Why does the London System have the reputation it has?

Well, I want to give you a third master's opinion, and most coaches teach the London because they can teach students an opening that the students can, for the most part, be mindless for the first 10 moves (d4,Nf3,Bf4,e3,Bd3,0-0,c3,Nbd2,Qe2,Re1, etc.) or so, against almost any black response. Of course, in chess you can never totally ignore what the opponent is doing, but if you have studied the London System at all, you know what I mean, and to the level I mean you can be "mindless". The coach can then say, "look, you got out of the opening, so I taught you well", when in reality, the problems are just beginning, and the coach has taught you nothing. This seems to be what you are experiencing: You get to the end of those 10 moves, and you are lost.

I do not agree with that approach at all, and it is just a lazy way to teach.

The London, while not a bad opening, is considered "safe" because it is, primarily, a very solid position for white; but it is not particularly ambitious as it does not hit back in the center as successfully as an early c4 does. It can be played against 1...d5 or the King's Indian Defense. Because c4 is not played, it also rules out the Benoni, Benko and Grunfeld. Since black usually wants to play c5, it also, in effect, rules out the Slav, or a tempo is wasted. Limiting black's defensive options is another reason some coaches like to teach this lazy opening, but if you ever get to a certain level, you will find yourself having to learn a whole new set of openings from scratch, and you will have lost years of experience playing against so many mainline defenses. That is not a good thing.

One of the biggest problems with the London for novices is that the resulting positions, where white must get in e4 and try to attack require a lot of positional skill, as well as tactical skill. Against anyone stronger, they are ready for e4, and they are prepared to take c5xd4, and get counterplay. So you get students a solid position after 10 moves, but then what is required from there is often just way over their heads. It does not make sense to teach this way.

Weaker players have trouble with deep strategic play, which is why I constantly talk about studying tactics, tactics, tactics; but these London positions do not bring up the open, or semi-open types of positions that favor that type of tactical play, which is easier to grasp, and thus, easier for novice players to play.

What this means is that this opening either does not really fit in with your ability level or style (you were an e4-player for a long time, after all), or you must learn the plans associated with it, from move 10 on, much better.

I wanted to give you a recommended book, but as I looked at them, there was nothing particularly great at telling you how to play these positions IN WORDS, but this was probably the best of the bunch: "Win with the London System".


Is it worth putting small kids in competitive chess?

If the interest, competitive drive, and knowledge of the rules are there, then I wouldn't recommend against it.  Even if they play competitively and find their talent for the game perhaps to be lacking, they can still take away much from the game, I feel.

Personally, I was pushed hard when I was young at the game (started at age 5, pushed relatively hard until about age 10), took a lackadaisical approach to the game as a rebellious result, but kept playing competitively through high school.  I didn't do so bad, but not great either.  What I took from the game though provided a niche for me for a time.  Even if not used in any professional sense it can provide a potential life-long hobby.  Even if it provides neither, denying them the opportunity given a desire to play competitively seems bad.  It's just how one prepares.

Try and get an idea early of how good your child is.  Playing with them a lot outside of tournaments first is a good way to do this.  Then, you'll be able to gauge how hard to push them.  If they're really good, push them just a little bit.  If not, don't press them to play at all.  Either way, if the desire remains to play and they're doing well in school, why not?  I know I always had the desire to play competitively, and I'm glad in ways that I was pressed to play competitively.


A possibility that jumps to mind instantly is 26..Qg4, with two threats:

Qxg3+
Re2 followed by either Rxf2 or Bxf2+.

The only move that prevents both these threats is 27.Kf1, but then black could e.g. play Qh3+ or Rd8. Both moves lead to an easy win.
In the position you obtained the most important thing is to make sure white can not solve a threat by developing a piece. As long as you keep that in mind and keep finding new threats and ways to use your pieces to their potential, you should be fine.


What was the point of Shirov's 47...Bh3?

I interpret the question as follows

  How can a player arrive at ...Bh3?

This is tightly connected to the point behind ...Bh3. With a material advantage, black is clearly looking for a win. Yet, it is well known that opposite colored bishops give the defending side a strong chance to draw. Thus, precise play is required.

Black's plan is

Get the king to e4 by Ke6-f5-e4
Do d5-d4 to limit the enemy bishop
Push a4-a3-a2
Queen one of the pawns

White's plan is

Get the king to d4 by Kg1-f2-e3-d4
Prevent the enemy king from reaching e4
Prevent the enemy from pushing d5-d4
Prevent the enemy king from supporting the black a-pawn

Next, black has to answer the question

  What is the most direct way to make the plan work?

The key point is that black's bishop doesn't really help much in promoting the pawns. It is the king that plays the key role. Thus, sacrificing the bishop to win a tempo makes total sense! In addition, after gxh3, white can no longer create a passed pawn on the kingside! Thus, the bishop sacrifice wins a tempo and ruins white's counter-play. For example

[FEN "8/8/4kpp1/3p1b2/p6P/2B5/6P1/6K1 b - - 0 47"]

1...Bh3! 2.gxh3 Kf5 3.Kf2 Ke4 4.Bxf6 d4 5.Be7 Kd3 6.Bc5 Kc4! 7.Bd6 Kc3 8.Ke2 Kc2 9.Bb4 d3+ 10.Ke3 a3 0-1


What merit is there to the so-called "Swiss gambit?"

I tried writing a crude pairings/results simulator, to see whether taking a bye could increase a top player's score.  When generating pairings, the program ignored pairing history and color (which I realize can matter, but I didn't want to have to program it to go back and redo pairings if there was a conflict - this is a crude simulator, not an actual pairings engine!)  But it was able to handle pairing people in a scoring category with the usual top half/bottom half method, as well as the all-important "pairing up" of the top person from the lower category with the bottom person from the higher category if there was an odd number of players in the higher score category.

I assumed a uniform ratings distribution through whatever ratings range I selected.  I used the "Standard winning expectancy" formula at the bottom of page 11 in this document.  I did not account for fatigue.  I assumed a draw probability of half of the probability that the higher-rated player would lose (for example, if the expected score was 0.75 according to the formula, I assumed a win would happen 70%, a draw 10%, and a loss 20%.  For even matches with 0.5 expected score it would be 40% - 20% - 40%.)  I set the program to run 100000 tournaments at a time, to get a good average.

The Swiss gambit pretty much always decreased a high-rated player's overall score regardless of the number of players, rounds, or rating spread (unless I set the draw probability parameter to zero, which is unrealistic.)  At best it had only a small negative effect on the final score.  Although the player's performance in later rounds was indeed better due to weaker opponents, that performance did not quite overcome the nearly half-point lost.  The top players were better off playing in all the rounds.

For example, in a simulation of an 8 round 200 player tournament, with player ratings ranging from 200 to 2000, the 2000-rated player had an average score of about 6.35 if they did not take a bye.  If they took a first-round bye, the average was only about 6.24.

However, for some small tournaments with large point spreads and a certain number of players, although the average score dropped, the probability of placing first actually increased.  For example, in a 5 round 32 player tournament with players rated from 200 to 2000, taking a first round bye decreased the average score from 4.23 to 3.95, but increased the probability of taking clear first from 33.2% to 34.7%.  I'm not sure if these are artifacts of an imperfect pairing engine, though; the exact pairings matter more in such situations.  In most of my simulations the decrease in score corresponded with a lower probability of taking first (and the decrease was somewhat larger than the increase shown here.)

Interestingly, although it also wasn't effective compared to playing all the rounds, it seems that taking a half-point in the second or even third round often gave a slightly better score than taking one in the first round, especially when the ratings spread was large (in the 8 round 200 player example, they scored about 6.26 by taking the bye in the second or third round, as opposed to 6.24 by taking it in the first round.)  The first round has a top half player against an easy opponent; why skip a game you'll almost certainly win, instead of skipping the next one where your opponent may have something of a chance?

So, overall:  The average score decreases when using the Swiss gambit.  The odds of winning the tournament might go up in certain specific scenarios, but I'd need a better program to say for sure, and if there is any such effect it's sensitive to the exact number of players.


OK, not really an answer as it's looking entirely at what I, a complete Pirc addict, would play, there may well be better lines. But unfortunately you can't stick a pgn in a comment, so here's a few minutes work with Fritz to see what it thinks - after all it's a much better player than I. Numbers are in units of pawns, negative numbers mean advantage to black. Note the numbers appear in the box below the board once the last move of the line is played. Lines quoted are from the top 4 selected by Fritz, biased where appropriate by the comments above, and in each case I left it a few minutes for the evaluation to settle down.

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2015.09.21"]
[Round "?"]
[White "????"]
[Black "????"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "B06"]
[PlyCount "13"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 g6 2. e5 Bg7 3. d4 d6 4. f4 c5 5. Nf3 (5. dxc5 Qa5+ 6. Qd2 {-0.21}) (5.
c3 dxe5 6. fxe5 cxd4 7. cxd4 {-0.32}) (5. d5 dxe5 6. fxe5 Bxe5 {-0.48}) 5...
cxd4 6. Qxd4 Nh6 (6... Nc6 7. Qd2 {-0.70}) 7. Bb5+ {-0.77} *

So not disastrous for white but according to Fritz at least he has thrown away his first move advantage.

Oh, and the point about the tempo is that by playing e5 before black has played Nf6 is that the knight can wait snuggly at home, thinking about where to go. If you wait until after Nf6 has happened black has to "waste" a move, after which you can further your evil plan. Compare the above with

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2015.09.21"]
[Round "?"]
[White "????"]
[Black "????"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "B09"]
[PlyCount "14"]
[TimeControl "1"]
[FEN ""]

 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3
d6 4. f4 Nf6 5. Nf3 c5 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. e5 {+0.07} Ng4 *


What´s the result of this endgame? Black just played f3.

[FEN "8/1KP5/8/8/5p2/8/8/6k1 b - - 0 3"]
[Plycount "19"]

3...f3 ( On a race to promotion ) 4.c8=Q { ...that white just won. Or did he?!? } 4...f2 5.Qg4+ Kh1 6.Qf3+ Kg1 7.Qg3+ Kh1 8.Qh3+ ( 8.Qxf2 { If black takes the pawn...Disaster strikes = STALEMATE !! } ) 8...Kg1 9.Qg4+ Kh1 10.Qf3+ Kg1 11.Qg3+ Kh1

*
If black takes the pawn...Disaster strikes = STALEMATE !!

