/motifs/patterns. Doing chess puzzles will probably help in this department.

In normal playing conditions you should never ask your opponent for anything, but you have a right to look at his scoresheet at any time, so don't feel uncomfortable when taking a peek if you are unsure about which move he played. When it is your move (as it would be in this situation) it is OK to even take his scoresheet physically and study it. I see this happening all the time.

A quick note on your habit of leaving the table when it's your move - I believe it is now against FIDE rules to leave the board while it is your turn - you may want to make sure about whether that rule applies to your local competition to avoid any unpleasantness.


How to prepare opening for correspondence thematic tournament

I’m not sure if a correspondence chess thematic tournament is the right place for learning the basics of an opening. For obtaining good results, i recommend:

Know your opening. Study all available grandmaster games, try to understand their plans. Get help by an engine, a book and/or a strong player. Be aware that the winning percentage of a line in a database is historical: The line might have been thought playable for a while, than the refutation was discovered, no one played the line since, so the winning percentage might remain high for a bad line. Don’t enter a correspondence chess thematic tournament until you have learned the opening. If you want to learn by playing, play a rapid online thematic tournament.
Prepare a new idea if possible. That’s something else than „wild moves“. And it is difficult. A lot of playable ideas have already been tried. But there are lines that have been played once and could be revived. And other moves have never been played and might prove correct. Test your ideas with some engines to see what happens. Your opponents will also use engines, so there is no need to play bad moves in a tournament just to see what happens and loosing a game by doing so. But don’t believe an engine a single word about complicated endgames ;-) That’s the reason why correspondence chess still exists in spite of engines.

While in an unrated thematic tournament, you will find players who do not respect their opponents and play „wild moves“, be kind and don’t do so. Even unrated events are taken serious by most of their participants.


How can I add the Komodo chess engine to ChessBase 9?

The problem is that the main exe is not the engine. The engine EXE is kind of hidden.

I was able to find the engine by using the SysInternals tool "Process Explorer". By starting Komodo and running Process Explorer I found that the main Komodo program launches the engine EXE as a child process.

The location of this child process on my Windows XP machine was the following:

C:\Program Files\Common Files\ChessBase\Engines.uci\Komodo 10\

By browsing to the exe in this folder in the UCI engine selection shown in the question, it worked.


Is there a list of ALL features that are available on some chess clock?

I do not think that you will find a complete list that compares all features between all companies. The closest you might get would be an article that reviews chess clocks, and compares them. I will tell you how I picked my new clock, since it still involves finding the information you are seeking.

When I got back into chess in the last year, I bought a new digital clock since it was time, and I only had some nice old analog clocks. I went to the major manufacturers, DGT, VTEK, and Chronos, and their websites.

Virtually all chess clocks have these basic features today. Using a blitz game of 5-3 as an example, this is how they work:

Fischer’s clock – The clock starts at 5:03, runs down to 5:01 and after the move ends up on 5:04.
Bronstein’s clock – The clock starts at 5:03, runs down to 5:01 and returns to 5:03 after the move.
Time delay – The clock is paused at 5:03 and nothing changes after the move.

For more on this, I pulled this from this nice article.

Beyond that, most of the features have nothing to do with chess. They are more along the lines of how many pre-programmed time settings are there, how many personalized time controls you can program in, what is the quality of the materials it is made of, brand reputation, and is it FIDE certified?

Those things, you just have to compare from clock to clock, and there are a lot of reviews out there comparing chess clocks to guide you. You can also look at the manuals to get an idea.

I, ultimately, went with a DGT3000 primarily because it is FIDE certified, and is the clock that you see at all the international events. You can look at the manual here, and see a lot more about the features.


32 pieces protected once: How many moves?

A friend of mine says... 8 moves are enough. He doesn’t want to spoil the solution. I have 10. Back to the blackboard!


In the game of shogi, what is the meaning of "sabaki"?

I'm a Japanese native and have been a chess and Shogi player for a long time.
The Japanese word sabaki basically means proper handling of some complicated task, thus can have different meanings in different fields.
In my opinion, the closest chess term is a "freeing move/maneuver". For example, after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 o-o 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.Rc1 c6 8.Bd3, Black may play dxc4 9.Bxc4 Nd5 (Capablanca freeing maneuver). This looks similar to middlegame sabaki in Shogi to my eyes.


