Help your pieces so they can help you.

Source: Paul Morphy.

The situation you describe is quite common. You find yourself in a position where there is no clear course of action. In these cases, I urge you to:

Identify your worst placed piece
Implement a short plan to improve that piece (no longer than 3 moves)

In the example below, which is position 41 of the quizzes in Mastering Chess Strategy by Johan Hellsten, we see that it's an early middle game with no major attacking or defensive duties for either side. Neither are there simplifying opportunities.

With White to move, we note that the a1-Rook is not doing anything. How can we activate it? Well, Rooks belong on open or semi-open files. The f1-Rook is already on a semi-open file, so it would be great to play Rae1. But the Queen is in the way. This led to the following plan being executed:

[FEN "2bq1r1k/rp4pp/p1p3n1/5p2/3P4/1BP2N1P/PP4P1/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 1"]
[White "Kristjansson"]
[Black "Sokolov"]

  1. Qd2            b5
  2. Rae1           Qd6

If you find that you really can't decide on a move, then

  When in doubt, move a piece, not a pawn.

Source: The Wisest Things Ever Said About Chess by Andrew Soltis.

This is because if the piece move is poor, you can often rectify the mistake by moving it back. Not so with pawns.

In this example (game 149 of Mastering Chess Strategy), the centre is closed implying that play should be on the wings, so White plays 1. a4?!, instead of the flexible 1. O-O* (the King is almost certain to castle kingside anyway, and this also prevents Black's queenside play). The problem with 1. a4 is that Black gets a big space advantage and his King is still stuck in the middle, whereas 1. O-O doesn't suffer from this. Let's take a look:

[FEN "1rbq1rk1/1p1nbppp/p2p1n2/2pPp3/2P1P3/P1NB1N1P/1P3PP1/R1BQK2R w KQ - 0 1"]
[White "Gurevich"]
[Black "Piket"]

  1. a4 (1. O-O b5 2. cxb5 axb5 3. Nxb5 Nxe4 4. Na7)            Nh5
  2. Ne2            g6
  3. g4             Ng7
  4. Bh6            Nf6
  5. Ng3            Kh8
  6. Qc2            Bd7
  7. a5             b5
  8. axb6ep         Qxb6
  9. Ra2            a5

Last but not least, regarding planning. Yes, it is advisable to have a series of short term plans (usually 3 moves or so) and to remain alert to tactical opportunities and threats. From John Nunn's Understanding Chess Middlegames on the section called Losing the Thread (emphasis is mine):

  Typical symptoms of this [playing poorly from a superior position] are planlessness, playing from move to move without any overall strategy, and spending too much time on moves.

*OK, castling isn't exactly a reversible decision, but it is more flexible, in the example position, than 1. a4?!


I would take a look at The Art of the Middle Game by Keres and Kotov. It is the only book I know of which devotes serious attention to pawn structure in a way that goes beyond opening development.

If you liked My System you might also check out Chess Praxis (also by Nimzowitch). It isn't on pawn structure specifically, but details Nimzowitch's theory of Prophylaxis, covering pawn structure in the process of doing so. It's a good follow up to My System.

As to the books in your question I've heard great things about Pawn Power in Chess, but haven't read it myself so can only report second hand.


When I converted the 2014 ChessBase Database to PGN format, and finally to SCID format, I used VirtualBox (x86 and AMD64/Intel64 virtualization,  for which you need to install Windows and ChessBase) because I sure what Windows programs run perfectly with it.  However, I don't know if your hardware is powerful enough for a virtualization


Is a DGT Bluetooth Wireless e-Board stable enough to use regularly?

Bluetooth supports distance of less than 30 feet, or 10 meters, and 802.11b is roughly up to 200 feet, though both distances depend on a number of factors; mention WiFi since it's possible that might be a better solution for your needs. Here's the DGT manual for "Connecting your Bluetooth board to your Computer", which might provide additional information of value to you.

Also, it appears that the DGT boards do have problems, here's an example; note the pawn falls, and the screen does not report the pawn is not where it is suppose to be; note that the board is not the Bluetooth model, though in this case, I don't believe it matters; also, it's possible this is not a hardware issue, but related to the software used in the demo I've linked to just now.

Given that the board appears to be $1000+, it's unlikely you're going to find enough reviews to judge if it's a good fit for your needs. My suggestion would be to make sure that you're 100% sure it's possible to return it at near to no cost given the price of the board.

While not a review of the Bluetooth model, here's a review of a DGT board that appears to use the same technology, minus the Bluetooth.


I suggest c5. As commented by @NoseKnowsAll it is called the Old Benoni Defense. If white is a pro they will probably have an edge because of their experience but generally, for your criteria (it is not symmetrical) it has the highest statistics for black winning in some of the databases such as https://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=2&n=7&ms=d4&ns=7.
Note that it is moderately common (+16k games in the database cited above) which makes the statistics more meaningful than some uncommon moves like a5.


Carlsen vs Gelfand World Championship Candidates (2013). Could Gelfand have held it with 44...Bxf1!


Punishing player for indicating moves to other team players

In a low contest regional type tournament, I'm assuming you don't have to abide by FIDE or USCF rules. Given this, I would suggest the following:

Warn them the first time you see this happening. Say that the next time you see this anytime in the rest of the tournament, their team loses whatever current match they're playing. So not only does one player lose a game, but their whole team forfeits the entire match.
Enforce your ultimatum from step 1 if you see them cheating again.


Is there any database of every position ever played in a recorded game?

Is there any database of every position ever played in a recorded game

No database is perfect. I would say no for your question.

Sounds like you're looking for the most complete database? I propose:

Purchase Chessbase Mega Database (many games already!)
Data mine www.chessgames.com and https://www.365chess.com (you may need a script)
Download all TWIC games
Download lichess games
Download FICS games
Download MillionBase database

Perform an union operation on all those games.


What are some of the checkmates with very few moves?

There are probably as many quick mates as there have been first time players (since we all get caught in these at the start!) but here are a few common ones:

Fool's Mate

This is the shortest possible checkmate in a mere two moves:

[FEN ""]

1. f4 e5 2. g4 Qh4# 0-1

White can also play f3 instead of f4 or move the g pawn before the f pawn.

Scholar's Mate

This mating pattern is also sometimes referred to as "Fool's Mate" and there are two main patterns:

[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 (2. Qh5 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Qxf7#) Nc6 3. Qf3 Bc5 4. Qxf7# 1-0

The key is that f7 is insufficiently defended and mate is delivered there.

Légal's Mate

Légal's Mate (also spelled as Légall's Mate) is probably the mate referenced in the question:

[FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 d6 4.Nc3 Bg4
5.h3 Bh5? 6.Nxe5! Bxd1?? 7.Bxf7+ Ke7 8.Nd5# 1-0


Is it possible to get results/crosstables from USCF-rated events before 1990?

I personally doubt it, since those were early computer days when I don't think that much of that information could be easily stored long term. I would however suggest contacting the USCF for definitive information. They have moved their headquarters since then, from NY to Tennessee, but it's possible that some records may have survived.

USCF Telephone:  (888) 512-4377 (CHESS)

Customer Support
Monday through Friday - 9:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M. (Central)

Facsimile: 256.851.0560

Electronic Mail: customerservice@uscfsales.com


What is the origin of descriptive notation?

AFAIK, Edward Lasker (not Emmanuel) Lasker was the only master player resident in the USA to publish in Algebraic before the 1970s, substituting English initials for the German he would have used before immigrating. Not only are Bobby Fischer's books in Descriptive, so are his scoresheets.

I don't know about 18th Century usage, but I have read 19th Century British works that use a descriptive phrase like "King to his third square" for K-K3, either Ke6 or Ke3 (the color being obvious by whose turn it is to play). The transition from phrasing to a strictly symbolic Descriptive notation, I can't help with.


How to download Stockfish and install it on the Fritz/ChessBase GUI?

First download StockFish. You click on the button shown in the below image and choose "Save as". It will be saved as .rar file, which you can open with WinRar, 7Zip or similar utility...

Then you unzip it ( put it where you want ). After that run Fritz, and choose Engine -> Create UCI engine like in the picture below:

The following dialog box will pop up, after which you need to press Browse button:

Then you will see a dialog box that will help you find StockFish. Once you find it, select it and click Open ( in the picture below I didn't click on the StockFish when creating screen capture; sorry, I just forgot to do it ) :

After Fritz finishes loading engine your dialog box should look something like the image below. Then just click on the OK button:

That should do it. I think that the procedure is the same for ChessBase. To use StockFish instead of Fritz, press F3, select StockFish from the list of engines in the dialog box that pops, and click OK button. Wait a few seconds and you will be good to go.

That's all, if you need further help leave a comment. Best regards.


Your question is unanswerable, please consider rephrasing it.

The reason for me saying this is that every opening that has = evaluation in ECO is good response to 1.e4. You could look for statistics on openings but it is useless-in my opinion statistics are stupid since they reveal to you nothing about the game. It is just a result of mathematical division-you can only use them to see which defense to 1.e4 is the easiest to play with for most of the people.

Compare the French defense and Sicilian defense:

Currently Sicilian defense "scores better" than French defense according to statistics, but that conclusion is "valid" if you sum up the efficiency of all the variations in both openings.

If you remove the dubious Rubinstein variation of the French defense from the calculation than it scores nearly as good as the entire Sicilian defense.

My point is that you have many good opening moves against 1.e4, you just have to pick one you like.

Browse through openings against 1.e4and pick one that suites your style.

This depends entirely up to you-if you like slow games with small amount of variations to learn then pick some semi-open defense ( Caro-Kan, French-defense and so on ) or if you have time to learn and wish open battle riddled with sharp tactical play then pick Sicilian defense or Modern defense or whatever.

Remember: Each opening that is evaluated as valid, meaning it gives equal chances to both of you for winning is a good candidate.

You need to choose one that suits your style and just go with it.

If you have further question leave a comment.

Best regards.


Recent research, or analysis sites, about some chess variants?

I'm not sure if this is the sort of item you might be interested in, but Dave McCooey generated complete (pawnless) 4-man tablebases for hexagonal chess on the 91-"square" board, and has a full tabulation of the results; since there are no pawns involved, the analysis there is applicable both to Glinski's hexagonal chess that you mention, as well as McCooey's own version (which differs from Glinski's where pawn movement is concerned). McCooey went beyond providing tablebases for the usual chess pieces, and also included a great variety of fairy pieces, including the Chancellor and Archbishop (called there the Pegasus) of Capablanca chess.