If white allows black
to promote the pawn, in order to avoid drawing by repetition, the resulting
one is also a draw as no progress can be made by either side !


Online resources for medieval Persian chess games or problems?

Take a look at   this  page.
I hope it helps..


Stockfish 10 working on only 1 core at a time

Those appear to be options to set in your Web browser, which is effectively the platform that LiChess runs on.  You don't mention which browser you're using…

Chrome uses multiple cores and thereby searches many more nodes per second, without any special attention.

On my Mac, Firefox uses only one core, even after entering the settings you mention (using about:config).  However, the Linux version responds well to these settings.

Obviously, a native chess engine would be more efficient still.  This wouldn't integrate with LiChess, however.


The FIDE rules say this:

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

So you can't claim an illegal move after the end of the game.

On the other hand, you can't checkmate using an illegal move:

  5.1  The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing
  the checkmate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles
  4.2 – 4.7.

I don't know about USCF rules, but I suppose they are similar.


Meditation practice among the chess elite?

I found these sources for "meditation" among the past 2 worlds champions:

Carlsen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELoJbv4bCHw

Anand:
https://badrirag.wordpress.com/category/viswanathan-anand/

Q : Do you practise meditation and if so, how effective do you find it?

A:  I don’t meditate regularly and hence I do not know the extent to which it can help.

Based on my Google research, some chess players meditate, but I see no evidence proving that top chess players meditate more than the general population


You don't have to develop your Bishop on the next move. Bf4 does look ok, however. Re1 also looks good as it will support the e pawn.


Is it allowed to prepare for a game after the round has started?

I would think not since there is no realistic way for the organizers to find out if you are preparing if you are in your hotel room for example, and even if they do you will probably not forfeit your game as long as you are not in the playing hall.

Maybe this was why the zero tolerance rule was put into effect.

In a logical sense though, whilst your opponent could hope to get an advantage out of the opening against you, you are getting a definite time advantage, so you could see it that way.


How to decide what openings to stick with?

Yes, it is better if you concentrate on just a couple of openings. Even though it feels difficult to choose, you should know if you like closed positions (then, generally speaking, play 1. d4 as White, and choose e.g. French and the King's Indian as Black) or open positions (when it makes more sense to play 1. e4, and e.g. Sicilian and the Grünfeld). If you have no preference, check your results - play the openings which you were successful with in the past.

Although, to become a better chess player, you need to practice all types of positions. (But not all openings.)

To answer your last question: if your opponent plays an 'odd' opening, you should indeed be fine if you develop along the general principles (but watch out for sudden tactics).


convert stockfish pv output to show piece names

Sorry I don’t know any JavaScript but here is the basic code (in pseudo code) for the problem:

SELECT CASE Board(Move(1),Move(2))
CASE “N”
      Move <== “N” + Move(3) + Move(4)
CASE “P”
      Move <== Move(3) + Move(4)
CASE “K”
      Move <==“K” +  Move(3) + Move(4)
CASE “R”
      Move <==“R” +  Move(3) + Move(4)
CASE “Q”
      Move <==“Q” +  Move(3) + Move(4)
CASE “B”
      Move <==“B” +  Move(3) + Move(4)
END SELECT

This is assuming there is a 2D array holding the board named “Board” and a string “Move” holding the move about to be played.

Hope this has helped.


King's Indian Defense - When to play 6...c5 or 6...e5

I'm not a KID expert, but Joe Gallagher GM is, so I'll quote him from "Starting out: The King's Indian":

  "If you are going to play the King's Indian with Black you may be a
  little confused as to whether you should aim for ... c7-c5 or ...
  e7-e5. I tend to adhere to the following rule:

  Play ... e7-e5 except when White develops his queen bishop early. Then
  it's time to start thinking (just thinking mind you) about ... c7-c5.
  The move ... c7-c5 is likely to prise open the long diagonal (after
  ... e7-e5 it usually becomes totally blocked) and the absence of the
  white bishop from the queenside means the dark squares there (such as
  b2) may become vulnerable to pressure from the g7 bishop"


Why is chess failing to attract big name sponsors?

It's frankly quite boring to watch chess, unless you understand what is going on - it's not like football, basketball or hockey, where there is dynamic, action, fast-paced play - for us, chess players, it might appear that chess is dynamic and fast-paced, but this is not so for the common viewer.

Let's be honest, would you really want to watch a chess game lasting three hours on your TV, waiting for the next move which the player takes 30 minutes to think through and calculate? Specifically for this reason you will never see chess featured on TV, and since it is not featured on TV, it does not get the luxurious contracts that other sports do.


How to represent chess state with a bitboard

The best resource for chess engine programming is the Chess Programming Wiki, which has a large section on bitboards. Everything you need to make a bitboard-based engine is there, although it's rather spread out and sometimes written by people for whom English is a second language.


Are blitz or bullet games better for improvement?

What improves your chess is the time you spend thinking on chess and solving chess problems (either during a game or when doing exercices).

As a consequence, if your concern is to make progress, a 5' blitz is better than five 1' bullets.

What you will play will look more like a real chess game; at 1300-1400 I suppose you seldom drop pieces in blitz, but often in bullet. Also, maybe this will be the occasion to practice an opening you would use again, actually thinking at one or two points in the game on "What do I do next ? What are my plans ? What is my opponent intending ?". At least at two or three times in the middlegame you will slow down and calculate a few lines. Calculating is useful training. Maybe you will still have thirty seconds or one minute to invest for an important decision in the rook endgame; in bullet the endgame is never reached, or butchered until a player gets flagged.
The fast, repetitive, mechanical play, which is almost mandatory in bullet because of time pressure (also in blitz, actually, but less so) is actually rather hampering your progress, because you keep making bad moves and teach yourself to play automatically, not calculating. Also playing for tricks and cheapos (if he doesn't see this I will fork his queen...) is the wrong mindset for when you'll play real chess.

Anyway, don't expect too much progress from a 10' practice. The blitz might or might not help a tiny little bit, but you will need to invest more time and various training (play, analysis, exercices, books/videos on openings/middlegame/endgame, etc.) if you want to achieve significative progress. The bullets, if anything, are counterproductive.


Can an Irwin Cheat Detector catch a user who is using a Leela chess bot for cheating?

Leela works by performing an exceptionally sophisticated positional evaluation at a relatively shallow search depth, whereas most chess engines work by performing a simple evaluation at as deep a search as possible.  In theory this should produce a more positional style of play, and it does seem to be an effective strategy versus today's best conventional chess engines.

So in general, the moves selected by Leela will be different from those selected by Stockfish (Irwin's reference engine) in key positions.  But the differences in move evaluation may be small from Stockfish's point of view; it's not that Stockfish thinks Leela's moves are bad per se, just that it doesn't reliably choose them for itself, because it doesn't see their unique advantages relative to a move that it has deeply researched tactically.

However, there are other characteristics of engine-users' play that differ from that of strong human players, and are observable and measured by Irwin.

Move timing statistics are an important one, and that probably won't change with Leela.  Good human players recognise key moves, where many possibilities of nearly equal apparent strength exist, and plan ahead during them, taking more time.  Then they play quickly when their opponent responds in the way they expected, or in easy positions where there is only one obvious good (or even legal) move.  An engine user doesn't do this - for every move, they must enter the opponent's move into the engine, and wait a few seconds to see what to do.

Another characteristic which Irwin checks for is large variations in playing style, either between games or during a game.  A player who plays some games extremely well with very few mistakes, but then plays other games (at the same time control) rather badly with several blunders, is probably a weak player who uses an engine for his good games.  This is especially true if he seems to play his strong games against players with high ratings.  Or a player might find himself losing a game, then get out the engine, in which case he will show blunders and a declining position, followed by extremely accurate play which salvages the game.

In short: yes, I believe Irwin can detect engine users, even if the engine in question happens to be Leela.


Yes, once it is out of its opening book, it will just start looking for good moves. That will usually happen later than a human is out of his/her book, but still, it is not impossible that a human will (unintentionally) follow a certain existing game, where the computer will make the first deviation. And in a computer vs. computer match, they're bound to either replay an entire existing game, or one of them will play a novelty at some point in the game.

However, if you mean 'an opening novelty with any significance for actual play', the answer is probably no. Unless specifically configured that way, it will follow its book and not play a spontaneous novelty on move 12, like a human would be able to do.


How many grandmasters have been stripped of their titles?

After doing some checking, it seems that this is a relatively new phenomenon. Before the advent of technology, and strong chess playing programs on smartphones, it does not appear that any GMs had ever been stripped of their titles until GM Gaioz Nigalidze, at least that I could find.
Gaioz Nigalidze was stripped of his GM title after being caught with a phone in a bathroom stall at the 2015 Dubai Open. He had been suspected for some time.
The case that you probably read about was GM Igors Rausis. Last year, Rausis made international news when he was caught doing the same thing in a bathroom stall at the Strasbourg Open. His behavior and meteoric rating increases over the course of 6 years had put him on the radar for a long time.
This seems to have set a good precedent as far as I am concerned as there is no room for cheating.
P.S. I found this interesting post that, believe it or not (at least in the case of Nigalidze) claimed he could earn the title again if he completed the norms in the future; but the official FIDE ethics report does not mention the possibility either way.


Trading for the sake of trading is bound to be in your opponent's favour more often than not.

Generally speaking, recapturing often activates the piece that can capture back. Consider two rooks on an open file, both protected by another, pretty passive rook on the a-file. The side that trades loses control of the open file and is stuck with the a-file rook, but the sides that recaptures gets to move his previously passive rook from the a-file to the open file.

Also, if you delay trading, you keep options open. As long as you still have several options, the opponent has to keep defences up against all of them, but as soon as you actually choose one (make the trade), that releases tension and usually frees up the game of the opponent a bit. Don't release tension without a reason.

Worst, if the opponent knows that you like to trade, he may offer trades that work in his favour positionally, and you'll go for them. That will get you a bad position very quickly.

A trade is a way to change the nature of the position. Only go for trades that change the position in your favour, otherwise keeping the opponent guessing is better.


How can I use Scid to figure how I should divide study time for each opening line?

I would recommend an iterative approach to study an opening system. Use it in a game, then analyze the opening with a large opening tree, book and engine. For example, you can use the Chessbase mobile app or the corresponding Chessbase Online site. You can record your conclusions in your own opening database file, e.g. using Scid.