Pros and cons of playing correspondence chess

According to friends who play correspondence chess they report the following benefits:

Variety - you play lots of games all at the same time. Although you might not match Claude Bloodgood, who allegedly had hundreds of games in play at the same time when his postage costs were paid for by the US taxpayer because he was on death row, you will play all your games in a round robin at the same time. So, if you are playing in a 10 player double round robin you play all 18 games at the same time.
You have time and motivation to learn, particularly openings. With typically several days per move you can do serious research into the openings you choose to play, learning the ideas and plans for both sides. Unlike over-the-board you do this during the game when it can affect the result not after when you have already lost.
You eliminate blunders. All your moves are checked by the engine.
You learn how to use engines properly. Again this happens during the game not like OTB after. I often run my finished games through the engine to spot blunders and missed tactics. You will be looking for interesting ideas in games still in progress. You will be checking out the engines 3rd or 4th suggested move because it looks really interesting.

All of these things will help improve your OTB chess by making you think more deeply and intelligently about your moves.

Funnily enough my correspondence playing friends don't think their are any cons! I'm not so sure. From the pleasure perspective they miss out on the adrenaline rush of blitz and even just the excitement of bad moves by either side. If I play a really good move I like to see my opponent sweat. That just doesn't happen in correspondence chess.


I've tried programming with the relative values of pieces changing with relation to material.  I've found that a maximum value of 110 centipawns*, without bonuses, was a fair value.  (FYI, the knight's value decreases as material is reduced, so this dynamic adjustment of value decreases for the knight.)
A square value, where the pawn gets a bonus the farther advanced pawn is worth more, is useful for both promotion and attacking values.  (The promotion square has a value of 800, so there's huge gain to get to the eighth rank.)  The gives the engine an incentive to aim for a promotion and encourages aggressive pawn moves in front of the opponent's king.  However, another function is written to prevent a general weakening in front of our king.
Good luck in programming your engine.
-To fine tune the program, I set the normal value of a pawn to 2000.  The highest value was a little over 2200, so I adjusted to the normal 100 value used in most programs.


1. ..Ne2+
 2. Kh1 Ng3+
 3. hxNg3 Bg4# with the rook h8

Very nice puzzle !


The main feature in this position is the lack of defenses around black's king. After Rg1 followed by improving the bishop, either h5 or c4 to pressure f7, you are effectively attacking with an extra rook.

Some sample attacks are:

1) Although a beginner's attacking formation, aligning a queen-bishop battery--by d4, Qd3, Bd1-c2, threatens a simple mate on h7.

2) After an exchange sacrifice on g6, the weakness on the white squares are easily exploited after the bishop gets to c4.

3) After the Knight reaches f5, via Nf1-e3, the pressure on g7 and especially h6 is difficult to protect.

The knight on g6 is the king's best protector, but, mainly due to it being on a white square, it is easily removed, and then black's kingside becomes exposed.


Why did Magnus Carlsen drop out of World Championship in 2011?

Magnus Carlsen drops out of World Championship cycle (contemporaneous chessbase.com article)

Largely he didn't like the format (knockout matches rather than round-robin tournament).

Carlsen wrote a letter to FIDE explaining why he skipped the Candidates Matches, quoted in part below:

  After careful consideration I’ve reached the conclusion that the
  ongoing 2008–2012 cycle does not represent a system, sufficiently
  modern and fair, to provide the motivation I need to go through a
  lengthy process of preparations and matches and to perform at my best.

  Reigning champion privileges, the long (five year) span of the cycle,
  changes made during the cycle resulting in a new format (Candidates)
  that no World Champion has had to go through since Kasparov, puzzling
  ranking criteria as well as the shallow ceaseless match-after-match
  concept are all less than satisfactory in my opinion.

  In my opinion privileges should in general be abolished and a future
  World Championship model should be based on a fair fight between the
  best players in the World, on equal terms. This should apply also to
  the winner of the previous World Championship, and especially so when
  there are several players at approximately the same level in the world
  elite.

  One possibility for future cycles would be to stage an 8-10 player
  World Championship tournament similar to the 2005 and 2007 events.


Studying why Gardner's Minichess Variant is solved?

This variant is definitely very interesting, and could prove somewhat beneficial in learning standard chess.