Beyond the hexagonal chess board, he also created some 4-man and 5-man tablebases involving fairy pieces on the standard 8x8 chessboard. Those results involving only standard chess pieces along with Chancellors and Archbishops/Pegasi are somewhat relevant to endgames for Capablanca chess. Since Capablanca chess is played on a 10x8 board, the results aren't directly applicable to that game, but they are suggestive of how things would play out on the 10x8 board, and in any case they are directly applicable to Seirawan chess, which uses the same piece set as Capablanca chess -- with yet different names: Chancellor = Elephant, Archbishop = Hawk -- but is played on the standard board.


Bug-free material evaluation
Null move heuristic
Common knowledge such as rook on the seventh rank, king safety, weak squares etc
Q-search
Transposition table
Killer heuristic
Efficient move generator
Nega-max
Iterative deepening
Aspiration windows


So far, following seconds have been revealed (NRK, ChessBase):

GM Peter Heine Nielsen (no surprise as he was part of team Carlsen in WCC 2014)
GM Laurent Fressinet (also no surprise as he was part of team Carlsen in WCC 2013 and WCC 2014)
GM Maxime Vachier-Lagrave (quite a surprise as he is the current world's nr. 4)
GM Nils Grandelius
GM Jan Gustafsson (the tweet of RadioJan was not a joke)
GM Samuel Shankland (a surprise to many, however it was revealed that he also helped for WCC 2014)

Another surprise is that GM Jon Ludvig Hammer was not part of Carlsen's team for this match, while he was for WCC 2013 and WCC 2014. Instead, he chose to do commentary work for VG and Chess.com.


Having some fluctuations in rating is quite natural and not something I would be overly concerned. At your rating level blunders are very common, so that games are to some extent not decided by apparent playing strength (=rating) but by a random process and this shows in your rating fluctuations.

However, with your approach (for fun) to chess you should not be worrying about ratings at all and just enjoy playing.

If you do want to improve your chess there are many ways and even a little work will have a large impact on your playing strength at this level. For suggestions on how to improve see this question and answers.


Development problems for black after f4 in French Defence

You're playing a very sharp opening line that only works thanks to the option of playing 10...g5!. You should only enter this type of position if you're aware of what you're doing. Otherwise you'd be better sticking to quieter, easier positions. If you choose to play a theory-heavy line, then you should definitely know the theory first!


What is the native Mac Chess app's rating? Is there a good alternative?

The Mac Chess app engine is the Sjeng engine.

On the old Sjeng website (because Apple Chess is using the old Sjeng) is says:

  For standard chess, Sjeng's rating is probably about 2450 ELO

And I'm assuming that is at its best.

As for looking at each level, there isn't much of a way to know because, beyond the 3 moves ahead area, it starts counting in seconds, and in that realm it depends on the power of the computer. The more powerful the computer, the better it plays because it can look more moves ahead in that time.

TLDR - An estimated 2450 at it's best. It's not a very powerful engine, but it can still whoop most players on it's hardest difficulty.


Is there a record for threefold repetition for when the claimed positions are the farthest apart, in terms of moves?

I would say 50 moves (possibly 49).

Three-fold repetition requires the game to return same position 3 times.  This obviously can't happen if there are any captures or pawn moves, so therefore as long as the 3-fold repetition is possible so is the 50-move rule - which provides a hard upper limit.


Student T gives an explicit answer, but you can also view it from a game-theoretical perspective.

Suppose normal chess is a draw (or a win for black). Then, white can play 1. Ng1-f3 and Nf3-g1, effectively becoming black and the rest of the game is normal, so it is a draw (or a win for white).

Suppose normal chess is a win for white. This will almost certainly involve moving a pawn two steps from its initial position within the first 10 moves, or moving a bishop, queen, rook or king. You can use your extra move to perform this move in two steps, e.g. e2-e3-e4 or Bf1-d3-e2.

In any case, White will not lose the game.


Why are English setups with g3 like the Catalan considered solid for White, while the Sicilian Dragon is risky for Black?

I think the answer is threefold:
First white usually has a development advantage in the Catalan because he moves first, so any Black attack would not be so dangerous.
Second, white has a space advantage in the Catalan with his pawn on d4, while in the Dragon black's d-pawn is on d6.
Third, and probably very important, is the fact that it is not easy for black to exchange the fianchetto Bishop on g2 on the Catalan, because he generally plays ...e6, making it very hard or impossible to play Be6(f5, g4) Qd7 and Bh3. In the Dragon Be3, Qd2 and Bh6 is generaly much easier to achieve, compromising the castled position of the black King.


Does rating increases in bulks or is it a steady increase?

Usually, in the beginning, the rating increase jumps quickly.  Just not hanging pieces could be a multiple hundred point increase.  As the rating increases, the rating increases become smaller.  This is because there is a smaller amount to learn, and technique improvement brings little gains.
Playing in this many tournaments doesn't really give you time to find and reduce your mistakes.  A coach can find your errors, but you won't be able to correct them within a week.  1600 is a realistic goal, and you should be able to reach 1800 within 5 years.


The name 'gambit' was coined in the 16th century already by Ruy López. He derived it from the old Italian expression

  dare il gambetto

(literally: 'to give the leg'). It means 'to trip (someone) over' - gambits were often used in attempt to win a game quickly.


I have not used Chess Position Trainer, but Chesshero has these capabilities you are looking for. You can do the following:

a) Define the pgns from which to pick the random positions

b) Define the start and end move numbers to pick from (this can be useful for generating middle-game or end-game or opening positions specifically)

c) You can define a blunder threshold, which will be used to give you scores when the move you made is evaluated against an engine

d) You can make it timed as well.


How is mate guaranteed - Bobby Fischer 134

However, if black takes with Rook, then Knight takes' white's rook,
white rook to take knight, then black rook to take white rook. This
prevents the Qe8 mate, doesn't it?

No, it accelerates it. Let's look at what happens if black takes with the knight instead of the rook
[fen "1r1r2k1/6pp/2n4q/2p1p2Q/pp2N2P/5P2/PPPR2P1/1K1R4 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rxd8 Nxd8 2. Qe8# {oops!}

Black gets checkmated in 2 moves instead of 3


What are the differences between playing online and OTB?

Disclaimer: I don't belong to any sort of chess club, so OTB might mean something a little different for me and others like me.

One difference for me is the time constraints - OTB games for me are quite casual, and I don't own a chess clock, so while the players might rib each other during a particularly long "think", there aren't any hard and fast time rules.  On the other hand, internet games always have the clock running, for obvious reasons.  My play is worse online, probably because of that.  For one thing, I never have the time to set aside an hour for an internet game, so I tend to choose the 10 min ones, resulting in shallower play.  My OTB games, on the other hand, tend to go a lot deeper.

I haven't noticed any objective effect on my OTB games from playing on the internet, though.  Since going online, I've been able to appreciate the lack of pressure in casual OTB games.  The net effect is that I feel I play better OTB, so I'm more confident than I used to be.


How did IM Gotham discover cheating before the game?

You can't see it well because it's behind his camera view, but he clicks on the player, bringing up the profile page. And there is his rating chart, which has gone up by a 1000 points in 30 days, very smoothly, as he mentions a few seconds later.
As that would be immediately visible and it's also what he says, my guess is that that is why he immediately suspects cheating.
Then after that, constantly taking more or less the same amount of seconds for every single move, even in the opening, confirms it.


What is a good flexible opening for beginner with white?

From your question it seems to me that you should focus on learning general opening principles (control the center, develop pieces, don't move the same piece twice, castle...), study tactics and learn how to develop a plan. These will be useful in all kind of situations you encounter during a game and if you follow them you will end up playing an "official" opening naturally.

Studying openings is not useful for beginners because:

your opponents will rarely play the moves you learned
without knowing some general ideas you will basically only end up memorizing moves without understanding the ideas behind them (which is particularly useful if your opponent makes a worse move)
generally, opening knowledge only has a very small effect on the level of play and only becomes relevant at higher playing strengths, let's say from Elo 2000 or so

If you are happy with the Sicilian, by all means continue playing it, but be aware that this is among the most complicated chess openings out there and you are far away from understanding it.

As for what to play with white, I suggest to first figure out what kind of player you are, or what kind of positions (e.g. open/tactical, closed/positional...) you like. For instance what do you like particularly about the Sicilian?


Black will trap the queen on the next move, either with Bd6 or b6. For example:

[FEN "r3q3/1pb1rbk1/2pn1p1p/p1Qp1Bp1/3P4/4P1NP/PP3PPB/3RR1K1 b - - 0 1"]

1... Nc4 2. b3 Bd6 3. bxc4 Bxc5 4. dxc5 dxc4

and with a queen and a (passed) pawn for two minor pieces, Black will have no problems to win this game.


Castling is extremely useful in almost all games.  It lets you do two things at once.  First, it moves your king from the center to the side of the board, where it is much more difficult to attack for the opponent.  Second, it brings one of your rooks towards the center of the board, and it crucial in bringing both of your rook into the game.

There may be a number of potential reasons why these points might not make sense to you. Here is an (incomplete) list:

a) you do not feel that the king is in danger in the center

b) you feel that the danger on the side of the board is the same

c) you feel that activating the rook is not too useful

For a) you should probably have a look at how to attack if the king stays in the center; develop, try to rip open the center e.g., by advancing (even at the cost of sacrificing) some pawns in the center.  Once you find out how to do this and also experience how it feels being torn apart by such an attack, you will appreciate being able to quickly move the king out of the center.

For b) it is important to understand that, generally, the initial pawn positions on the 2nd/7th rank are the most resistant.  It might be that you unnecessarily weaken the protection of your king by pawn moves here.  Also you should have a look at some standard motifs, such as the classic bishop sacrifice (google the keyword).  Avoid such configurations and do not push the pawns in front of your king too much and you will soon realize that the side of the board is a much safer place to be.

Finally, concerning c), it is a sad truth that many players do not use all or even most of their pieces.  Having a rook stuck in a corner essentially amounts to having a piece less; for attack and for defense.  You should strive to activate all your pieces and also to connect the rooks, possibly even double them on an open file.  For this, castling is the single most effective means.  All other ways to activating and connecting the rooks likely take both more moves and require additional, potentially weakening, pawn moves.


How can one improve their over-the-board analysis skills?

There are no shortcuts.

Work tactical problems
Read highly regarded books to learn why you should make moves.  I wouldn't necessarily read, "GM X's Best 50 games", but instead would seek out books about tactics or positional training.  "My System" is an example, though probably dated.
Get an instructor.  He can tell you what you're doing wrong and how you can fix it.  Figuring this out yourself is time consuming at best.
Play a lot, working to apply what you're learned.  Don't play for rating points, or even to win, as such. Play to learn.
Analyze your games with a machine to see what you - and your opponent missed.  Work hard to figure out why the machine thinks your moves were substandard, and how it's suggested moves prevent the problems caused by your moves.