By continuously using and improving an opening system, learning and winning will go hand in hand. By immediately analyzing the opening after every played game (online as well as over the board), you will improve your opening skills step by step.


What Chess Software allows creating a chess Ebook?

This may or may not be your cup of tea, but if you are a LaTeX user, then SCID's LaTeX export feature produces ready-to-compile LaTeX source that yields rather nice (IMO) PDFs quickly and painlessly. There are a few options regarding how/whether comments and variations are to be displayed, and diagrams are automatically included wherever you have inserted a diagram NAG D into the game score (which can be inserted the same way that move annotations like !? are when using SCID). Here's a cropped screen grab from the PDF output of a fake sample game:


Who did Kasparov call a talented amateur?

I will answer in the first line of the next paragraph, but there is a lot of history that happened right around the time Kasparov made this comment, so I will add in some of that too.

At the Tilburg tournament in November 1997, Kasparov was not known for holding his tongue, and he called Grandmaster Shirov, who was 2700 and 8th in the world, a "talented amateur". Shirov did not appreciate the remark. Kasparov’s comment is ironic since it was only about a year later that Shirov would upset Kramnik in a match (5.5-3.5) to win the right to play Kasparov for the PCA (Professional Chess Association) World Championship in 1998, but the match never took place because there was no sponsor since Intel, and later Linares organizer Luis Rentero, pulled out, and the money could not be secured. The PCA collapsed. Shirov was probably not without blame as it is alleged that he refused to play since his cut was too small.

My opinion is that if you are not champion, you should play, and if you win, then you have more leverage…get paid big down the line. That said, it is a big stretch to think that Shirov would have beaten Kasparov anyway as Shirov was Kasparov’s “customer”, meaning that Kasparov beat him like a drum throughout their career. The lifetime record was 16 wins, 15 draws, and zero losses for Kasparov.

After this happened, a new sponsor, BrainGames.com, was eventually secured for a Kasparov match, but unfortunately, the sponsor tried to sign Anand to play Kasparov, but this fell through too. Shirov was naturally upset that he was not signed, and called Anand a “pickpocket”, and he felt that Kasparov had to play him before he played any other matches. It turned out that since even that match never took place, Kasparov ultimately played Kramnik in 2000, and well, we know how that turned out: Kramink, a heavy underdog, used the Berlin Defense to the Ruy Lopez, and won by a score of 8 1/2–6 ½. Anand would go on to win the separate FIDE World Championship knockout event that year as Kasparov had previously broken away with the classical title in 1986.


What are good YouTube channels for improving chess?

ChessExplained is the channel of IM Cristof Sielecki. Most of the videos are him thinking aloud while playing blitz, and they provide excellent insight into the mind of an IM.

IM Greg Shahade has a similar channel as well. He is a bit more entertaining and less instructional than ChessExplained.


Is it possible to be in check by three pieces?

En passant also doesn't work. You can, potentially, discover two checks, one because the capturing pawn moves off a file and one because the removed pawn unblocks a diagonal. However, you can't simultaneously discover a check via the removed pawn and give check with the capturing pawn, because the only two squares threatened by the capturing pawn are a knight's move away from the removed pawn. So if the opponent's king is on one of these squares, it is not in line with the removed pawn. Consequently at most two checks can occur (either both discovered or one discovered and one normal).


Compare that position with other variations where White does not allow ...Bg4 to be played. Black often struggles with the development of the c8 bishop.

Also, the central dark squares are indeed a target, so ...Bg4 is clearly helping there (what else could he possibly do in a different square?) Pawn breaks with ...e5 or ...c5 are a possibility as well


How to make a self study plan to become a good chess player to play rated tournaments?

1) How to make a daily plan for opening, middle game and end games?

Make the balance proportional. Many novice players come out of book opening before move 5, so don't go overboard on learning openings by rote. Picking up on this, analysing whole, annotated games is of benefit, as you see all phases of the game.

Potential sources:

Logical Chess: Move by Move: Every Move Explained by Irving Chernev
The World's Most Instructive Amateur Game Book by Dan Heisman
The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games by Graham Burgess and John Emms

2) How to make a reading list that can be suitable for me.

Throughout this answer, I give potential sources to look up. Remember that you only get out of chess what you put in, so get the resources that appeal to you the most and study them. This is what you should look for:

Plenty of diagrams
Not many variations, but ideas expressed in words mostly. If there are variations, they should be short (3 moves or less would be a good rule of thumb)
Written in a way that engages you. Read a preview and review online of the book before you buy

Remember that books are one thing, but YouTube videos are useful too. Check out the channels by Dereque Kelly for openings and the Chess.com channel.

3) How to select a chess engine?

Any software with lots of tutorials and player personalities of various strengths and temperaments will be fine. Don't move on from a tutorial section until you really understand it - moving onto the advance content too soon will only confuse you.

I would recommend Ubisoft's Chessmaster (as I always do, if you read any of my other answers)

4) What other things I need like a notebook to write my chess moves?

For tournament play you should take:

A pen
Back up notebook (they are usually provided)
Something to eat and drink between rounds. Chocolate is good - its the closest equivalent to steroids in chess
Suitable clothing. If you live in the UK like I do, a spare jumper is a must

For training with a book, I would recommend a:

Chessboard and pieces similar to the ones you will be playing with in the tournament, as moving the pieces helps recall and learning. Most tournament chessboards I've come across are vinyl with white and green squares. Chess pieces are Staunton style, King size at about 2.5 inches
A document stand, so that you don't need to use one hand to hold the book all the time
A piece of card to cover up answers with. As a general hint, whenever you are working with a book and you see a new diagram, try to work out the best move for the player, then compare your answer to what was played
Notepad and pen. Learn to play the move, then write the move down, as chess etiquette is highly ritualised and is written in the rule book. You don't want a picky opponent to cause trouble this way
I would advise getting a chess clock unless you know what type is being used, as it will not be used much if you are studying mostly solo. But some people advocate getting one to get used to the controls and the background ticking

5) How to make a plan to practice tactics.

Get any beginner tactic book and solve the problems in dead time (on the train, whilst you are waiting dinner to cook, during your lunch break etc.) and solve the problems. Resource suggestions are:

Back to Basics: Tactics by Dan Heisman
Winning Chess Tactics by Yasser Seirawan
Chess Tactics for Kids by Murray Chandler (don't be put off by the title! In general, chess books written for a younger audience are written in a more engaging way than they are for adults, and with just as good content too)
ChessTempo.com

6) What else I need to do to train myself without a coach? (I can use internet and books instead of coach)

Nothing else, but conduct a post-mortem after the tournament game if your opponent is willing. this is where you discuss the game and understand which moves made your opponent uncomfortable and where you erred. Also, you can post the game on Chess.SE and ask for feedback.

This answer is also based on what I've learnt from Studying Chess Made Easy by Andy Soltis. At the end of the day, you will only take the material in if it is fun and relevant. There is nothing more frustrating than learning a lot of chess material at the end of a hard day's work, then getting beaten in tournament play over and over again. If this happens, try entering tournaments that are more at your level, or joining a friendly chess club.


Why is White considered so much better in this position?

Here's my theory for this position. The engine is evaluating +2 advantage because black's rook can be trapped.

First, watch carefully, that rook on h5 is isolated from the main game and has only another safe square to move (i.e, f5), where it can be backed by Queen (on e6), as well as the pawn on g6. So it is dubious to exchange white queen for a rook.
So now, white's idea is to activate its knight in the game. Watch carefully, Nd4 can trigger a threat to the Queen on e6, as well as on f5 square (previously discussed safer square for the rook). And, after black's reply, white can simply play Bf3, that creates some nasty threat for the rook on h5. If rook goes to h3, then after Kg2, it's completely trapped.
So, black can try something like Rh6. And then, white can simply take by Bxh6. Now, as rook is worth 5 pawns, and the bishop is worth 3; so it's (5-3) = +2 advantage for white.


How can pawns win a whole game without any strong pieces?

Why don't you try use pawn chain to defend your pawns? Say if a pawn is at a2(white) and you want to defend  a pawn at b4 just move the pawn at a2 to a3. If a roke or a queen tries to take b4 it is defended by a3. If a roke tries take a3, it is defended by the roke at a1. It doesn't matter if you lost your queen or not. You can still win by make pawn chains and use your other peaces wisely with the pawns.


Colle System - Stonewall. Why not c4 and b4 after b5 and c6 for black in this game?

If white plays e4 with out black having played ...c4, then black can trade the central pawns with cxd4 to reduce white's central control.

[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "r1bq1rk1/p2nbppp/1p2pn2/2pp4/3P1B2/2PBPN1P/PP1N1PP1/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 1"]

1... Bb7 2. Re1 Rc8 3. e4 cxd4 4.cxd4 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Nxe4 6.Bxe4 Bxe4 7.Rxe4 Nf6

(Black can play 2...Ne4, which is stronger, but that's a different story.)

However, when black has played ...c4, then e4 is especially strong because when black takes with dxe4, white's increased control of the center is difficult to challenge, as black lost the option of cxd4.

[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "r1bq1rk1/p2nbppp/1p2pn2/2pp4/3P1B2/2PBPN1P/PP1N1PP1/R2Q1RK1 b - - 1 1"]

1... c4 2. Bc2 b5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Nxe4

If black does not trade with ...dxe4 then white will play e5 and gain an easy attack on the black king.

[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "r1bq1rk1/p2nbppp/1p2pn2/2pp4/3P1B2/2PBPN1P/PP1N1PP1/R2Q1RK1 b - - 1 1"]

1... c4 2. Bc2 b5 3. e4 Bb7 4. e5

Black can try to use his queenside space advantage and play for b5-b4xc3 to target c3, but this plan is slow and black is likely to get mated if he tries this.


Yes, it is really an easy win.

The first move is 1...Qe4; 2.Kg4 Kc7, and note that white cannot make any progress without losing one of the pawns, leaving an easy win since your Q can get to g8 after winning the first pawn.

[FEN "qk6/8/8/6P1/5P2/6K1/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... Qe4 2. Kg4 Kc7

This is with it going the other way. It is harder, no question, but the first thing is to get the queen in front of the pawns.