However,

Standard Chess(SC)'s castling operation is not reflected in this variant. Your king is already tucked away.
This variant does not reflect SC pawn structures. Space is too limited.
The value of pieces changes. Knights are going to be worth more than in SC, since they can now traverse half the diagonal of the board in two moves.
No opening knowledge whatsoever will be attained in this variant. Also, common opening motifs from SC (control the center, develop your pieces) will not be used.
Standard tactics from SC will not be used as much in this variant. Skewers and pins, for example, would be quite rare.

That leaves endgame practice, which could be a little helpful, but there's also endgame puzzles in SC - and actual SC endgames in SC.

  Conclusion:

If your goal is to further your understanding of standard chess, you are better off studying standard chess. This variant looks like a lot of fun, but it does not do a good job of teaching typical chess lessons, for reasons outlined above.


Misplaying (?) the Guicco Pianissimo; is 14. d4 correct?

I haven't played the Italian game in some time, but my thoughts are in the replayer below:

[FEN ""]

  1. e4             e5
  2. Nf3            Nc6
  3. Bc4            Nf6
  4. d3 {You said you like these kinds of positions. Given that the first game of yours I analysed started with 1.d4, it may be advisable to stick to a smaller opening repertoire, e.g. always starting with 1.e4. Either way, I think you played the opening fine}             Bc5
  5. O-O {5.Be3 is common in the Italian game, hoping for 5...Bxe3 6.fxe3, strengthening the centre and giving an open file for the rook. But it is a bit double edged, as sometimes black can play Ng4}            d6
  6. c3             a6
  7. a4 {7.d4 is the key advance that you have prepared for, so I'm not sure why you didn't play it} (7.d4 exd4 8.cxd4 Bb6)            Ba7
  8. Nbd2 {The queenside bishop and knight are the worse pieces in the game for you. If you had played 7.d4, then the c3 square may have been available for the knight and the bishop could come to e3 or g5}          O-O
  9. b4             Ne7
 10. Bb3 {It might be an unconventional square for the bishop in the Italian game, but you shouldn't be moving the same 2 pieces over-and-over again. I don't know what your Bb3 and Nc4 plans aimed to achieve} (10.Bb2)            Ng6
 11. Nc4            b5
 12. axb5           axb5
 13. Ne3 {13.Ne3 isn't such a bad move, as long as either Bb2 or Nc2 are played to defend the a1 rook. 13.Na5 doesn't achieve much as the c6 square can't be occupied}           Nf4
 14. d4             Qe8
 15. dxe5           dxe5
 16. Nd5            N4xd5
 17. exd5           Bxf2+
 18. Rxf2           Rxa1
 19. Ra2            Rxa2
 20. Bxa2           Bg4
 21. h3             Bh5
 22. g4             Bg6
 23. d6 {This loses a pawn. I would try 23. Qe2} cxd6 (23...cxd6 24.Nh4 Qc6 25.Nxg6 hxg6 26.Bb2 Qe4 27.Bc1 Ra8 28.Bb3)
 24. Qxd6 {This loses 2 pawns. Preferable is 24. Nh4} Qd8 (24...Qa8 25.Nxe5 Rd8 26.Qb6 Rd1+ 27.Kf2 Rxc1 28.Kg3 Rxc3+ 29.Kh4 Rc2 30.Nxg6 hxg6)
 25. Qxd8           Rxd8
 26. Kf2 {I don't know why you advanced the king into check. I would have tried to activate the dark square bishop with 26.Bg5}           Ne4+
 27. Ke3            Nxc3
 28. Bb3            Rd3+
 0-1

Summary

You didn't misplay the opening other than not playing the d4 break
I'm guessing that you have quite a wide repertoire seeing as you pay both 1.e4 and 1.d4. This is fine, but you may want to focus on just one
You moved the same pieces (queenside knight and light square bishop) rather than developing the dark square bishop
Towards the end there were multiple tactical blunders such as 26. Kf2, rather than 26. Bg5. The game would have still been tough, but those tactics partly stem from never developing the dark square bishop


Is there a misuse of the word flanking in My System by Nimzowitch?

The terms flanking and flanking maneuver are distinguishably (by a word) different.

The latter refers to outflanking, i.e. enveloping the target (a square, an opponent's pawn, or an opponent's piece) so it cannot escape from being controlled or captured.

The maneuver is analogous to a policeman trapping a perpetrator in an alleyway.