How to checkmate in an altered version of chess

This is basically Marseillais Chess, the main difference between it and your version is that a player can't move into and then out of, check. When a player gives check on the first move, he then loses his second move.
Additionally, the most commonly played version is "balanced", with white only making one move on the first turn, so as to not give White too much of an advantage.
One would checkmate just as in regular chess.


Different number of day options in tournaments

It's my understanding that all of the players, regardless of whether they started in the 2, 3 or 4-day options, merge on the final day of play. Playing fewer days means you will play faster time controls in the early rounds, so that everyone plays the same number of games, up to the final day's rounds, which are played at the slower time control. The winner is determined like in any other Swiss, by who has the most points at the end of the tournament.


What is the best defense against Marshall Attack?

A huge amount of theory has just been discovered in the Marshall Attack (I'm assuming you mean the line in the Ruy Lopez). However, this variation has recently fallen out of practice among top level GMs because white has been hard-pressed to find decent replies to the most critical lines. Basically, I would recommend playing one of the anti-Marshall games (8. h3 has been popular) unless you want to spend days studying opening theory to reach a suspect position with white.

Wikipedia has an article on the Marshall attack which is worth reading.


Computer Database programs (like the popular + free SCID) do the job pretty well provided you do not turn the engine on, nor have any other indicators (opening tree, endgame table bases etc.) enabled to distract you from focusing on writing down all the lines.

I sometimes first do this in notepad as entering moves into a database allows you to see the pieces move, so it is cheating because you're not training your brain to visualize.  Once I'm confident of a line and its evaluation, I transfer it over to the database program.

Most DB software comes with nice bells and whistles for comments, variations, arrows/square highlighting as shown in the following example using SCID:

You can save each position into a file and collect oodles of these in a database for future review. Nice, clean and as organized as you can make it!

What's nice is that once you are done, a strong player (preferred) can help critique this and you can add some more notes on where your analysis was inaccurate or just plain wrong.

As an added tip, make sure you start off with tactical positions (examples would be regular puzzles with a lot of forcing lines to calculate out) and then move towards rich analytical positions where there is no clear winning advantage in sight. NM Heisman's suggestion of the Stoyko exercises is definitely worth reading to get an idea of how to do this.

Update:

For non-software based ways of organizing analysis,  you can try mind-mapping but if that's too messy, why not derive inspiration from the popular MCO/NCO tabular-style of representing opening theory, for example:


Recommend chess software for windows 8.1

Lucas is a good software but in my opinion I would say that Chessmaster is better than Lucas. Well you can try Lucas and see...


Is this same colored-Bishop ending really drawn for Black?

[FEN "4B3/8/7p/p1p1k1p1/P7/1bP1KP2/7P/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... Be6 2. Bb5 h5 3. Be8 h4 4. Bc6 Kd6 5. Bb5 Kd5 (5...Bd7?? {White has an attack now} 6. Bxd7 Kxd7 7. Kd3 { Targeting both e4 and c4} Kd6 8. Kc4 {Threathening with Kb5} Ke5 {Only thing to do is counter attack} 9. Kb5 Kf4 10. Kxa5 Kxf3 11. Kb5 g4 12. a5 g3 13. hxg3 hxg3 14. a6 g2 15. a7 g1=Q 16. a8=Q {With tempo, white will capture the last pawn of blacks, and keep his last pawn, mates in 42 according to Lomonosov tablebase}(8...Kc6?? 9. h3 { Black in zugzwang, White mates in less than 55 moves}) )6. Kd3 Ke5 7. Ke3

Black has fortress: All black pawns are in black squares, also the king in the center in a black square.

Potential White attacks: White has white bishop but there is no target. White king can try to sneak into blacks position via white squares but black can avoid this with his white-square bishop.

Verdict: White cannot progress.

White has a weaker fortress: White king occupies center with opposition, that's nice, but there are white-squared pawns which can be target for Black.

Potential Black attack: Black can target white-squared pawns by bishop, but these can be easily defended by bishop.

King can try to sneak but again, opponent bishop can successfully block it.

Also for any side, trying to sneak would result losing center and enemy can successfully counter-attack instead of preventing wing sneaks.

Thus we can say, any side who tries to sneak on wings using king, will lose center and will face a strong(probably winning) counter-attack from center.

Therefore the position is drawn.

Notes about edits: Edited the diagram to cover Dag Oskar Madsen's attacking idea.


Elimination of the knight: Direct or Indirect?

IM Silman gives this position as problem 3 in The reassess your chess workbook. He recommends 18. Na2:

  Short played the surprising and strong 18. Na2!!. This idea ... shows that White considers the b4-Knight to be more important than its brother on e4. The reason is simple: the b4-Knight is the main guardian of Black's weak points on a6, c6 and d5.

IM Silman does not consider 18. Rac1 in his analysis.


Some famous players learned at 4 or so, for Carlsen it was 8, for me it was 11.

My daughter is 6. I'd love to teach her chess. She loves playing games, but she hates the fact that someone has to lose (if a player is behind in a multiplayer game, she'll help that player instead of trying to win). She also hates the concept of a fixed set of rules that daddy knows and that have to be abided by... so she's invented her own "chess" (take a board and two sets of pieces, put all the white ones on white squares, all the black ones on black squares, and that's it). She also likes to take my Yusupov books and put the pieces on the board just like they are in some diagram, but is completely uninterested in the purpose of those diagrams. This is wonderful, she has her own mind.

It's completely impossible to actually teach her chess at this age though. So the answer to the question can only be "it depends entirely on the child". Whenever the kid becomes interested in learning chess is the best age.

(that said, if they taught the rules of chess at school right now, she'd probably soak them up. But what would that accomplish?)


What are White's advantages against the Greco Defense?

2... Qf6, while not strictly unsound, is definitely an inferior move, not only because it develops the queen prematurely, but also (and more importantly) because it deprives the black king's knight of a very natural square on f6. Don't panic about a possible king-side attack -- black cannot mate with no minor pieces developed. There are a number of reasonable continuations for white:

3. Nc3, a natural and flexible developing move that eyes the d5 square, threatens to chase the queen with gain of time, and doesn't commit to any particular pawn structure.
3. d3, a perfectly valid move, but somewhat passive and has the distinct flaw of locking in the light-square bishop. Unless you strongly prefer to play slow, positional chess, I would develop with 3. Bc4 prior to playing d3 (if at all). If you play d3, the logical plans are either to prepare a central break with c3 and a subsequent d4, or to castle kingside and prepare f4 after re-maneuvering the f3 knight. Which of those plans is preferable depends on your opponent's development, of course.
3. Bc4, versatile and potentially very aggressive, threatening an eventual Ng5 and pressure on f7 after white's d-pawn moves. This is definitely the move I'd favor in a rapid game, and I don't think it's objectively worse than 3. Nc3.

Other moves, such as 3. d4 and 3. c3, are probably sub-optimal. An immediate 3. d4 push is likely to lead to exchanges and a relatively drawish position (and might end up transposing to lines of the Scotch that are not particularly good for white), while 3. c3 is slow and somewhat crude and might allow black to equalize with dynamic piece play.


Moving a game up or down the SCID database list?

SCID orders the items in the order that imported them. You can modify the sort order in the list of games. Click in the column names to change the sort order or to reset the sort. But you can't change the individual position of a game in the list.

And what columns can be shown, seems to be hard coded. But if you add a collection of games that are numbered, say on the event tag, it is possible to sort that database by that tag.


Infinite sequence of consecutive checks allowing more pieces (say 9+ queens)

No, it's impossible to have an infinite sequence of checks
Let's remember that there are 3 ways to parry a check :

Move the King to a safe square
Capture the enemy piece giving the check
Move a piece between the King and the enemy piece giving a check (except against a Knight check as it can jump over pieces)

2 and 3 aren't sustainable over an infinite number of moves, because the chessboard has finite space, only 64 squares and necessarily less pieces than there are squares. So the only way to get an infinite cycle of checks going would be for both Kings to escape checks with method 1, by continually moving them.
This also implies that the King movement gives check. Since Kings can't come into contact, that means their movement must deliver a discovery check from a long range piece. This in turn, implies that after each move, both Kings stay aligned over some axis (rank, file, or diagonal), otherwise there would no longer be any discovery checks for lack of an alignment.
Let's say we're in such a position and it's Black to move. To summarize the constraints, the Black King must :

Be on 1 of the 8 lines passing by the square where the White King is (otherwise it can't deliver a discovery check), and
Move to another of these 8 lines (otherwise White won't be able to deliver a discovery check), and
Follow normal rules of chess, e.g. move only one square in any direction and not on a square where it would be in check

Let's say the White King is on e4. The only way to move from one of the 8 lines passing by e4 to another by jumping only one square is to either go to or from one of the 4 squares diagonally adjacent to the White King : d5, d3, f3, f5. But because these squares are in contact with the White King, it's not possible for the Black King to perform such a move. It can't be on these squares because the position would be illegal, and it can't move there because the move is illegal. So it's impossible to follow these constraints.
Hence, from all the above, I'd conclude that under the normal rules of chess, it's impossible for both players to perform at all an infinite cycle of checks. This is also valid under the 2 conditions you mentioned in your question, as they don't affect the reasoning used here.


Plan against pawn formation of c4, d5, e4, e3 in the Nimzowitsch defense (or similar positions in the Dunst opening)

I play systems such as this myself. In your example White has been very unambitious and you are certainly equal at least, but you do not have the advantage that you may feel entitled to. It is worth bearing in mind that nothing is weak unless it can be attacked, and this is true of the doubled pawns here. By focusing on them I believe you are wasting your energy.

I think that the correct attitude for Black is to recognize that you have no weaknesses and an easy development and should be happy with that. Counterintuitively, Blacks strategy should revolve around ..f5, even though this allows White to dissolve his doubled Pawns and perhaps exchange his bad Bishop. This break would be normal if, for example the Pe3 were still on f2, and it is still a good idea. Black can start with ..d6 and ..0-0, then put the Nf6 somewhere and play ..f5. From your diagram play might go 8...d6 9.Bd3 0-0 10.0-0 Ng4 11.Qd2 f5 12.exf Bxf5 13.Bxf5 (13.e4 gives away the square f4 and makes the  White Bishop permanently bad.) Rxf5.  In this position I would prefer (slightly) to be Black.


What is the fifth position in the KN vs. KR endgame with the knight mating?