 [FEN "8/8/1K6/2P5/1P6/8/8/6kq b - - 0 0"]

 1... Qa8 2. c6 Qb8+ 3. Kc5 Kf2 4. b5 Ke3 5. b6 Qe5+ 6. Kc4 Qa5 7. c7 Qa6+ 8. Kd5 Qb7+ 9. Kd6 Kd4 10. Kd7 Kc5 11. Kd8 Qxb6


Is it possible for a clock to show less than 30 seconds for a player in a game with a 30-second increment?

You are correct - it is impossible. It can only show less than 30 seconds while it's counting down on his/her turn.

Obviously, with delay instead of increment, this would be possible.


Is there a software to measure a player's strength based on a game?

It's a matter of how much data there is. When you first get a rating in a tournament, it is a provisional rating until you reach X number of games. In the US I think you need 20 games. The provisional rating fluctuates more because of a single loss or win.
However, I recently obtained a copy of Houdini Pro 4. In the help contents is this: "Unix inventor and computer chess pioneer, Ken Thompson, has developed an algorithm which allows one to create an Elo rating list out of an arbitrary set of games".
There is also a step-wise process to generate an Elo list. So, perhaps it can not be done based "on a game", but maybe not too many more are needed using Ken's algorithm? Not sure, I never tried using that tool.


Uncovering the Accelerated Dragon opening

Dragon

The opening is named after the Draco (Latin for dragon) constellation because if you remove all the pieces and just look at black's pawn structure with the  pawns on g6 and d6 it looks like the dragon constellation as shown below (image source):

Accelerated

Unlike the mainline Dragon Sicilian where d6 is a key early move (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6...), even though later it might still be pushed to d5, the accelerated version attempts to play d7-d5 in one go, without the inclusion of an early d6 move, and hence the name accelerated Dragon.

Here's an important move order that really typifies the accelerated Dragon, where everything black has set out to do has been achieved: safe king, healthy development, a successful early d5 push to undermine white's center, powerful bishop on the long diagonal, active play in the center and on the queenside. I highly encourage you to closely study the 3 variations that can result from either of the 3 ways white can capture the pawn on d5 on the next move.

 [Title "Accelerated Dragon, typical position"]
 [fen ""]
 [StartFlipped "1"]

 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Bc4 O-O 8. Bb3 a5 9. f3 d5

Basic plan for black:

In short, having neutralized white's central d4 pawn for our c7 pawn, black fianchettoes their kingside bishop and exerts pressure on the long diagonal from the get-go, unlike most other Sicilian variations where the dark squared bishop stands quite defensively. Additionally, the fianchetto structure is a good defensive fortress for the king.

Moreover, black's kept both central pawns (e and d) and in the future they can potentially make a better claim at central control as the central pawns are 2 for 1 in favour of black. Considering that white's only remaining central control lies in their e4 pawn, with constant threats of e5 kicking our knight to a less ideal  post, black's constantly playing towards making the d7-d5 break happen as early as possible, neutralizing white's only  central foothold.


Fastest possible checkmate by en passant

According to
this page
the shortest known mate by en passant capture is in 5.5 moves
(that is, White mates on move 6), and was published by Benko in
Chess Live & Review in 1976:

[Title "Pal Benko's 5.5 move e.p. helpmate"]
[Fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w - - 0 0"]

1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nc6 3. g4 d6 4. g5 Kd7 5. Bh3+ f5 6. gxf6#


Is a given time control per side or in total?

Time controls are always specified per side, so White has 90 minutes and Black has 90 minutes, for a total of 180 minutes (for the first 40 moves). See the FIDE handbook:

  6.3.1 When using a chessclock, each player must complete a minimum number of moves or all moves in an allotted period of time including any additional amount of time with each move.

It says 'each player', not 'both players'. It's probably not worded more elaborately since it's 'common knowledge' among competitive chess players.


Are trap games a good plan versus rated chess players or not?

I will assume that a "trap game" is an opening that contains a devastating trap if your opponent plays the wrong move.

What happens if your opponent does not fall for the trap? As long as you can still have a good game, it's ok to play a trap game.


Equalizing ratings across rapid, blitz and bullet?

Bullet and blitz are mostly for fun (especially bullet). You don't have to have the same rating in both bullet, blitz and rapid as not all the people can think that fast. Keep playing rapid games if you like them and remember that chess is a fun game.
If you (plan to) play seriously (participate in competitions), then you'll realise that rapid games are by far the most helpful because of the long time controls which allow you to think more and therefore make better moves.


You need to play against players who already have a FIDE rating in competitions which are themselves FIDE rated. The numbers keep changing but I think you need at least one draw out of 5 games against FIDE rated opposition. This doesn't have to be achieved in one competition but there is a time limit before your games expire, something like 2 years, but I don't know exactly.

I should add that FIDE have standard, rapid and blitz ratings and these don't mix. So, if you play 3 FIDE rated opponents in a standard time control competition and 2 in rapid or blitz that does not count as 5.

EDIT:
I've checked out what the FIDE site says:

  6.1 If an unrated player scores zero in his first tournament, his score and that of his opponents against him are disregarded.
  Otherwise, if an unrated player has played rated games, then this
  result is included in computing his overall rating.

  6.31 For an unrated player’s first performance to count, he must score at least 1/2 point.

  7.14 A rating for a player new to the list shall be published only if it meets the following criteria:

  7.14a If based on results obtained under 6.2 [round robin with min 4 rated players], a minimum of 5 games.

  7.14b If based on results obtained under 6.3 [swiss], a minimum of 5 games played against rated opponents.

  7.14c The condition of a minimum of 5 games need not be met in one tournament. Results from other tournaments played within consecutive
  rating periods totalling not more than 26 months, are pooled to obtain
  the initial rating.

7.14d
The rating is at least 1000.

7.14e
The rating is calculated using all his results as if they were played in one tournament (it is not published until he has played at least 5 games) by using all the rating data available.


If I analyze a move in a position to depth 25, then why am i only up to depth 15 immediately after playing the move?

I think the answer is that, although the engine has indeed calculated to depth 25, it has certainly not been able to store anywhere near the amount of the tree it examined during that search, no matter the memory allocated to the transposition table (hashtable). A lot of that tree (even of the pruned tree) is discarded as the depth-25 calculation continues, and so it pretty much has to be recreated after each move.

You may object that, almost certainly there must be a depth-24 value for the position after Nf3 stored in the hashtable left over from the previous depth-25 calculation. But that kind of proves the point -- the hashtable only stores a single value and a single "principle variation" leading to that value, not the whole depth-24 tree from which that principle variation was determined, by any means.


Lichess has an API which can also be used to download games. For example:
https://lichess.org/api/games/user/{username}?max=3&color=white

This will download 3 most recent games played by {username} with the white pieces.
You can find the docs for this operation (and others) here:
https://lichess.org/api#operation/apiGamesUser
The introduction page lists some clients including one for Python:
https://lichess.org/api#section/Introduction


Best heuristic for memorizing positions in chess

This seems a bit theoretical/artificial to me.

I'd say, just do whatever works best for you. In the end all this should happen subconsciously without you thinking about any "methods".

  What is a consistent method for creating the checkpoints?

Do you mean, how to memorize a position 5 moves from now? For any reasonably strong player this is not a problem (could be more problematic with positions very far in the future). You could use similar methods as in blindfold chess, e.g. you could combine groups of pieces (e.g. store the information of "fianchettoed bishop" instead of the position of each piece separately). Also for tactics very often only a small part of the board/limited number of pieces are relevant; so you could ignore irrelevant pieces.

  Next, where in the tactic do we set the checkpoint?

Could make sense to create them at points where you have a number of alternative moves. Also, could create them at positions that are easy to remember.


According to FIDE Handbook:

  Article 7: Irregularities

  7.4

  If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the
  correct position in his own time. If necessary, either the player or
  his opponent shall stop the chessclock and ask for the arbiter’s
  assistance. The arbiter may penalise the player who displaced the
  pieces.

That means, yes, you can stop the clock and call the arbiter for your assistance if he did not adjust the pieces in his own time.


Is this really limitation of absolute ELO?

My experience is with the ECF system, which is probably not technically elo but I understand it approximates it. With that understanding, Tony gave the correct answer, but I want to elaborate.

A simple explanation of how the ECF rating works, using elo units: when you beat your opponent, you get his rating + 400 points for that game, if you draw you get his rating and if you lose, his rating - 400. Your rating for a period is calculated by averaging out all the ratings points so obtained over that period.

As you can see, your rating is normally expressed as a function of your opponents' rating. (There may be exceptions like when your opponent has no rating, or a rating very far away from your rating, but that can be safely ignored for this discussion). That means that no matter how good you are actually, you can only be measured in terms of how good you are relative to your opponents.

The implication of this is that if all your opponents' ratings remain static (as it would be between rating set points), your maximum possible rating is the highest opponent's rating plus 400. This can only be obtained if you keep on playing the next best rated player and win every game.

Let's say someone with Magnus Carlsen's ability appears out of nowhere and enters a junior tournament where all his opponents have ratings of +-1400. Low and behold, he wins all his games - but his rating for the tournament will still only be +-1800, because it is calculated based on the strength of his opponents.

Hence, as you can see, there is no absolute maximum theoretical rating, but there is a relative theoretical limit. As your opponents' ratings increase, your theoretical maximum rating also increases, but never above the highest opponent rating + 400.

** Note to technically minded: ECF rating is convertible to elo using a formula established by the ECF as described here. How accurate this is is probably disputable, but according to the latest formula, I should have used 375 points instead of 400 as described above.


Why does Stockfish give a negative score in a theoretical win for white?

Because Black is to move, and for Black the position is evaluated as being 42.76 pawns behind.


There is only one black piece left, so the last move was with the king. Black's last move was obviously Kg1-h2.
The king could not have come from h3, because there is no way the white pawn could have given check from g2 (its initial position). All other squares around h2 are occupied by white pieces.

Since the black king came from g1, it was in check from the rook on d1 before the last move. Obviously the rook could not have moved to d1 from somewhere on the d file because the pawn on d2 blocks the way. So there are two possibilities how the rook could have given check:

discovered check, i.e. a white piece moved away  form e1 or f1 making space for the attack on the black king on g1
long castle

As for "1" None of the pieces currently on the board could have moved away from the 1st row (i.e. from e1 or f1) to give way for the check. However if a white knight moved from f1 to h2 giving check that would be a discovered check and the black king captured this knight on h2. Obviously this is the only option for a discovered check.