The positions are not unique if they are in some way symmetrical.
The five positions where KN wins vs. KR are:

White to play:  White Kc1 Nd2, Black Ka1 Ra2
White to play:  White Kc1 Nd4, Black Ka1 Ra2
White to play:  White Kc1 Nc5, Black Ka1 Ra2
White to play:  White Kc1 Na5, Black Ka1 Ra2
Finished game:  White Kc1 Nb3, Black Ka1 Ra2


Bizarre pin rule: pinned pieces do not attack

Well, it's a variant (since it's played by your friend and his sister, and probably at least some others), but not a well-known one.  I used to think this idea would be only logical until I realized that a King moving into a square attacked by a pinned piece could still be captured by the pinned piece, and even though the opposing King would then be exposed to attack, the first side would already have lost.  Note that though Black leaves himself in check with his move, he still wins because he theoretically captures the King first:

[FEN "8/8/5k2/4r3/8/2B5/8/5K2 w - - 0 1"]

1.Ke1 Rxe1 2.Bxf6

Compare with a position in which it's a mate in one for whichever side moves first.  Say White checkmates, then Black has lost even though he can checkmate in one move.  This is due to the same reason that Black won in the previous diagram.  Theoretically, White wins because he can capture the opposing King first:

[FEN "6k1/5ppp/6r1/8/8/1R6/PPP5/1K6 w - - 0 1"]

1.Rb8# Rg1# 2. Rxg8 Rxb1

To your second question, I see no reason why you should not let them know the real rules.  You are the best judge of whether he'd be open to learning them.  Don't be overbearing and certainly be willing to play his variant if he obviously doesn't care for the standard rules.  Games are for fun.

And to the extent that it requires consideration of more possibilities, it is more complex tactically.


Board editor using customized pieces and board

Not exactly "custom" images but it has over 50 piece designs and 6 board sizes. You can make a "remix" version, as Scratch calls it and replace the piece designs with whatever you like, same goes with the board. The project is here: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/339815697/

Edit: I've made a new HD Version of this project, it only supports an 8x8 board size but there are now over 160 piece designs and all of them are fully HD! You can use it here: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/343444076/


What is some basic advice for playing blitz or rapid?

Welcome to Chess StackExchange!
You say the transition from games at 15+10 to blitz sees you going from rarely losing on time to almost always losing on time.
Can I ask if the blitz is still with increment eg like 5+5 or some such?
When I switch from say bullet to 5+5 to 8+5 and such it always takes me several games to get into the rhythm of the new time control.
Do you have a sense at the shorter time controls that you are falling behind in the opening phase, middle game or end game?
Are you spending too much time in the openings to get a good position but then run out of time to win?
One way to cope with the time issue is to play a small number of quieter openings. You will learn how to play their characteristic pawn structures and where to put your pieces.
For example I aim to play as white the London System and as black against e4 the French Defense.
Against d4 I like the NimzoIndian.
There are online games repositories with notes that can help you.
A good area to study is the endgame, an extra effort here will dramatically improve your results.
Rook and pawn endings are quite common and it's worth studying them. I find it's the area where my opponents often stumble.
Always try to get your rook active even at the cost of a pawn and remember that whether in attack or defence the rook belongs behind the passed pawn!
Pay particular attention to your king safety or your opponents lack thereof.
In a time scramble an exposed king position can be a nightmare.
Best of luck!


You are quite right Nxe4 makes no sense. However Nxd5 does because then Qxd8 ends up losing 4 pieces for a queen:
[fen "1r1q1rk1/5pbp/3pbnp1/1p1Np1B1/1p1nP3/P1N2P2/2P1B1PP/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 1"]

1...Nxd5 2. Bxd8 Nxc3 3. Qd2 Ncxe2+ 4. Kh1 Rfxd8

However if white doesn't take the queen and instead plays the next most obvious move, taking the knight with the e pawn, white still ends up losing a piece:
[fen "1r1q1rk1/5pbp/3pbnp1/1p1Np1B1/1p1nP3/P1N2P2/2P1B1PP/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 1"]

1...Nxd5 2. exd5 Qxg5 3. dxe6 bxc3 4. exf7+ Rxf7 5.


Chess environments for reinforcement learning

Generating high volume of data directly in an interpreting Python environment is a bad idea. Furthermore, the python-chess package is not made for high performance; the package is not a wrapper for native C/C++.

If you want to generate hundreds and thousands of games quickly, you don't have any reason for avoiding native coding such as C++. Take the Stockfish code base, modify it for making games. That was what the Leela project had done, and it worked!

Please consider going into C++. Mutlit-threading if you haven't done it already.


Are there awards or titles for writing chess engines?

No, there are not. Engine chess does not have a governing body to award titles. There usually are not any prizes aside from bragging rights, either.


What's the deep idea behind this puzzle?

I'm trying to figure out what should have jumped out at me in order for me to have seen it.

The fact that there exists a possible queen check.

In chess, one of the most effective and decisive forms of attacks is by delivering checks. A large subset of tactics stem from a check, a combination centralized around a check, or series of checks (such as the one you're presenting).
In this particular example, after the queen check (sacrifice, always think like Mikhail Tal) the only move for black is to accept the sacrifice. At this point, after 1...Rxg7 (only legal move), my immediate intuition pointed in one and only one direction : another check. And indeed there exists another check available 2. Rf8+ after which again the only move for black is to block with the rook. From there the forced mate is evident.
Notice how at all steps, black has had only one available move, this is called the forcing move ; they are almost always the core of tactic sequences. Whenever you see forcing moves, you should immediately think of the possibility of a tactic.
All in all, your intuition in any position should be to always look for checks, they are the most powerful form of attack. If you are able to find a check, followed by a series of forcing moves, you should take your time to calculate precisely for there might be the opportunity of a game decisive tactic.


Regarding tournaments, according to the FIDE rules, takebacks are not permitted.  Section 4.6:

  When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it
  cannot be moved to another square on this move. The move is then considered to have
  been made:

(The rest of section four has more rules about touching a piece, moving a piece, capturing a piece, and the like - but the gist of the answer is there: once a move is made, it has been made.)

Regarding casual games... that's entirely up to you.  In general, I prefer touch move and no takebacks regardless of the game - but sometimes, if it was a very good game, it's nice to say, "sure, you win... but what would have happened if..." and play it out a different way.


How often do grandmasters fail to mate soon when mate in five or less is possible?

Let me count the reasons....
It all depends!
And there is no way  to answer your question exactly.
GMs do not play by your  arbitrary evaluation method. They play to win or possibly to not lose. While their tactics are  usually very good , missing a mate in 5 while winning the game is more important to them.
Depending on how they feel,  how much clock time they have,  whether they fear their might be a killer move by opponent they missed if they tried, they will go with what they see as the clearest win no matter how many moves (unless time pressure requires them to win faster as in a SD game with a long difficult endgame vs somehow winning it faster like that mate in 5).


Based on Elo rating, what percentile am I in?

Dated 2004, but probably not far off: USCF Regular Rating Distribution Chart:

The graphics on this blog post were interesting:


Okay, this sequence is very impressive and Nakamura is a "beast". So I don't want to be too pessimistic but I'm afraid that this kind of performance, which consists in calculating at the speed of light a sequence of movements without error, is only possible for the highest rated players.

There is, however, a (little) hope. In the excellent perpetual chess podcast talk, GM Rustam Kasimdzhanov talks about Nakamura. He notices about his play and the play of some of the top teenagers in the chess world, including GMs Nodirbek Abdussatorov and Alireza Firouzja that they never blunder, even under stress, and their tactical perception of the position is extremely clear. The reason could be the thousands of games, especially blitz games, they have played. So go practice!


What should the practical meaning of "blunder" be?

The definition of the word is rather subjective, since it depends on how much you value objectivity vs practicality. I think it seems reasonable to take both aspects into account. For example, a move that gives up a pawn on the spot (and offers no compensation) could be considered a blunder. Objectively it's clearly a poor move, and practically it's easy to refute: the opponent just takes the pawn, and that's the end of the story.

Meanwhile, a move that objectively loses 2-3 points, but forces the opponent to play 10 difficult moves in a row in order to exploit it (and if they don't play these moves, they will be much worse), may be considered "interesting" or "dubious". Objectively the move is even worse than the previous example, but practically there's a high chance it will work.

Judging the practicality of a move also depends on the time control of the game. In a blitz game, you can get away with a lot more than you could in a long OTB game. But you could also get away with a lot more in an OTB game than you could in a correspondence game with engines. The example above with giving up 2-3 points would definitely be labelled a blunder in correspondence.

So all in all, a blunder could be considered a move that is clearly objectively bad, but also rather easy to refute in an actual game.


Make checkmate with pawns without promotion

As Daniel indicated in a comment, the answer here is that, no, White cannot force checkmate without promoting at least one pawn. Enough toying with the position makes this pretty clear, intuitively. The only way it could possibly be done would be to keep the black king in the corner it's in, and while doing so, to then checkmate by advancing the pawns. The intuitive reason this isn't feasible is because the white king is the only option for keeping the black king from running to the other side of the board, but while he's doing that, there's not enough support behind the pawns to advance them for checkmate.

But I want to point out that if one finds that intuitive explanation unconvincing or unsatisfying, there is a more rigorous way to demonstrate that White cannot force checkmate from your position without promoting, and that is to do a little bit of retrograde analysis. (Incidentally, the retrograde analysis subfield of chess problems provides some of what you ask for at the end of your post, namely problems with a very particular sort of solution.) Basically, all I mean is that we should work backwards: with the given material on the board, there's only a small handful of positions that could possibly be our final checkmate position. Thus, if we can show for each of those positions that there couldn't be a forced win that ends that way, then we know it can't be done.

For instance, here's a non-promotion checkmate position with the given material:

[fen "5k2/5PP1/4K2P/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

But I claim we couldn't possibly force Black into this position: the final move would have to have been 100.g7# (where I just picked 100 arbitrarily), the move before that would have to have been 99...Kf8 (moving from either e8 or from g8), and the move before that had to be 99.f7+. OK, so we know that White must have played this 99.f7+ with the black king either on e8 or on g8. But if the black king was on e8, he could have instead played 99...Kd8 in reply, and if the black king was on g8 then he could have instead played 99...Kh8 in reply. The point is that, either way, White couldn't actually have forced Black into that final checkmate position.

Alright, so that's one possibility down. There are others of course, but a similar retrograde analysis for each of those will confirm that none of them can actually be forced, and that's all you need for an airtight proof that White can't force checkmate from your initial position without promoting a pawn.


Playing the Queen's Indian. Which kind of players?

Many Nimzo players already have the Queen's Indian Defense on their repertoire to deal with 3. Nf3. Such players may transpose between the two defenses whenever they have the opportunity and feel like switching.

To be more precise, it is after 4. Nf3 that black has the option to enter a QID/Nimzo hybrid with 4... b6.

    [StartPly "8"]

    [FEN ""]
    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nf3 b6

Nimzo-indian set-ups with a black b6 without a white Nf3 are still classified as Nimzo-Indians.

A reason to play b6 in a purely  Nimzo-Indian position is that it usually leads to slower games where you can outmaneuver your opponent in the long run. A famous example is Garry Kasparov vs Vladimir Kramnik (2001), where black had to win to level the match.

      [FEN ""]
      [Event "Botvinnik Mem Rapid Match"]
      [Site "Moscow RUS"]
      [Date "2001.12.08"]
      [EventDate "2001.12.08"]
      [Round "6"]
      [Result "0-1"]
      [White "Garry Kasparov"]
      [Black "Vladimir Kramnik"]
      [ECO "E44"]
      [WhiteElo "2838"]
      [BlackElo "2809"]
      [PlyCount "104"]

      1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 b6 5. Nge2 Bb7 6. a3 Be7
      7. d5 O-O 8. Ng3 Re8 9. Be2 Bf8 10. e4 d6 11. O-O Nbd7 12. Be3
      c6 13. Qd2 Rc8 14. dxe6 fxe6 15. f4 Qe7 16. Rad1 Rcd8 17. Kh1
      Qf7 18. Qc2 Kh8 19. b4 e5 20. Nf5 d5 21. exd5 cxd5 22. Nb5 Qg6
      23. Bf3 Rc8 24. Qb1 e4 25. Nh4 Qf7 26. Be2 a6 27. Nc3 dxc4
      28. Qb2 b5 29. Nf5 Nd5 30. Nxd5 Qxf5 31. Nc3 Nf6 32. h3 Rcd8
      33. Rxd8 Rxd8 34. Rd1 Rxd1+ 35. Bxd1 Qd7 36. Be2 Bc6 37. Qc1
      g6 38. Qg1 Bg7 39. Bd4 Kg8 40. Be5 Nd5 41. Bxg7 Qxg7 42. Nxd5
      Bxd5 43. Qc5 Qa1+ 44. Kh2 Bf7 45. Bg4 Kg7 46. Qc7 Qf6 47. Bd1
      h5 48. a4 Qd4 49. Bc2 e3 50. f5 e2 51. fxg6 e1=Q 52. Qxf7+ Kh6
      0-1

Vladimir Kraminik in New in Chess(2002/1), comment after 4... b6:

  At the board I decided to play the strange set-up that follows in order to keep all the pieces on the board and keep the pawn-structure flexible. Garry said after the game that he had a much better position. Well, it is clear that if you want to win against Garry Kasparov with black you have to make some concessions and play a worse position.


When is the right time to offer a draw according to the FIDE OTB rules

9.1.b.1 A player wishing to offer a draw shall do so after having made a move on the chessboard and before pressing his clock. An offer at
  any other time during play is still valid but Article 11.5 must be
  considered. No conditions can be attached to the offer. In both cases
  the offer cannot be withdrawn and remains valid until the opponent
  accepts it, rejects it orally, rejects it by touching a piece with the
  intention of moving or capturing it, or the game is concluded in some
  other way.

  11.5 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of
  a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.


Winning plan for black in this line of French Defense: Advance Variation Main Line

Once stuff has settled down on the queenside, you may eventually castle there and create play on the other sector, with moves such as ...f6 or ...f5 Take a look at a few illustrative games that may help you understand how to put this into practice


Professional match where neither player castles?

It won't be terribly common, but it's not unheard of either. Here are a few examples involving well-known grandmasters:

Ivanchuk-Csom (1989):

[fen ""]
[Event "Yerevan"]
[Site "Yerevan"]
[Date "1989.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Vassily Ivanchuk"]
[Black "Istvan Csom"]
[ECO "E20"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "49"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 c5 5.d5 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Nh5 7.g3
f5 8.e4 f4 9.dxe6 fxg3 10.Qd5 g2 11.Qxh5+ g6 12.Qe5 Qh4+
13.Ke2 gxh1=Q 14.Qxh8+ Ke7 15.Qg7+ Kxe6 16.Bh3+ Kd6 17.Qf8+
Kc7 18.Bf4+ Qxf4 19.Qxf4+ d6 20.Rd1 Nc6 21.Qxd6+ Kb6 22.Qg3 h5
23.Bxc8 Rxc8 24.Nh3 h4 25.Qf2 1-0

Sutovsky-Morozevich (1998):

[fen ""]
[Event "Pamplona International"]
[Site "Pamplona ESP"]
[Date "1998.12.31"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "05"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Emil Sutovsky"]
[Black "Alexander Morozevich"]
[ECO "C11"]
[WhiteElo "2575"]
[BlackElo "2625"]
[PlyCount "52"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 dxe4 5. Nxe4 Be7 6. Bxf6
gxf6 7. Nf3 a6 8. Qd2 b5 9. Qh6 Bb7 10. Bd3 Nd7 11. Ng3 f5
12. Nh5 Bf8 13. Qe3 Nf6 14. Qe5 Nxh5 15. Qxh8 Bxf3 16. gxf3
Nf6 17. Rg1 Qxd4 18. Rg8 Ke7 19. Kf1 Bg7 20. Qxg7 Rxg8 21. Qh6
Qxb2 22. Re1 Qc3 23. Qh4 c5 24. Rd1 c4 25. Bxf5 Qxf3 26. Qd4
Nd5 0-1

Andreikin-Jumabayev (2009):

[fen ""]
[Event "48th World Junior Championship"]
[Site "Puerto Madryn ARG"]
[Date "2009.10.31"]
[EventDate "2009.10.22"]
[Round "10"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Dmitry Andreikin"]
[Black "Rinat Jumabayev"]
[ECO "E38"]
[WhiteElo "2659"]
[BlackElo "2548"]
[PlyCount "41"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 c5 5. dxc5 Bxc5 6. Nf3
Qb6 7. e3 Qc7 8. g4 h6 9. Rg1 b6 10. g5 hxg5 11. Nb5 Qd8
12. Nxg5 Bf8 13. c5 Rh5 14. Nd6+ Bxd6 15. cxd6 Bb7 16. Nxf7
Be4 17. Qxe4 Nxe4 18. Nxd8 Kxd8 19. Bg2 Rg5 20. Kf1 Rxg2
21. Kxg2 1-0


Well, simply put, they chose to follow the USCF "Article 14: The Drawn Game rule 14E: Insufficient material to win on time, 14E3: King and two knights."

While it is not a forced mate, there is a mating position that is possible, thus they could have easily followed the FIDE rule, and allowed the side with the knights to continue playing.

It was probably a judgment call, and one that was made so more players would not be put off by having to play easily drawn positions for 50 moves.

I do not know if it is coincidence that you asked this today, but in the 2019 World Blitz Championship just this morning, there was a big to-do concerning Magnus Carlsen and Alireza Firouzja.

The game was up and down, but then Alireza Firouzja had a winning advantage, but in the final position below, the position was theoretically drawn when Alireza Firouzja knocked a piece over, and while resetting it, he flagged. Should it be a draw since Magnus had no pawns, or a win because there is a possible mating position? Well, after an appeal, and the rules were clear, the game was awarded to Magnus.

Here is the final position, and I will show a sample line, no matter how far fetched, that shows the rule in action. THESE MOVES WERE NOT PLAYED.

 [FEN "8/4k3/4P3/3B2P1/4P1K1/8/3b4/8 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Kh5 Bc3 2. Kh6 Bd2 3. Kh7 Bxg5 4. Kh8 Kf8 5. e7+ Bxe7 6. Bg8 Bg5 7. Bh7 Bf6#

The fact that this is even possible, no matter how unlikely, is why Alireza Firouzja lost under the rules. Although this is an unfair example of the rules working badly in a given position, they have to be consistent, and there may be other positions that would not be so unfair. it would be hard in practice to say, "this is OK here, but not there". They have existed in the past, but rules for different positions (like extending the 50-move rule to 100 moves for certain positions) have never worked well.


Could it be Horowitz vs. NN (1939).  (I realize "NN" doesn't start with an M, and may or may not be Italian, and the pawn isn't on d7... but memory can be a funny thing.)

This might be the position you're remembering:

rnb1qrk1/pppp1ppp/5B2/b2BP2Q/8/2P5/P4PPP/RN3RK1 b - - 2 13

I found this by putting in Horowitz playing as White in chessgames.com, then just sort of went through games in a pseudo-random order (start with "M", hit anything remotely Italian, guess at others) until I found a likely candidate.


What are your thoughts on a chess study plan?

Playing is counterproductive until you have some basic skill, but a little playing will keep you motivated and may show you things to be aware of unless the other player is also a beginner.
Do NOT do chess problems.  They will not help at all and waste time.
Do not play blitz at all.  Play 10-15 minute games but pace  yourself to move in exactly ten seconds.
Reading books is good.  You wont get much out of My System but it wont hurt you.  You need to find and do tactical problems that are graded from easy to hard and are grouped around the same theme.  See an example then solve ten more of the same type solution.
You need to learn ONE opening really well for white and black.  But make sure it is ONLY ONE opening.  Do not try to do more than that. Obviously there will be variations depending how the opponent plays that will already stretch your ability to master yet.
Eventually you will need to understand positional play and some other things but start with the list above.


If you can block the pawn structure on the queenside then you can consider castling queenside, for example in this line

  [StartPly "12"]
  [White "White"]
  [Black "Black"]
  [FEN ""]

  1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. a3 c4

Also in the Winawer poisoned pawn black often castles queenside in the middlegame because kingside castling is not possible and to bring the a8 rook into play eg.

  [StartPly "32"]
  [White "White"]
  [Black "Black"]
  [FEN ""]

  1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. Qg4        Qc7 8. Qxg7 Rg8 9. Qxh7 cxd4 10. Ne2 Nbc6 11. f4 Bd7 12. Qd3 dxc3 13. Nxc3 a6 14. Rb1 Na5 15. h4 Nf5 16. Rh3 O-O-O

Otherwise you generally castle kingside. Sometimes Kf8 is played to defend a pawn on g7 eg after Qg4 but that depends on the specifics.


Queen's Gambit Accepted with black trying to defend the c file pawn with 4. ... Bd7

[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 b5? 4. a4! Bd7? 5.axb5! Bxb5 6.Bxc4! Bxc4 7.Qxa4+

and White gets back the bishop with the advantage ( no matter what Black plays Qxc4 is White's next move ).

Hopefully this answer helped.

Best regards.


Proven ways to improve calculation speed

You say: "Do the same puzzles over and over? I'm worried that once I've memorised a puzzle, then I'm not doing so much calculation as memory retrieval."

Memory retrieval is exactly what you should be doing! The brain improves recall not by repeated input, but by repeated output. This is why reviewing notes is a terrible way to study for a test, and why memorizing and recreating your notes from scratch is what top performers do.