As for "2". If white castled long, that means that the white king never moved (castling rules) before, meaning the white king was always on e1. Then the question is: How did the black king get to g1? With the white king on e1, the black king could not have entered via f1 or f2. Neither it could have come via g2 (where there is still the original white pawn).

This would mean that it came via h2. But is that possible? In order to get to h2, it would have to come from h3 (not possible because of the original never-moved pawn on g2) or from g3.

However the black king could never have entered via g3, because the square was either i) attacked by a pawn from f2 or ii) occupied by that same pawn from f2.

That leaves as the only option, as last moves 1. Nf1-h2+ Kxh2

Going back one move further, what was the last move of black before Nf1-h2+? There are two possibilities: it could be a move by the king or it could be a move by a piece which got captured on h2 by the knight.

Let's analyze both options.

Black moved the king in move 0

If the last move was by the black king it could not have come from f1, g2, h1 (which are blocked by white pieces) and neither could it have come from f2, because there is no way the knight on h1 could have given check. That leaves only h2 as possible option. So assuming the king came from h2, where it was in check, the last white move must have been Ne3-f1+. So the moves are now 0. Ne3-f1+ Kh2-g1 1. Nf1-h2+ Kxh2.

That is not the end of the story yet, because looking at the position before 0. Ne3-f1+ you note (basically for the same arguments as before, that the last move of black must have been Kg1-h2. On g1 the king would have been in check. This check (for the same arguments as presented before) could only have been a discovered check by the knight on e3.

So we have a situation where the black king is shuffling between g1 and h2 while the white knight is moving between f1 and e3. How can this infinite loop be broken? The only way to break this is, if there was a black piece at some point on f1, which blocked the check from the rook. This black piece on f1 got captured by the white knight when the black king was on h2.

Black moved a piece to h2 in move 0

If black must moved another piece that  got captured on h2, this piece can be a black pawn, knight, rook, or queen. It can not be a black bishop, because it could not have moved to h2 (because g3 and g1 were occupied by pieces).

Summary

Two possible solutions:

0. .... N/Q/R/pawn h2
1. Nf1xh2 Kg1xh2

or

Initial position:

white: pawns on d2,g2,g3; Nh1; Ne3; Kc1; Rd1;
black: Kh2; some piece on f1

-n. Nx piece f1+ Kh2g1
[any number of repeating moves with the knight shuffling between f1 and e3 and the king between g1 and h2]
-1. .... Kg1h2
 0. Ne3f1+ Kh2g1
 1. Nf1h2 Kg1xh2


What are some resources for someone past beginner but not yet intermediate?

I will go ahead and assume that your playing strength is roughly at ~1100 Elo, since that is what I consider to be the approximate level of an "advanced beginner", so to speak.

To a player of your level, I would give the following advice:

Chess is a game which consists of three main phases: The opening, the middle game, and the endgame. These three phases are characterized below.

The opening: The part of the game where both sides have yet to get their pawns and pieces into action. Both sides should strive to take control of the center, develop their pieces, and put their king somewhere safe.
The middle game: Both sides come into attack range of each other, and a battle for the advantage is begun. Many things happen, and the ability to think of "a plan" is vital not to get lost completely.
The endgame: If the game is not already decided in the middlegame, one can expect that both players are somewhat comparable in strength, causing them to eventually trade down pieces until not very many are left. Since there are not many pieces left, the ones that are still present matter more than ever, and tactical ability combined with concrete knowledge of basic endgames is key to playing the endgame with success.

Q: What does an advanced beginner need to know about the opening to up their game?

A: In the opening, one needs to know about the basic opening principles, and one should strive to apply them into their games. For instance, look into the thread Good openings for a beginner (for white), and xaisoft's answer, which outlines some opening principles. The following link also gives some advice on how to conduct one's opening play as a beginner: https://www.chess.com/blog/NimzoRoy/chess-opening-principles.

Q: Why is it good to follow the opening principles? Why shouldn't I just learn concrete opening variations?

A: The opening principles are the easiest means to get you to a playable middle game, and if you follow them you would be surprised at how often they will succeed in guiding you towards the right moves in the opening. As to why one should not focus on learning concrete opening variations as a beginner, it mainly has to do with the fact that it's too early for a beginner to do that.

The reason you study specific opening theory is to try to get a concrete advantage out of the opening, and at the beginner scene, most players don't know opening theory, and will thus not very likely play the exact lines you've studied. This means that you will have to spend an unreasonably big part of your studying on openings, which will impede your progress in the other two major phases of the game. Also, as a beginner, it is extremely difficult to learn specific openings well, since that requires understanding of the ideas in certain positions(which is very hard to attain if you don't know much about planning in chess in general), and not just knowledge of precise variations.

Q: Ok, so I applied the opening principles, and got my pieces out and all that. What's next? What about the middle game?

A: Following the opening principles, unless you're facing some really nasty opponent, the following will most likely happen:

You will most likely have a pawn or to in the center of the board.
Most of your light pieces(knights and bishops) are likely out of their starting positions.
Your king is likely castled already.

Now it's time to start looking for short-term and long-term goals for you(and for your opponent!). In the middle game, the thing that will make you reign supreme over beginners is tactics, and plan-oriented play. Most beginners are not very procifient at tactics, and do not play their moves according to a clear-cut plan.

Q: Ok, so what are tactics? How do I learn them?

A: The term tactics is an umbrella term that involves concrete, often forced, sequences of moves in a position. These sequences can be one move long(like capturing hanging pieces), or more long, and complex(like conducting a well planned attack successfully against the opposing king).

Normally, the difficulty of a tactical sequence is determined by how long it is; shorter sequences are easier, and longer sequences are harder.

As a beginner, one should focus on learning to find these shorter tactical sequences(1-3 moves deep) consistently. To do this, use the following guidelines for calculating(looking for) tactical variations:

THE GOLDEN RULE FOR CALCULATING TACTICS

At every move in a tactical sequence, consider the responses in the following order of priority:

First, consider all the checks in a position;
Then, consider all the possible captures in the position;
Consider other moves.

Using this will help you to spot the details that make or break a tactic.

But starting out with tactics, one should definitely look for some common tactical ideas that will further aid one's play. Here is a good list, with examples, of a wide array of tactical ideas: https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-tactics--definitions-and-examples. Learning how to apply these in one's games is not easy, and practice is crucial. Playing games is very good to improve calculation, and solving tactical exercises, on for example http://chesstempo.com/, can be very beneficial as well.

Q: Ok, great! So, what about plan-oriented play? What is it, and why is it good to learn?

A: By plan-oriented play, I simply mean that one should always make a move according to some plan, and not just make an arbitrary move with no clear purpose other than wanting the game to progress. Bent Larsen, one of the great players in the 1960's and 1970's, has the following very famous quote attached to his name: A bad plan is better than no plan!

What this means is that a you need to have a goal in mind - however misguided - to ever hope to beat your opponent. If chess were boxing, this advice could be that no matter how unrefined, it's better to throw punches aimed at your opponent, than it is to just throw your arms around aimlessly and run around in circles.

As a beginner, go for simple plans, like trying to win a pawn or piece by threatening it with your pieces. Or you can try to use tactics, to gain material or to try and mate your opponent's king.

The plan can even be long-term, like "I don't want to get checkmated on the first rank, and I don't want my knight on f3 to be pinned. Therefore I will go h3, to create luft for my king, and prevent my opponent from stepping on g4."

If you don't find an immediate plan, it could help to "talk with your pieces", and try to improve their placement. By this, I mean that you should try to evaluate if a piece is badly placed or not, by trying to give your pieces some personality traits:

The knights like to stand in the center, where they can move very freely, and control the enem forces. Even better if they are defended by a pawn, and there are no annoying enemy pawns to chase them away! The knights don't like very much to stand on the edge of the board, which leaves them restricted. But as long as it's not a corner square, it may be tolerable. In general, the knights are stronger in closed positions(not many open lines).
The bishops like best to stand placed on long, unrestricted diagonals. This way, they can be relatively safe, and at the same time work to make the opponent's pieces stumble over each other to avoid the scary bishops in the distance. Since the bishops are so mobile, they like to have multiple targets in the enemy camp. The bishops dislike being treated like pawns, and they absolutely hate having to be trapped behind their own pieces, with no hope of coming out to play in the near future! The bishops are stronger in open positions(many open lines to work with), with pawns on both sides of the board.
The rooks like open ranks and files, and in particular, they love to work together. The best thing they know is to "double up" on an open file, and then just crash into the enemy's position. This can be devastating for the opponent, since the rooks are real powerhouses. In particular, the rook likes to go on the seventh rank, where it will run around, scaring the enemy pawns, and severely restricting the movement of enemy pieces. Rooks are, like bishops, stronger in open positions, with open lines to work on. However, they are also more vulnerable, since they are more valuable than a bishop or a knight.
The queen boasts with unparallelled power at the board. She likes to spread terror in the enemy camps, and will gladly cooperate with other friendly pieces to get her way. She likes the center, where she has free access to almost any part of the board, but she hates getting in the line of fire from the enemy lines(that's no way to treat a lady!), and wants to stay safe, if possible. Therefore, she often waits until after the opening to get out, when the coast is clear, in some sense.
The king is the most important piece, and he knows it. Therefore, he makes a point of staying safe at all cost. During the middle game, when the battle is in full swing, the king wishes to sit back and ride out the storm in safety, behind his loyal pawns and pieces. However, when the dust settles somewhat, and the endgame approaches, he feels it's a lot safer to go out and show who is the real boss! Boasting with striking power close to that of a rook, he will join up with his allies to end the battle, using his flexibility to drive away those who dare oppose him. However, he is still quite gun-shy, to be honest.

Knowing your pieces is the fundamentals to learning how to use them properly, and it's a vital part of learning how to go from beginner to intermediate player(it's at the core of so-called positional play). Searching for "planning in chess" should bring you some helpful online resurces.

Q: Do I really need to study endgames if I want to improve? They are boring, and I never even reach them in my games, so what's the point?

A: If you really wish to improve, the endgame is essential to study in some detail. However, the endgame has an unfair reputation of being boring. Granted, there aren't as many "flashy" moves. However the tactics are never-ending, and in many cases the endgame is a battle on the knife's edge. So even if it doesn't look very flashy from an onlooker's perspective, I can promise you: it is when you learn to truly appreciate its many finesses!