The concept that should be driving your improvement is chunking. Chunking is the process whereby you are able to immediately recognize more complicated concepts without thinking. You still calculate during a live game, but instead of spending 60 seconds working out a tactic, you should learn to see that tactic immediately so that you can spend that 60 seconds on something important. If you cram tactical patterns into your brain, and learn to see them in less than 1 second, while your opponent is spending 30-60 seconds reinventing the wheel, you are going to crush your opponent. On the flip side, if you are trying to calculate everything at the board, you are going to lose. You improve when you are away from the board. Once you are at the board, you only play. You only have the skills you developed away from the board.

An example of chunking is when you learned to read. First you learned letters, then small words, then bigger words, then phrases, and sentences. Now when you read, you do not look at some writing and say, "there is an H, there is an I", nor do you even look at it and say, "there is the word Hi". You see the word "Hi" and you immediately understand the meaning without thinking.

Learning to walk is another example. As an adult, you do not think, "move the left foot, catch your balance, now move your right foot". No, you walk down the street without thinking. If a car is going to hit you, you run as fast as you can without thinking. Your body and mind learned how to handle these more complex situations and they know what to do without thinking. The same happens with chess improvement.

For chess, you want to reach the point where a simple tactic presents itself on the board, and it pops off the board at you without thinking. Once you can do this, you can move on to more complex tactics and combinations that require deeper calculation, but until you can recognize simple tactics without thinking, your mind is moving far too slow to attempt deeper calculation during a live game. As long as you are trying to do difficult tactics problems involving 5-move combinations, before you can see simple tactics instantly, you are never going to improve.

The approach I have seen recommended by masters (NM Dan Hesiman, GM Rashid Ziatdinov, among many others), is to get a simple set of tactics problems such as John Bain's Chess Tactics For Students, and you do the same tactics problems over and over. Your goal is not to figure out the tactic on your own. The goal is to get as many patterns into your brain as you can, so that when you see a similar pattern during a live game, it is immediately clear to you without thinking. Doing tactics problems is not about achievement and getting a good percentage correct. It is only about cramming patterns into your brain. That means, if you do not see the answer quickly, look at the answer and move on.

The plan is:

Do simple tactics problems over and over, until you can fly through all of them without making a mistake.
If you don't see the answer after 30-60 seconds, look at the answer and move on. Come back to the problems you missed later.
Stick to one tactical theme at a time. Once you have mastered one tactical idea, only then start another.
GM Ziatdinov recommended this approach: Number your list of tactics problems. Start doing problems 1-10 until you can do them all perfectly. Then do problems 11-20 to perfection. Then repeat problems 1-20 to perfection. Now do problems 21-30, then repeat 1-30. Repeat this until you can do all problems perfectly. He had a list of over 3000 tactics problems on his website, and he said if you followed this approach you would have the tactical ability of a grandmaster.


Does threefold repetition apply in a rapid game?

TL;DR: Claiming draws based on threefold repetition or the fifty-move rule is possible in rapid and blitz games as well. Contrary to RemcoGerlich's answer, it is not strictly necessary to record the moves to be able to claim a draw.
Note: This is based on the version of the Laws coming into effect after 1 July, 2017. However, as I am not aware of changes afffecting my reasoning, the following also applies since at least 1 July, 2014.
In rapid and blitz games, the tournament rules apply unless a certain rule is abrogated by the Appendices A and B for rapid and blitz games, respectively.
Up to July 2014, the rules made this very obvious (A.4 for rapidplay):

Where supervision is inadequate the Competition Rules shall apply, except where they are overridden by the following Laws of Rapidplay:
[...]

This provision has disappeared from the rules, but it is clear that this interpretation still holds.
Claims of draw by threefold repetition are covered by Article 9.2.1 of the Laws of Chess:

9.2.1 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, when the same position for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):
9.2.1.1 is about to appear, if he first writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
9.2.1.2 has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.
9.2.2 Positions are considered the same if and only if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same. Thus positions are not the same if:
9.2.2.1 at the start of the sequence a pawn could have been captured en passant
9.2.2.2 a king had castling rights with a rook that has not been moved, but forfeited these after moving. The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved.

Let's not forget the paragraph immediately preceding article 9.2.1, applying both to threefold repetition and the fifty-move rule:

9.1.2.3 A claim of a draw under Article 9.2 or 9.3 shall be considered to be an offer of a draw.

Therefore, if a claim is made in accordance with the rules and the position has in fact appeared on the board for the third time, the arbiter must declare the game drawn. (I would argue even if the player does not write down the move he intends to make the arbiter should declare the game drawn. See below.)
Note that if the opponent of the player claiming the draw

agrees to the implicit draw offer
or agrees that a threefold repetition has, in fact, occured on the board,

the arbiter may declare the game drawn without further inquiry.
Really nitty-gritty nitpicking: If the claim has not been made in a formally correct way and the opponent agrees that a threefold repetition has occured or if both players wrongly agree the same position has occured three times, technically, the rules demand that the game is to be continued.
If neither of these criteria are met, the claimant has the burden of proof. In my opinion (other arbiters may disagree), the arbiter needs to be presented with "clear and convincing evidence", to use legal terminology, to determine the game drawn. Clearly, a correctly filled out scoresheet usually meets this standard of evidence.
However, the arbiter may also convince himself using other sources of information available to him. The following cases come to mind:

As mentioned by RemcoGerlich, if the arbiter has been observing the game for a while (e. g. because it is the last game of the current round), he may conclude that a threefold repetition has occured. However, he may only intervene upon a correct claim of the players.
If the game is played on an electronic chess board, the arbiter may certainly use the information provided there. (Even in normal games, I sometimes deem it necessary to check a claim using the livechess software.)
The arbiter may ask neutral, objective bystanders. However, he has to be sure about their objectivity and understanding of the game.

Regarding the provision "[...] if he first writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move [...]":
Many players and even arbiters will agree that following the procedure to claim a draw correctly can be quite complicated. The reason is that these rules ensure that the opponent will be distracted as little as possible. This is why you may not claim the draw when your opponent has the move. You are required to write the move down on the scoresheet as an indication that you intend to play that move. In rapid games, you usually don't write moves down. However, I would argue that clearly communicating your intent to the arbiter in those cases may be considered sufficient for a claim. In the new rules, this is made explicit by article A.2:

Players do not need to record the moves, but do not lose their rights to claims normally based on a scoresheet. [...]

Even in the past, this has been the usual interpretation of the rules, at least in the German-speaking chess community. A similar case appeared in the German Bundesliga back in 2009. The final decision (in German) can be found here. Even though the player claiming the draw (a grandmaster) had neither stopped the clocks nor written down the move on his scoresheet, the deciding body ultimately ruled that the player clearly conveyed his intent to claim a draw by making a certain move and declared the game drawn.


Candidates for the longest 8 man checkmates?

One might try adding an extra piece to the well-known mate in 549, thereby adding at least a move or two. But although these may be plausible to Stockfish, these are not proven. In other words, they are not 100% exhaustively verified by a tablebase engine.
In that sense, the longest proven sequence I know of is a mere 64 moves long. This was given by Guy Haworth in his 112 page online PDF about the longest tablebase checkmates.
[Title "KBBBB-KRR, 1-0, 2014/2/27, 8m, 5-3m, KBBBBKRR= KB4KR2, GBR 0690.00_40/22: SV+C,-/SV+C, +, Annotations By Guy Haworth"]
[FEN "6r1/8/B4rB1/8/1B6/5k2/7B/K7 w - - 0 1"]

1. Bh5+ Ke3 2. Bbd6 Rd8 3. Bc5+ Kd2 4. Bae2 Re6 5. Beg4 Rc6 6. Bf4+ Kc3 7. Be5+ Kd2 8. Bcd4 Rd5 9. Bb2 Rb6 10. Bbc3+ Ke3 11. Bf7 Rd8 12. Ba2 Rb5 13. Bf6 Rd6 14. Be7 Ra6 15. Bcb4 Rb8 16. Bbc5+ Kd3 17. Bf3 Kc2 18. Ba3 Kc3 19. Bad6 Rbb6 20. Bc5 Rb5 21. Bh1 Rb8 22. Bed6 Rb5 23. Be4 Raa5 24. Ba3 Kd4 25. Bf3 Ra7 26. Bab4 Ra4 27. Be1 Kd3 28. Bd1 Ra7 29. Beb4 Rab7 30. Ba3 Kc3 31. Be2 Ra5 32. Bf3 Rbb5 33.  Be7 Ra7 34. Bfd5 Raa5 35. Bb2+ Kc2 36. Be4+ Kd2 37. Bc6 Rb8 38. Bd5 Kc2 39. Bba3 Kc3 40. Bed6 Rbb5 41. Be5+ Kd2 42. Bf4+ Kc3 43. Bb2+ Kc2 44. Be4+ Kd1 45. Kb1 Rb4 46. Bc2+ Ke2 47. Bd6 Rh4 48. Bba3 Rb5+ 49. Bab3 Rh3 50. Bd1+ Kf1 51. Bdb4  Rh4 52. Be7 Rc4 53. Ka1 Rc8 54. Bg4 Rc7 55. Bge6 Kf2 56. Bbc4 Rh5 57. Bd8 Rh1+  58. Kb2 Rg7 59. Bc5+ Kg3 60. Bd6+ Kf2 61. Bb6+ Ke1 62. Kc1 Rg2 63. Bb4+ Rd2 64. Bxd2#


Of course, and in fact it's very common.

Stockfish

The code for the implementation:

int weakness = 120 - 2 * level;

// Choose best move. For each move score we add two terms, both dependent on
// weakness. One deterministic and bigger for weaker levels, and one random,
// then we choose the move with the resulting highest score.
for (size_t i = 0; i < multiPV; ++i)
{
    // This is our magic formula
    int push = (  weakness * int(topScore - rootMoves[i].score)
                + delta * (rng.rand<unsigned>() % weakness)) / 128;

    if (rootMoves[i].score + push > maxScore)
    {
        maxScore = rootMoves[i].score + push;
        best = rootMoves[i].pv[0];
    }
}

If you ask Stockfish to play weaker chess, it'd randomly choose a weaker move. It does that by drawing from a uniform distribution and linearly relate the level you choose with the random noise (weakness and push in the code).

SmallChess

Other engines adopt other implementations. For example, I prefer a model where I draw a sudden large jump to simulate a gross blunder. The probability depends on the level, and it is related to the number of pieces on the board. When my engine feels it needs to make a blunder, it'd do a quick shallow search. My intention is try to simulate simple tactic errors.


Why is Carlsen being praised for his tie-break play, when Caruana made several game-losing moves?

Carlsen crushed it, made almost no mistakes whatsoever in rapid. It is as if he was playing at classical time controls.

Chess is about not making mistakes. If your opponent doesn't make mistakes then you're only going to get a draw even if you play like an engine.

He did play good moves as well. Example on move 37 the position is a draw but he gave himself winning chances with 37. Rc7!. Caruana now blunders with Kxe4 instead of playing Ra2+. Now Carlsen plays the accurate Re7+! instead of Rxg7? and obtains a winning position.


What was the best move for white? Could white have won?

What was the best move in this position for white?

QxQ is the best move. White is a piece up so the best plan is to try and exchange pieces. Once only the pawns and white's last piece are left the win becomes very easy. QxQ is a great way to start implementing that plan.

Could white have won this game?

White has more than enough material to deliver checkmate, so, yes. Obviously there is no immediate win. There are no real threats and no possibility of checkmate for a while but in the long run with reasonable play white should win.

could Black have won?

Again black has more than enough material to deliver checkmate, so, yes, black could win. However this would require white to blunder because white is material up. Anybody who has played much chess knows that blunders happen all the time. So at lower levels definitely worth while for black to play on.
Here, for instance, if white were dumb enough to play the moves Bc4, Ne2 and Kf1 then black could play Qd1 checkmate, so, yes, a black win is still possible although extremely unlikely.


What does it mean to call a line "sharp"?

A sharp position is one where every move is critical and any mistake could be your last; in such positions basic principles take a back seat to calculation. The opposite of a sharp position is a calm position, where you have time to maneuver as you please and arrange your pieces as you want before initiating confrontation.


Why is the time control for FIDE chess tournaments what it is?

We can't really answer what all the reasons for the decisions were, as there are many people involved with the committee that decides on the FIDE time controls and they haven't published their reasoning.

So I just want to point out two things:

One, history. A slightly older time control are for instance 2 hours for the first 40 moves, then 1 hour for the next 20 moves, then 30 minutes for the rest of the game. Before that, games were adjourned after move 60. Earlier time controls were similar but with more time per move. So there is a long tradition of time controls for parts of the game and not for a long time period for the whole game.

The reason is that organizers want to ensure that players have sufficient time left in each period of the game. As players don't know in advance whether their game will last 35 moves or 115, it's hard to decide how much time to use on the first 30 moves. A player who wants to have sufficient time left to play the endgame well has a middle game disadvantage against a player who just burns all his time assuming he doesn't reach that point. We want players to be able to play all parts of the game well so we add the time only if it is needed.

Another thing is to save time in case the game is short. Someone on the losing side of a game is going to use all his time to try to save it, so short games would take very long if all that time was given at the start. Tournaments are already very exhausting.


How should I play against the Grunfeld defense as white?

First off, 1...Nf6 against 1. d4 is not the Gruenfeld Defense: this opening is defined by an order of moves 3 deep. See the Wikipedia page.

In your case after 1. d4 Nf6 simply play 2. Nc3 and you will be well on your way to getting a Blackmar-Diemer, because if Black doesn't play 2...d5 you will play 3. e4 and you will get your pawn to e4 without having to gambit it: almost like an improved Blackmar-Diemer.

But if Black plays 2...d5 in response to 2. Nc3 then 3. e4 is the Blackmar-Diemer, after 3...dxe4 4. f3, just via a different move order (a "transposition").  See Wikipedia's page for the Blackmar-Diemer.


How to write the first move of a PGN that starts with blacks?

1...e5 is best. I quote from Section 8.2.2.2 of the PGN specification, with the relevant phrases in bold:

  There are two export format move number indication formats, one for use appearing immediately before a white move element and one for use
  appearing immediately before a black move element.  A white move
  number indication is formed from the integer giving the fullmove
  number with a single period character appended.  A black move number
  indication is formed from the integer giving the fullmove number with
  three period characters appended.

  All white move elements have a preceding move number indication.  A
  black move element has a preceding move number indication only in two
  cases: first, if there is intervening annotation or commentary between
  the black move and the previous white move; and second, if there is no
  previous white move in the special case where a game starts from a
  position where Black is the active player.


Trying to remember a zugzwang puzzle/study position

The original position has the White King on a4, no White pawn.  It's the end of a composed study by Gorgiev that I find as #753 in Sutherland and Lommer's 1234 Modern End-Game Studies (1938, Dover reprint 1968), pages 126 and 290.  The full study is:
[Title "White to move and win (Gorgiev, Pravda 1928: Mention)"]
[FEN "1k6/rp6/p7/p5B1/K7/8/8/7R w - - 0 1"]

1.Rh8+ Kc7 2.Bd8+ Kc6 3.Bb6! Kxb6 4.Rc8! 1-0

The final position is mutual Zugzwang: Black loses (the only legal move is Ra8, and then 5.Rxa8 wins easily) but would draw if it were White's move.


Is it possible to checkmate with knight and king against king?

If you drive an enemy king into a corner, you still need to control four different squares to checkmate him. Your king can control two of those squares (but cannot approach the enemy king), your knight can control the third, but there is no way of controlling the fourth. That is, it is impossible for the knight to control both the corner square and the one adjacent to the enemy king (the one your own king doesn't control).

So the result would be a draw -- insufficient material to win.


Why is drag and drop more popular than click-click in online blitz?

Is there any research/poll that supports your claim for drag&drop being more common choice?

Personally, I use click-click, and most people I know also prefer this option. It's just as fast as drag&drop and it's much less prone to slip, as you already stated. And that's especially true when using smartphone instead of the mouse. :)

Perhaps, apart from being similar to real-life behavior, drag&drop gets used more when there's GUI that presents it as preferable (although I would say it's a bad design). For example, when you click on a piece, it pops-out/enlarges immediately, so it's somehow more obvious to just drag it; I guess some people don't even bother trying if click-click works at all afterwards.


This problem does vanish with time, but it takes longer depending on the person... Personally when I teach others about the knight movement I explain it with the "L" letter.

If they draw the letter L horizontally and vertically they will get all the squares he can go to. This is in my opinion simpler to understand as they will be using a letter they already know, it's not something they will need to learn in order to use it.

This would obviously not work if she does not know English letters, but hopefully this gives you an idea on how to make it easier.


Is 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 b6 a QID even though White hasn't played d4 yet? What would you recommend me against it?

Does this make a real important difference? Or is this position also considered as a QID?

This is definitely not QID, as White hasn't played d4 yet. This is a major difference, that is good for White. Black needs to prevent e4 in the QID and he succeeds in it, but here White has an extra "warrior" for fight for the e4, the d-pawn. If White could get e4 then Black position could become difficult.

  Will White need to play d4 later anyway, and thus transposing to a normal QID?

No, You have a choice: you can "forgive" him for being too hasty ( play d4 and enter standard QID ) or you can try and punish him ( by fighting for e4 ).

  After 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 b6 4. Bg2 Bb7 5. O-O what would you recommend me to play?

I would follow the line Kramnik gave in book Khalifman-Opening for White According to Kramnik 1.Nf3 ( 2nd book, 2001 ) and go for Nc3 so I could fight for e4.

  What are all the differences between these three moves?

With d4 you go for the QID ( not bad ), with b3 you go for Reti-like-position and with Nc3 you try to refute Black's play.

  And finally, what do you think about Wojo's 6. Nc3 O-O 7. Re1 ?

This is the plan I would choose in the game ( Kramnik suggested it as well! ). It tries to refute Black's opening play by claiming e4 -> it is the strongest plan in my opinion.


Queen's Gambit Accepted, but Couldn't Capitalize

You can play 5. axb5 and transpose to the answers to this question (Queen's Gambit Accepted with black trying to defend the c file pawn with 4... Bd7).


[FEN ""]

 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. a3?

No, it is not clearly losing, but I would say that the question mark is appropriate. You have to understand that white, by the nature of going first, can afford to waste a move in many early opening positions without it being a losing move. What it does though is it usually throws away any chance at gaining an advantage, and that is because you cannot be sure that the wasted move, in this case 3.a3?, will be helpful to your position as the position develops. In general, in the opening, you want to play moves that you KNOW will help you and that you know you want to play...you cannot know that about a3. a3 also does nothing to fight for the center. At best, you might play an early b4 trying to get play in the Wing Gambit.

In the Mega Database, there are actually 35 games, but the average rating for white and black is only 1796 to 1768, so that should tell you a lot: Strong players do not think it is good, even if not losing. For the record, white only scores a 37.1% with 3.a3?, but again, anything can happen between 1700s.


Can computer analysis really understand human behavior?

This response will be very critical of OP's attitude to chess analysis, and I realize that it may even come across as somewhat harsh. However, it is assumed below that OP is interested in improving, and thus I feel that some level of harshness is justified here.

Playing for cheap tricks - because that is exactly what 18.b3 is - is not something a computer would do. You will never find an engine that "understands" the "motivation" behind playing such a move. It calculates variations, and notices that the move is just not good.

However, you seem to be under the erroneous impression that this is not a desireable property for the engine under these circumstances. In the example position you give, of course 18.b3 is a bad move in every respect. It is good if and only if black is careless enough to take on c3. The move doesn't threaten anything, and it only gives black time to defend a lost position. As you have other ways of playing that, unlike 18.b3, won't jeopardize your winning chances, the move is correctly classified by the computer as a mistake.

So basically: you get a winning position, and you don't know how to win. Seeing no way to win, you play a move that isn't very good if black just ignores the knight on c3, hoping that your opponent blunders. You don't try to play the best move in the position. And yet you feel like there is a reason to object when the engine picks up on this? Remember that there is an iron clad rule when playing chess, that should always be followed:

NEVER UNDERESTIMATE YOUR OPPONENT!

I would absolutely not put it past a 1400 player to spot that 18...Bxc3 is a bad move in that position. Furthermore, playing in a way that relies on your opponent falling for 1-move traps, because thinking of better ideas is too much of a bother, is no way to improve. And if you don't want to improve, why does this question even need to be asked? There is no other obvious point in reviewing the games that you play.

If you were in a lost position instead of a winning one, then your doubt would have been justified, as sometimes in such a situation, only the cheap tricks have a chance at succeeding. But if you have a good position, you shouldn't bash the computer for criticizing your way of handling the position. In analysis, you should under no circumstances assume that one side will make bad moves. Analysis is about finding the truth - not about making yourself feel better about your play.

One final note: if you really want to improve using analysis, you shouldn't rely on the computer for analyzing your games. Focus on trying to find the best moves in the position yourself. The computer can never explain the "why" of a position. That is something you need to figure out for yourself most of the time if you don't have the help of a strong human player.


What is the last piece to be developed, and why?

I think a good approach to this is to see what pieces most likely move first.

Central pawns normally always come out.

The bishops and knights come out early

If you castle early, one of the rooks plus the king will have moved

The other rook is sometimes left stationary unless there is an open file.

The queen normally gets into play.

Since you want to keep the king safeguarded, especially if castled, I would say most players would try to move the pawns in front of the castled king last or leave them on their original squares.