Also, if you're never reaching endgames in your own games, it often means that either you or your opponent tries to avoid the endgame at the cost of a potential loss, or it means that your games are very lop-sided(someone gets mated or loses many pieces early on). As soon as you play someone of equal ability, you won't get fooled by your opponent's tricks, and your opponent will not very easily fall for your traps either. Therefore, to win, you will need to be able to outlast your opponents, and be prepared to face them in the endgame. Expecting never to reach an endgame is equivalent to expecting that at least one player will make a severe mistake early on.

With that being said, at the beginner level, you don't really need to learn everything about endgames immediately! Learn the basic mates with rook, queen, etc., and learn the basic concepts of pawn endgames(there's a wiki page on this topic here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_and_pawn_versus_king_endgame). Some basic concepts of rook endings could also prove useful, and in general, the more endgames you study, the better! However, don't push yourself if you can't stand studying endgames further. If you want a good book on endgames to use as a beginner, I'd recommend Silman's Complete Endgame Course. It divides the different endgames after player ability, rather than piece configuration, and you can use it to improve later as well.

That concludes it, I think. I cannot think of anything more I'd say to an advanced beginner seeking to improve. Good luck with your ambition!


How could I defend/attack in this situation?

The way I see it, neither of you was aggressive in the opening -- you both tried to get rid of your pieces as quickly as possible! Being aggressive is getting many pieces in active positions quickly, not giving them away.

When we give advice, we have to take into account the level of the players. Both of you need to work on the most basic skill first: Piece safety. The first skill to learn is to recognize when undefended pieces can simply be captured, to always do that if your opponent gives you the chance, and to never give him the chance to just take a whole piece without repercussions. The moment one of you starts doing that, he'll blow the other off the board completely.

Let's show a number of positions where this was the case:

[FEN "rnbqkb1r/pppppppp/5n2/8/3PP3/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 2"]

After 2.e4?, black can take a pawn for free, and he does.

[FEN "rnbqkb1r/pppppppp/8/8/2BP4/8/PPP2nPP/RNBQK1NR w KQkq - 0 4"]

Black gives away a full knight with 3...Nxf2. Why??

[FEN "rnbqkb1r/ppp1pppp/8/3B4/3P4/8/PPP2KPP/RNBQ2NR b kq - 0 5"]

White returns the favour immediately! Why give away a bishop with 5.Bxd5 when you could have just retreated it, say to d3?

[FEN "r1b1k2r/ppp2ppp/2n5/4q3/1b6/2P5/PP2Q1PP/RNB1K1NR w kq - 1 10"]

After 9...Nc6, black has done nothing to prevent white taking the bishop on b4! Had he played 9...Qxe2+ 10.Nxe2 Bc5 instead he wouldn't have lost a piece.

[FEN "r1b1k2r/ppp2ppp/2n5/4q3/1b6/2P2N2/PP2Q1PP/RNB1K2R b kq - 2 10"]

But white doesn't take it!

[FEN "r1b1k2r/ppp1qppp/2n5/8/1b6/2P2N2/PP2Q1PP/RNB1K2R w kq - 3 11"]

Black still ignores the threat to his bishop! He could still have played 10...Qxe2+ and then move the bishop.

[FEN "r4rk1/ppp1Bppp/2n5/2q5/6b1/P4N2/1P1NQ1PP/R3K2R b - - 2 15"]

White just played 15.Be7??, giving away his bishop. It's attacked twice (by the knight on c6 and the queen on c5), and only defended by the queen, so black could just have played 15...Qxe7 or 15...Nxe7 !

[FEN "r4rk1/ppp1Bppp/8/2q5/3n2b1/P4N2/1P1NQ1PP/R3K2R w - - 3 16"]

Instead, black insists on giving away a knight himself with 15...Nd4. If white simply answers 16.Bxc5 Nxe2 17.Kxe2, white has won a full knight.

[FEN "r4rk1/pppqBppp/8/8/6b1/P4N2/1P2Q1PP/R3K2R w - - 2 18"]

Now white is in some trouble, because he never bothered to get his king out of the center and a rook is threatening to come to the e-file, capturing the queen. There are two options: move the king away (it can't castle anymore, it moved to f2 in the opening) and defend the bishop with 18.Kf2 Rfe8 19.Rhe1. White will try to move his queen out of the pin next, say with 20.Qd1, so he's better. The other option is to take the offered rook with 18.Bxf8 Re8 19.Bb4 Rxe2+ 20.Kxe2, and white has two rooks and a bishop for the queen, which is good.

But the point is: if you see nothing of that, then you play Bxf8, because the rook is worth more than the bishop.

[FEN "4rrk1/ppp2ppp/8/2B5/q5b1/P4N2/1P2Q1PP/3RK2R w - - 6 20"]

But white didn't and we get to the end of the game, white is in trouble. But black for some reason moved the rook from a8 to e8, so that the one on f8 can still be captured.

After 19.Bxf8 Rxe2+ 20.Kxe2 Kxf8 white has two rooks for a queen and two pawns, his king is in the middle and his rooks aren't active. White is lost. But that means nothing as long as both players keep giving away pieces at the same rate as they've done so far, anything can still happen.

Edit: as AlwaysLearningNewStuff points out, in the final position white can block the attack on the queen with 19.Be3!, he's still a knight up for two pawns, and he can probably untangle his position with Kf2, Rhe1 et cetera. That's much better.


White to play and mate in 4, while forcing the black king to capture on each move:

[fen "1r2qrnk/3R1bRp/pp2nBpp/p3P3/4B3/5PPQ/PPP3N1/1K6 w - - 0 1"]

Solution:

   1.Rxh7 Kxh7   2.Bxg6 Kxg6   3.Qf5 Kxf5   4.Nh4#


Is there a terminology for "the worst winning move"?

The short answer is no.
In 25 years of chess experience I have never heard such a term. There isn't unless there is some definition somewhere in a shady club packed with sadists who love to mate with several knights!


Apparently, it is supposed to make the live broadcasts more entertaining.

Up until now, the live broadcasts (e.g. on chess24), although increasingly popular, only featured a video of the players, chessboards with constantly updating moves and engine evaluations, as well as live commentary from GMs/IMs.

As far as I understood, the players will be allowed (and encouraged) to, during the games, go into the "box" and speak about their games - so the live audience and commentators (but not their opponents) can hear their thoughts and considerations about the games, what their plans are, which moves they looked into etc.. A "Big Brother" sort of thing.

Apparently, it has already been used in EnterCard Chess Qualifier, the qualification tournament for Norway Chess 2015: http://www.chess.com/news/hammer-qualifies-for-norway-chess-6703

  Right after the game Hammer went to the “confession box,” a room next to the playing hall where the players were encouraged to give some thoughts about their ongoing game. Co-organizer and webmaster Tarjei J. Svensen explained:
  “They could do this whenever they wanted and it was a completely voluntary thing, but all the players had used the opportunity to do it, sometimes even more than once per game. The idea was suggested by Team Carlsen for TV2. It has been rather well received by the players and the viewers.”


I developed all the pieces I could. Now what?

Let's look at the position and try to evaluate the situation on the board. This is always a good idea, especially if you're struggling to come up with a concrete plan.
r1b2rk1/4n3/p1p1p1p1/1p1pPp1p/1PnN1P2/2NB4/2PP2PP/1RB2RK1 b - - 0 1

HOW TO EVALUATE THIS POSITION?
In this position black is a piece down for a pawn, so this in and of itself should be cause for concern. But this is actually not the only issue with black's position, although the material situation is of course the easiest thing to consider in a position since it doesn't require anything besides basic arithmetics to calculate.
Factors that are just as important, but often much harder to appreciate for beginners, include king safety, piece activity and coordination, pawn structure, space, etc. Let's begin by looking at black's pawn structure, as it will make clear just how problematic black's position really is.
The "sawtooth" kind of structure that black has set up is something I often see beginners play for, as they feel like it's easy to make sure that everything's protected. But the structure has some serious flaws. First off, the pawns in the back of the structure (g6, e6, c6, a6) are at serious risk of becoming weak since there is no way to defend them with other pawns and it's very hard to advance them without losing them; for instance, moving the g- or c-pawn forward here just lets white capture the pawns for free. But this is not where the problems end. The pawns that are further advanced (h5, f5, d5, b5) are also virtually immobilized; if they were to move forward they would immediately lose support and be vulnerable to attack (imagine if black were to play ...h4, then white would win that pawn if they just manage to threaten it somehow). So in the end, black's pawn structure is rigid and inflexible, and much weaker than it seems at first glance. Another problem with this structure is that it leaves your dark squares very weak. If you want to defend a dark square it has to be done with a piece, and since you're lacking a dark-squared bishop it will be difficult to do this efficiently.
The inflexible pawn structure causes a lot of other headaches for black as well. For instance, black already controls less space than white (in this case it can be clearly seen by the fact that black is relegated to play on the 6th to 8th rank with almost all of their pieces, while white's pieces have a lot more opportunity for movement). This means that black will have less space available to move around their pieces. This, in turn, makes it harder for black's pieces to coordinate without stepping on each others' toes which makes it harder for black to react to white's threats in the long term.
So, to summarize, black is material down and has a weak and inflexible pawn structure which makes their position cramped and gives their pieces a harder time to move effectively (the bishop on c8 is especially terrible here). The only "good" thing about black's position is that their king is pretty safe at the moment. Therefore your aim in this position as black is to draw, since winning is out of the question as long as white doesn't blunder something serious.
HOW DOES WHITE WIN?
Depending on the opposition a draw for black can be easy or difficult or impossible to achieve. A grandmaster would easily win this position as white no matter what black does, the average player could potentially struggle against optimal play and a beginner is probably not going to win this as long as black hunkers down and plays passive defense. Let's discuss a bit how white actually wins this position so that we know what we must try to prevent.
At the moment, the position is pretty locked, so white should ultimately aim to open it up somehow. An open file is enough here to work with, so a pawn breakthrough with h3-g4 is going to be enough to open the position eventually. But the fact of the matter is that with a locked central structure there is no real need to play this immediately, and white can instead focus on improving their position by developing the dark-squared bishop on c1; if this bishop were to awaken it could easily become very strong, since black's dark squares are desperately weak as I described earlier. In fact, a pawn break with h3-g4 may not even be necessary to win here if the c1 bishop manages to worm its way into black's position.
In general, white should try to use their extra space to their advantage in order to "optimize" the position of their pieces and threaten as many of black's weak points as possible at once while at the same time take away squares for black's pieces to occupy safely. Therefore, the following would be an excellent sequence of moves for white to be able to play: Nb3 (this opens the potential scope of the bishop on c1 later on, and it blocks black from making any pawn breaks; also, this knight could be very annoying for black if it were to reach c5, as this would practically immobilize the bishop on c8 completely), Be2 (opens up the d-pawn, and it also starts to prepare for a future g4 pawn break), d3 (pushes black's knight away from its active post on c4), Be3 (this bishop may go c5-d6 or f2-h4, depending on what black decides to defend against). If white so pleases, they could begin the entire operation by playing Be2, d3, Be3 first.
SO WHAT SHOULD BLACK DO HERE?
This is by far the hardest question to answer. Black is objectively lost here, and to be honest, I'm struggling to see a decent way for black to play this in order to make life hard for white. If I were playing a weaker opponent I would probably just hunker down here and play passively, hoping that white doesn't find a winning plan (which they probably wouldn't find, at least immediately).
However, the problem with this is that white just wins then by playing along the plan I outlined above, and this is something I kind of expect the average player (~1600 Elo) to find eventually. So I guess that ...a5 is really the best move to try here in practical terms. This move is good to try because it eliminates the pawn on b4, which gives black some chances to take back some terrain on the queenside by means of just rolling their pawns forward if white is careless enough. This would solve the space issue nicely, and give black's pieces a fighting chance to activate themselves. Note, however, that black is dead lost with decent play from white here and even if ...a5 is relatively best it's still far from nearly enough to ensure a draw. For instance, the line 1...a5 2.bxa5 Rxa5 (if 2...Nxa5 white just plays Ba3, activating their dark-squared bishop immediately and threatening the knight on e7) 3.Nb3, and white dominates completely. But since the pawn on b4 has been removed this means that the pawns on the queenside are a bit more mobile, which means that white has to be a bit more tactically alert.