Questions about the beginning of this game

What was the purpose of 6... Qe5? It looks like it loses a tempo and gives White an advantage.

I think you are asking the wrong person. You said you were playing black, so, why did you play this move? Exactly as you say, it loses a tempo and worsens your position. 6... Qb8 was much safer.

  Doesn't 13. g4 weaken the White king?

I don't think so. White has a nice setup after 13... Nh4 14. Qd3, and even has the initiative as a kingside attack is ready to be launched against the black king. However, accurate play is required:

[FEN "rqb1k2r/3p1ppp/p1nPp3/1p3n2/4NP2/8/PPP1B1PP/R1BQK2R w KQkq b6 0 1"]

1. g4 Nh4 2. Qd3 f5 3. gxf5 Nxf5 4. Bh5+ g6 5. Bg4 O-O

The bishop defends f4, so white has nothing to worry about.

  Why 14. Rg1? White should really try to get his King to safety and focus on development.

I wouldn't say Rg1 is a blunder, though, as you said, development takes precedence here. The queen must take part in the kingside action via Qd3. You can also get your king to safety - the engines agree, but it is not a humane decision to get your king walking:

[FEN "rqb1k2r/3p1ppp/p1nPp3/1p6/4NPPn/8/PPP1B2P/R1BQK2R w KQkq - 1 1"]

1. Kf2 (1. Kd2? Bb7 2. Qe1 Ng6 3. Kd1 Nd4 4. Bd3 O-O {and the white king ends up exposed in the middle of the board.}) f5 2. Kg3 fxe4 3. Kxh4

Your play was almost perfect throughout the middle game, though you missed a mate-in-4 starting at move 28 (the position was winning for black anyways):

[FEN "4k2r/1b1p1pp1/p2Pp3/1p5q/8/6R1/PPr1B3/R2Q2K1 b k - 1 1"]

1... Qc5+ 2. Qd4 Qxd4+ 3. Kf1 Rh1+ 4. Rg1 Rxg1#


At what time control do you stop recording your moves?

Anything less than or equal to G/29 does not require you to record moves, according to USCF. Otherwise known as Blitz and Quick, they have a separate rating for those time controls.

Reference: An Introduction to
USCF-Rated Tournaments [PDF]

So, yes, you do need to record your moves in a G/30, because that is considered Standard time control.

There is a rule that allows you to stop recording once you (or your opponent) have less than 5 minutes on the clock, in Standard time control games. See #7: USCF - FIDE Rule Differences - 2 Columns

Additionally, if you have an increment of 30 seconds or more, it looks like you have to record moves regardless of the time left on the clock. (I wonder if people really have that sort of increment in tournaments.)


What should I play in this BvN endgame position?

The 7 man tablebase (for which there is a free android app) says that the position is won for black and it says it is mate in 21 moves (with perfect play from both sides) after 1... Kg5 which is the only winning move.

To me this seems like the most logical move in the position. There is no danger of the white pawn queening anytime soon and Kg5 will attack the knight which will be forced to retreat to h2 or f2 trying to stop the h pawn. Knights are particularly bad at preventing h/a file pawns from advancing as the knights can easily run out of space on the side of the board. And with the white king far away you should have good chances to achieve this. Note that 1... Kf5 or Kh5 which would also attack the knight are not immediately as attractive as they run into potential checks by the knight (in a real game you should still consider these options of course).

After 1... Kg5 2. Nh2 or Nf2, black plays 2....Kf5 which (i) blocks the white king from helping the knight, (ii) prevents white from playing e6, (iii) eventually wins the pawn on e5 (e.g. if white play 2. Nh2 Kf5 3. Nf3 h3 and black has the tactics of Bxe5, Nxe5, h2).

Your approach (1...f5) does not make much sense from a practical point of view. Either you are playing for a draw, in which you could easily force it by 1...Bxe5; and white does not have sufficient mating material. Or you play for a win, but then 1...f5 does not make sense either as white can (at least) capture the pawn en passant which will basically force you to exchange bishop for knight on f6 after which the white king is just in time to catch the h pawn (i.e. to reach the square h1). So it would be a poor winning attempt with added risk of losing. Generally if you want to win such endgames it is better to keep as many pawns on the board as possible. This is even more important in this example where you have the wrong bishop for the h-pawn: i.e. you could not win king + bishop + h-pawn against the bare king as long as the white king makes it to h1 in time.


What does Stockfish NNUE mean for Stockfish?

Answers to your question:

Is this picture correct?

You got it exactly right. It's exactly that- ab search with NN eval.

If so, how is the NNUE being trained? Is it only being trained on Stockfish games, or does it also utilize games by other engines?

Basically, it's given a bunch of positions and the SF eval at a certain depth, and is trained from that data. I'm not sure where the positions come from but I believe SF self-play.

If NNUE is being trained on Stockfish games, does that mean Stockfish's original handwritten eval will continue to be tested and improved on? Or will Stockfish NNUE be trained on Stockfish NNUE games in the future (i.e. the handwritten eval is now obsolete and will not be developed anymore)?

Yeah, handwritten eval will continue to be worked on. It's also worth noting that SF (the one after the merge) technically uses its old eval in certain types of positions- sadly I can't go into more detail since it's constantly changing with new elo-gaining patches, but as I understand it, classical eval is meant to be used in "messier" positions, while NNUE is used in quieter positions.

Does this mean Stockfish's update process will now take longer? In the sense that for every new patch, a new NNUE would need to be trained, and then the new patch + new network plays against the old patch + old network?

Nope, patches should come at the same speed (currently they're coming at a much faster rate due to obvious improvements being all over, like, I  go to sleep, I wake up, already several patches gaining elo....). As I understand, there'd be no need for a new NNUE.


There are a lot of good resources on 1. e4 e5 lines.  I would recommend you combine some study of an up-to-date theoretical work (Bologan's two books, Black Weapons, and Bologan's Ruy Lopez are very good, and all you would need for a long time) with going through some games.  For example, if you want to get a good feel for where your pieces belong and typical maneuvering in closed Ruy Lopez positions, going through Karpov's games as Black in these lines can teach you a lot.

Ultimately, you are going to have to memorize some sharp lines.  Many of the gambits played in the Romantic era in chess come after 1.e4 e5, and it is simply not possible to play these positions correctly without learning some theory.  The good news is that Black usually has a number of sound options against White's sharper tries.

The big advantage of 1.e4 e5 over all other defenses to 1.e4 is that once you learn the various gambits and deviations (Scotch, Vienna, Ponziani, etc.), you have a choice among a large number of completely sound Ruy Lopez systems with Black, all of which are eminently playable, many of which are quite different from each other, and all of which give you chances to play for a win.  This is why many of the top players use 1...e5 as their main defense to 1.e4.  It is a great opening to choose for the long term, because if you get bored with one Ruy Lopez system you can just learn another.


Should I be afraid of the Slav Tolush-Geller Gambit?

It is quite sound in my opinion. As White I always welcome dc: Black surrenders the center, and asserting a control over it is well worth the pawn. I am not so much sure about 6. e5 though.


Non chess specific game AI that learns any game and can play chess?

http://rebelscience.blogspot.de/2011/02/intelligent-computer-chess-part-i.html

This is the blog of a guy who tries to do what you describe: Create an artificial intelligence that learns to play chess purely by trial and error. I don't think he ever got very far. He also believes that the old testament contains coded information on how to create an AI …

It is surely possible to create an AI that learns to play chess from scratch, but I doubt it would ever be any good (Though this General Game Playing stuff doesn't learn the rules, the deepmind company atari AI does.). The reason is that chess is a tactical game and calculating tactics requires extremely optimised code. That's nothing you just stumble into after playing a few million games.


For a simple numerical example, take the endgame of King + Rook + Pawn vs. King + Rook. The number of possible positions is 64 x 63 x 62 x 61 x 60. Of those, 25% is not valid because the pawn is at the first or last row, and because of the symmetry around the d/e file, we only need to store the positions where the pawn is on the a, b, c or d file. This leaves us with 64 x 63 x 62 x 61 x 60 x 0.75 x 0.5 = 343,103,040 positions*.

For every position, you need to know how many moves to mate or conversion, both with White to move and Black to move. You need 2 bytes for each position, so we get a total of 686,206,080 bytes which is about 654 MB. With ZIP-like algorithms, we can compress the size of the files by about 80%, which leaves us with around 150 MB. You can download the files here - note that the tablebases are split between White-to-move and Black-to-move.

For 6- and 7-man endgames, typical sizes are 60 resp. 3600 times as large, so 9 GB resp. 540 GB. Sometimes, symmetry can be exploited further (especially if there are no pawns involved), but this will result in a maximum reduction to 25% of sizes when pawns are involved.

*: actually, some positions are not valid because e.g. both kings attack each other. This number is rather small and if you would filter these, it would take much more time to lookup a certain position in the database.


Maximum DTC and maximum DTZ in the endgame KRPKRP

According to longest checkmates in chess, the longest DTM (depth-to-mate) for KRP vs KRP is 112 moves, starting from this position with white to move:
[FEN "8/7P/1K5R/8/1r1k4/8/4p3/8 w - - 0 1"]

The analysis ignores the 50 move rule.
Additionally, according to the Syzygy tablebases., the maximum KRP-KRP DTZ is 122 ply.
[Title "DTZ 122 Ply"]
[FEN "8/8/8/1P3p2/8/8/2R2r2/k1K5 b - - 0 1"]


It is basically just a shortcut that cuts the game short by one move once the outcome is obvious. According to Wikipedia, "In early Sanskrit chess (c. 500–700) the king could be captured and this ended the game. The Persians (c. 700–800) introduced the idea of warning that the king was under attack (announcing check in modern terminology). This was done to avoid the early and accidental end of a game. Later the Persians added the additional rule that a king could not be moved into check or left in check. As a result, the king could not be captured."

The one difference from "real chess" that it does cause is actually rather significant. In a normal game of chess, stalemate is declared a draw, as Black has no legal move. For example:

[title "Black to move"]
[FEN "4k3/4P3/4K3/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

If moving into check were allowed and capturing the king ended the game, Black could move his king in this situation and White would capture it, winning the game. Opinions vary, even among grandmasters, whether stalemate is a good rule for chess or not, but in any case it is a consequence of the check rules, and a large fraction of draws are the result of it. Once again Wikipedia has a good summary of the consequences for endgame theory of abolishing the stalemate rule and making capturing the king the requirement to win the game.


Listing engine evaluation of each game after opening to track my opening skill level

It is good to review games to see why you lost.
Just tracking your alleged 'rating' per some engine after each game is useless as you 'rating' is not that stable until you have a lot of experience and even then there is a wide variation on any given day for most players.