That kind of tension in the center is very double-edged.

On the long term, the pawn exchanges in the center should favor Black: he will get a stronghold on d5 for a knight and the e5-pawn might turn into a weakness in the endgame. Also, exchanges of major pieces down the newly opened c- and d-files will reduce White's attacking chances on the kingside.

In the short term however, pawn exchanges open lines that will favor the better developed side, which is undoubtedly White. All kind of nasty threats may follow, especially because the black King is still far from castled: checks on the a4-e8 diagonal, kinght jumps to d6, threats against the un-protected Pb7, intrusions on the 7th rank before Black can connect his rooks, etc.

That's why what you have read ("knowing what to do (capturing or mantaining the tension) boils down to calculation") is absolutely correct. Most often it will boil down to one tempo whether Black can safely castle or if he get caught beforehand.

In the precise given position, for instance, I would be reluctant to play 1...cxd4?! 2.Na3!? a6 3.Bg5, when it is hard to untangle the knights and white rooks will put huge pressure on the central files. 2...Nc5 3.Qd4 Nf5 is more active, but 4.Qf4 Be7 can be met by either 5.g4 or 5.Rd1, so Black will play longer with the king in the center.

On the other hand, 1...dc4!? is tempting, 2.Qxc4 Nd5 and that kinght stabilizes the position, e.g. 3.Nc3 N7b6 4.Qb5 Qd7 5.Qxd7 Kxd7 and Black has nothing to complain about, or 3.Rd1 Be7 followed by 0-0.

If it was White's move, however, 1.Nc3 would already put strong pressure on Black.


Why is Na5 not played in this line of the French Defense, Advance Variation?

The Nbd2 --> Nc4 plan to protect the bishop doesn't work because c4 is attacked by black's pawn. Stockfish takes a more direct route to kick the pin:

[fen "r1b1kb1r/pp3ppp/1q2p3/n2pPn2/1P1P4/P4N2/1B3PPP/RN1QKB1R w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. Nc3 {White can kick the pin in a moment.} (1. Nbd2 {This move also poorly develops the knight - and as you can see, c4 is covered anyway.}) 1...Bd7 2. Na4

And the pin is already gone. Na5 didn't really do anything in the first place. It was interesting while it lasted, but that wasn't long. It wasn't exactly a bad move, even (lichess would call it an "inaccuracy," I'd wager); however, there are better ideas here, such as the simple developing move Bd7.


Is Rover opening sound in crazyhouse opening theory?

I don't think it's a good idea to rook lift this early in crazy house. Lichess's carzy house computer actually says that 1.e4 gives white a +2.3 advantage and 1.a4 gives white -1.0. In crazy house, you have to get your pieces out as fast as possible.


How to take advantage of under-development of opposing pieces?

This is an example for how it can go wrong for Black side.

[Event "?"]
[ECO "B02"]
[White "Jacques Mieses"]
[Event "Monte Carlo"]
[Black "Frank James Marshall"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/ b - - 0 1"]

[Setup "1"]

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2 d6 6.Ne2 Nc6
7.O-O Be6 8.Bd5 Nf6 9.Qb3 Qc8 10.Nf4 Nd8 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Nh5
c6 13.Re1 Be7 14.Qf3 Rg8 15.Nxf6+ Bxf6 16.Qxf6 cxd5 17.exd5
Rg6 18.Qh8+ Kd7 19.Nc3 Bxd5 20.Qe8+ Kc7 21.Nxd5+ Kb8 22.Rac1
Nc6 23.Rxc6 1-0


How to start learning theory? (1850 Elo)

Learning theory involves some memorization of moves, but it's also important to understand the core ideas behind the moves. With these ideas, you can figure out what to play in novel situations not covered by the theory you've studied (or if you end up in a position that you forget).

There are different ways to study using an opening book. If you have a program like Chessbase, you could input the moves given, and also annotate in what you think the main ideas are. A good chess book will also take the time to explicitly explain the main ideas; some don't, which will require you to think on your own why a move was given. If you don't have Chessbase, I suppose you could go through the moves on an actual board, and jot down your notes somewhere (like in Word or a notepad).

If you're trying to get better at a new opening though, I'd suggest playing something longer than bullet - try at least 5 0. You want time to think about the position and apply the ideas (and moves) you've learned.


The best way to continue King's Gambit Accepted as White after 3 ... Be7

The black threat of Bh4+ is not really ones, white should play Bc4 in this position. Releasing the f1 square for the king after the check on h4. After the check white cannot castle anymore but the bishop on h4 is not very happy, black can't play the g8 Knight and need to spend one more tempo on retreating the bishop.

If black don't give the check, white could just occupy the center with the d4 pawn, castle and capture back the f4 pawn with a nice game.


No.  Black cannot reach the Hanham variation (e.g. the Philidor setup with Nd7, Nf6, e5 and sometimes c6) by force.
The modern move order to reach the Hanham variation, however, is 1. e4 d6! 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 e5.  This is black's best move order to reach the Hanham variation because white usually transposes to the Hanham variation with 4. Nf3.
Experienced white players usually don't avoid the Hanham with the above move order because the main alternative 4. dxe5!? lets black equalize easily as recent results have proven.


4.Ng5 is a provocative move, threatening to take on f7.

The main line is 4...d5, and after 5.exd5 the best move might be 5...Na5. After 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 Black has sacrificed a pawn but has gained a slight lead in development. If instead you play 5...Nxd5, White will often play 6. Nxf7 Kxf7 7. Qf3+ Ke6, known as the Fried Liver. White has a very good attack despite being down material. At your level, White is probably wanting and expecting the Fried Liver when he plays Ng5, so I wouldn't give it to him.

The other common response is 4...Bc5, known as the Traxler Counterattack. Black is allowing White to take on f7 but is trying to get his own attack on f2. These games can get wild.

None of these really fit your criteria; they involve sacrifices by one side or the other. If you prefer material equality, I suggest you avoid this line altogether by playing 3...Bc5, going into the Giuoco Piano instead of the Two Knights as your response to the Italian. White cannot then play 4.Ng5 because you could take the knight with your queen.

[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 (3... Bc5 {Giuoco Piano}) 4. Ng5 d5 (4... Bc5 {Traxler}) 5. exd5 Na5 (5... Nxd5 6. Nxf7 Kxf7 7. Qf3+ Ke6 {Fried Liver}) 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 *


FIDE Article 4.3:

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

  a. one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched
  that can be moved

  b. one or more of his opponent’s pieces, he must capture the first
  piece touched that can be captured

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

If a player touches a piece without the intention of moving or capturing (e.g. fingerslip), there is no touch move restriction.


agree..broad ?..info for fun. There are 13 different claims to the origin of chess. No proof. Earliest documentation--600 A.D. Chaturanga - 4 sided game in what is now India. In this authors opinion chess was originally a 2 player game changed to a 4 player game then back to a 2 sided game. Trivia-the one peice that has not changed apperance or move pattern-knight..last major rule changes....Q & O-O..France 1400s.   Source "A Short History of Chess" by Henry A. Davidson m.d.1949


What material handicap would be required to compensate for a single double-move?

The question can never be answered in a general fashion. Every move has its own perks and advantages. The major variables are these:

Is the same piece allowed to move twice or can black move two pieces once?

Are captures allowed? With just one move of the king's pawn already made, it is possible for any party to capture the opponent's queen within two moves. (Or put them in a position where it cannot escape capture in the next few moves). Here the price for two moves is AT LEAST a queen (since the two moves party would not only have captured the queen, but also invaded inside the enemy ranks).

Starting from midgame, two moves can easily put the opponent in a mate-in-x position where they cannot avoid mate. For example, if one has several mating combinations available, there can be no possible compensation to that!

All in all, I think the option of two moves can/should be made available only in the opening and the price is the queen. It is disastrous and potentially game-losing to allow the opponent double moves in the middlegame or endgame and there can be no compensation to that.


Are there games between top computers which uncovered never-seen-before ideas?

My answer is - Yes. A simple example is the use of endgame tablebase. Many positions, which were thought to be drawn, now have a winning line. IMO this is a new idea. One day computers might uncover that castling is bad - it is a new idea, doesn't matter if it was achieved by brute force.

ps: even though computers work on fixed algorithms, they can uncover new ideas. Same algorithm can return different results when run for longer duration and/or better hardware. In the end, chess is deterministic and finite.


Python script to let stockfish selfplay 10 games from a given position

This should get you started, up to you to add extra features based on your objective (such as saving the games and moves, etc.)

import chess
import chess.engine
import os
import sys

arguments = sys.argv
pondertime = float(arguments[1]) #first argument: ponder time in sec
maxmoves = int(arguments[2]) #2nd argument: max number of desired moves
gamecount = int(arguments[3]) #3rd argument: max number of games to play
#here we assume the engine file is in same folder as our python script
path = os.getcwd()
#Now make sure you give the correct location for your stockfish engine file
#...in the line that follows by correctly defining path
engine = chess.engine.SimpleEngine.popen_uci(path+'/'+'stockfish-10-64')

dictsidetomove = {True:'white',False:'black'}
notationdict = {True:'.', False:'...'}

for i in range(gamecount):
    board = chess.Board() #give whatever starting position here
    while not board.is_game_over() and board.fullmove_number<=maxmoves:
        result = engine.play(board,chess.engine.Limit(time=pondertime))
        print(dictsidetomove[board.turn]+' played '+str(board.fullmove_number)+notationdict[board.turn]+str(board.san(result.move)))
        board.push(result.move)
    print('Iteration '+str(i+1)+'-----')
    print(board)
    print('Final position FEN: ',board.fen())
    print('-----')

engine.quit()

Here's an example running it for engine time of 0.1 sec, 10 move game, and 1 game to be played only:

python selfplay.py 0.1 10 1

Printed output:

white played 1.e4
black played 1...d5
white played 2.exd5
black played 2...Qxd5
white played 3.Nf3
black played 3...Nf6
white played 4.Nc3
black played 4...Qd6
white played 5.d4
black played 5...a6
white played 6.Bd3
black played 6...Nc6
white played 7.O-O
black played 7...Bg4
white played 8.Ne4
black played 8...Nxe4
white played 9.Bxe4
black played 9...O-O-O
white played 10.Be3
black played 10...g6
Iteration 1-----
. . k r . b . r
. p p . p p . p
p . n q . . p .
. . . . . . . .
. . . P B . b .
. . . . B N . .
P P P . . P P P
R . . Q . R K .
Final position FEN:  2kr1b1r/1pp1pp1p/p1nq2p1/8/3PB1b1/4BN2/PPP2PPP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 11
-----


The story is "The Three Sailors' Gambit" (1916) by Lord Dunsany, who was an interesting character. Besides being a prolific writer, he was a winner of the Irish chess championship, and he managed a draw during a simul by Capablanca. Dunsany was also a problem composer, some of them fairly typical chess problems and some of them more offbeat:

White to Mate in 4

This is very much a tricky problem.


Are there any repeated games between GMs?

It depends on what you mean by "repeat games", but even in the strictest sense of the word, repeat games have certainly happened. Here's an example of a completely repeated game:

[FEN ""]
[White "Liviu Dieter Nisipeanu"]
[Black "Gata Kamsky"]
 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Bd2 Bxd2+ 8.Nbxd2 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Qb3 Na5 11.Qa4+ Nc6 12.Qb3 Na5 13.Qa4+ Nc6 14.Qb3 Na5 15.Qa4+ Nc6 16.Qb3

This is a well-known draw, and as Chessbase put it, there've been at least 75 games that ended this way. Still, you can't fault the players: Nisipeanu (who had White) had lost his first two games in the tournament, while Kamsky had the Black pieces and one can't ask for more than a draw with Black.

If you're thinking of "repeated" until a decisive result, then opening traps can easily yield repeated games. Here's a famous example:

[FEN ""]
 1.d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 c6 4. e3 Be6 5. Ng5?? Qa5+

Black wins since the knight on g5 is lost. A list of victims of this trap is given here.

Here's another record that might be of interest. Although the game wasn't repeated in its entirety, it was repeated up to the point where a human player might have resigned. In game 64 of the superfinal of the 16th TCEC season, between top engines Stockfish & AllieStein, the engines followed a known game for 39 moves. The original game happened in 2018, between Exxon (Toltec 4 Pro)-Attakinski (Raubfisch ME262_GTZ). Playing out the position after the book line ended was rather academic, since Black is completely lost.

[FEN ""]
[White "Stockfish"]
[Black "AllieStein"]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Be3 Qb6 8. Na4 Qa5+ 9. c3 Nxd4 10. Nxd4 cxd4 11. b4 Qc7 12. Bxd4 Be7 13. Bd3 Nb8 14. O-O b6 15. Rc1 Nc6 16. Bf2 O-O 17. a3 Bb7 18. c4 dxc4 19. Rxc4 b5 20. Rc3 bxa4 21. b5 Rfc8 22. bxc6 Bxc6 23. Bxh7+ Kxh7 24. Qh5+ Kg8 25. f5 Qxe5 26. Rh3 g6 27. Qh7+ Kf8 28. fxe6 Qg7 29. Be3 Qxh7 30. Rxh7 Kg8 31. Rfxf7 Bf6 32. Rh6 Bb2 33. Rxg6+ Kh8 34. e7 Be8 35. Rh6+ Kg8 36. Rf8+ Kg7 37. Rhh8 Kg6 38. Rhg8+ Kh7 39. g4 Rcb8 40. g5 Be5 41. Bc5 Bg6 42. Rd8 a6 43. Kf2 Bf7 44. h3 Bg6 45. Kf3 a5 1-0


14.Nxd4 takes a pawn on d4, and it attacks the bishop on h5. So if black takes back with 14...cxd4, then white has 15.Bxh5, leaving white a pawn up (knights and bishops have roughly the same value). And if black wants to avoid this with 14...Bxe2, white can take back with the knight on d4 (15.Nxe2) so that it is safe too; again, white wins a pawn. And if black retreats the bishop, white retreats the knight, and is again up a pawn.
14.Nh4 does not win a pawn, so that already makes it a bad move when winning a pawn is available. But that is not all: black can first exchange bishops (14...Bxe2, forcing 15.Qxe2) and then fork the bishop on f4 and knight on h4 with 15...g5, winning a piece and opening lines against the white king.
That makes 14...Nh4 a blunder.
More importantly, I am not a chess.com user, but can't you press on those magnifier icons to see the line the engine has in mind after each move?


Nigel Davies has a Fritz trainer DVD "chess for scoundrels" which works on this topic exactly. He shows some games and tells some anecdotes about how you can use mind games, to support your game (and he says that at GM level this is completely normal).

Examples by Davies: there was a Geller-Fisher game where Geller went for a drawing line with white, and offered a draw at move 7. Fisher laughed at his face (which is not so ethical imho) and then win in ~70 moves in a dead draw endgame, because Geller blundered.
Bronstein in a draw or little worse position saw a trap, but was fairly sure his opponent would see it, he offered draw, suspecting his opponent will not take it (and it was fine for him), and went for the trap. His opponent declined, was searching for a win, and didn't notice the trap.
I highly recomend buying the DVD, it's an amazing source in this topic.

People who were/are very good at this are for example Lasker, Tal, Fisher, Karpov, Kramnik. For examples read about the WC games Fisher vs Spassky, and Karpov vs Korchnoi with all the off board activities.

There was also a Benko book on psychology, but I didn't read it.


Finding checkmate sequence / Successful attack completion

It's one thing to be aware of the checkmating patterns, but it's another to have them fully cemented in your mind.  The key here would for you to develop pattern recognition, which happens when you practice these checkmating tactics so much you can almost instantly see them in a real game.

I would suggest just solving countless checkmating tactics day after day.  Do problems that have lots of pieces on the board - the checkmating patterns against a lone King, for example, won't help you much in a complex middlegame.  Probably the best idea would be to buy a tactics book that either focuses on checkmate tactics or at least has an entire chapter dedicated to it.  The other option would be to do online chess tactics, although I don't know of a site that allows you to pick which kind of tactics you want to do.

One chess book you could check out is: "1001 Deadly Checkmates by John Nunn".  It's a fairly well recommended book.


How to determine the value of a piece from scratch?

It's possible to use logistic regression (a statistical method) to estimate the predictive values. This way, you wouldn't need anyone to try the game at all.

http://www.sumsar.net/blog/2015/06/big-data-and-chess has the details. I personally tried the method, and it was a good start.

The method estimates the value of each piece by predicting how they relates to  the log-odd of winning.


Is there a web version of a chess clock for mobile phones without (distracting) advertisements?

Best Solution:

chessclock.org - add the website to the home screen on your phone and tilt the phone to the side

Added in the comments: chessclock.iphonemarks.com

Original suggestions:

skakur.dk
ksloan.net/chessclock


Formulating a Precise Definition of "Space" in Chess

I define space as a mixture of mobility and squares controlled.

[fen "rbk3br/2p2p2/1pP2Pp1/pP4Pp/P6P/8/4R2K/4R3 w - - 0 0"]

Black is completely lost due to his lack of space.

[fen "8/2p2p2/1pP1kPp1/pP1rr1Pp/P6P/2K5/4R3/4R3 w - - 0 0"]

Black is just as cramped, but his greater mobility and more active king gives him a much better game.

EDIT:  From "Elements of Positional Evaluation" by Dan Heisman.  Section 3.3 Space

So to better understand space, we must once more return to mobility.  What is important to realize is that space depends on mobility; that is, mobility "defines" space.  This means that no matter how the pieces are situated, the player with more space is really the one with more actual and actual global mobility, despite what the pawn structure may seem to indicate.  For example, in a closed position where White's pawns seem more advanced, if Black's pieces, through open files or diagonals, can "point" through and around the pawn mass in some way that gives Black the superior actual mobility, then it is he who may seem to obtain the space advantage.  This is additionally made posible because pieces are not legally bound to stay behind either side's pawns.  Indeed, an over ambitious early push of a pawn mass somethimes leaves one's pieces scattered to the defensive at some later time because the opposition was not effectively reduced in total actual mobility and god behind the advanced pawns.  So, whereas space is an existing and useful term, it does not qualify as a basic element.


To me, the game you described was an absolute beginner game. It wasn't important how the attack was conducted, all-out or slow, you opponent was just blundering pieces and even the queen! It didn't matter whether you were defending or attacking or doing nothing, you'd have won easily in any case. Your opponent had absolutely no idea what he was talking about.

At this level, it'd be better to focus on avoid giving away pieces.

But to answer your question, if I was to play your game, I'd go for the Scholar's Mate or launch a quick but dirty pawn-storm. I'd also move my queen out early and hope for some free pieces to capture. It'd be a diseaster against anyone experienced, but highly effective against a beginner.