This may be the horizon effect at work.

I analyzed the position a bit with Lichess' Stockfish, which at depth ~20 likes 23. Rd1 (+8.0~8.5) even more than 23. Qd1 (+7.0~7.5). The idea is the same: White catches Black's knight, for an immediate material advantage (e.g. 23. Qd1 Nc2 24. Rb2 Na3 25. Qb3).

After 23. d6 on the other hand, Stockfish still gives a solid advantage of +4.0~5.0 (no human would call that "blunder" since it's still clearly winning) at depth ~20, but the following lines are rather unforcing.

A likely explanation is that in either variation there are so many defensive possibilites left (there's a lot of open space to manoeuvre!) that Stockfish is unable to find a concrete way to force mate or even only increase White's advantage substantially within its search horizon. It does of course realize that White has the much better position, which it prices at around +5.0~6.0, but that's it. In the Qd1/Rd1 line, it then simply adds the material advantage of +2.0~3.0 of that missing knight. However, it won't do the same for the queenside rook and bishop in the d6 line since it has no way to tell that these pieces are buried forever (that would require it to go deeper in its search). The engine cannot exclude that these pieces will become active again at depth 50 or something, so it still counts them in. We as humans do of course know better (one of the last cases we do).

Case in point: While writing this, the evaluation of 23. d6 increased to +6.5 at depth 30. It will most likely converge with the one of 23. Qd1 / 23. Rd1 at some point.

From a human point of view, you should not view this move as a blunder.

Update:

Depth 32 starting from the position after 22...Nd4:

1 23. Rd1 +8.4
2 23. Qd1 +7.7
3 23. Qe3 +7.1
4 23. d6 +6.9
5 ...

We're getting closer.


What are some advantages/disadvantages of accepting/declining gambits?

Since you are after general considerations:

Accepting a gambit. The advantage here of course is that you are gaining a material advantage, which, if you can hold onto it, provides well for your long-term prospects in the game. But what makes something an established gambit, rather than a mistake or a blunder, is that the offer of material is supposed to be offset by some sort of positional compensation, e.g. a lead in development, as in, say, the Danish Gambit:

[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2

Or better control of the center in, say, the Queen's Gambit:

[FEN ""]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4

Or open lines for pieces (like those bishops surveying two nice, long diagonals in the Danish Gambit).

So the potential disadvantage of accepting a given gambit is that you may be left with positional problems by which your opponent can punish you, perhaps by winning back the sacrificed material and then some, or worse, mating your king directly. Whether the compensation for your opponent outweighs the extra material you'll be getting is something that has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Declining a gambit. Here the main advantage, in my opinion at least, is simply that you're not giving your opponent the kind of position that he or she wants. For example, the Smith-Morra Gambit in the Sicilian Defense is very rarely played at the highest levels of the chess world, because the consensus among strong players is that white just doesn't get enough dynamic positional compensation (development lead, initiative) for the extra central pawn that black gets. But at lower levels, it can be much more dangerous to defend for black. Thus, if you're one to prefer slightly quieter positions rather than potentially needing to sweat under pressure for a while, one possible reaction to the Smith-Morra is to decline it by pushing d3 instead of capturing white's c pawn:

[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 (3... d3 4.Bxd3) 4.Nxc3

Now white is not going to get the sort of development that was envisioned (for instance, the white pawn that now remains on c3 takes away the square which was intended for the knight).

The main disadvantage of this approach is obvious: no free material. And one shouldn't be afraid of ghosts in chess. If material is offered, one should certainly be cautious, but if at the end of your thinking you believe it is worth any trade-offs, then you should take it. Sometimes you will be wrong and get punished for your greed, but mistakes can be made at any juncture in the game, so this isn't a problem particular to gambit play. And besides, some gambits cannot be reasonably refused, e.g. the Cochrane Gambit in the Petroff Defense:

[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7

This is just like in many middlegames, where an attack will be launched with a sacrifice that cannot be refused, and one has no choice but to grab the material and hang on for dear life. So there is something to be said for not always declining aggressive gambits, because accepting can be good training for defending complicated positions, which aids one's overall development as a player.

In sum. As stated above, the decision as to whether the material offered in any given gambit is worth whatever positional trade-offs are involved is one that has to be made case-by-case. But hopefully I've given some useful general food for thought here.


In the King's Indian Defense, is 9...Kh8 playable?

I don't know what does "playable" mean for you, but... even though 9... Kh8 isn't a losing move, it's just a waste of time. Even a greater waste of time is the suggested plan with Ng8 and Bh6.

Why? Because almost in every position there are more imbalances and you have to choose the most important. Let me explain it:

You've already listed two imbalances in your question: black's space on the kingside (it's actually the pawn structure that is pointing to kingside therefore creating some space for black) vs white's space on the queenside and a bad bishop on g7 vs a better bishop on c1.

There may be other imbalances in this position, but they're irrelevant to us. Now you have to choose which of these two differences is of greater significance.

Now comes the "master" part. I think it is actually the ability to judge the importance of particular features, that every chess position has, that makes the difference between an amateur and a master. Fortunately I didn't have to come up with my own judgement of this position because it is a well known opening and I have some experience in it.

The reason why 9... Nd7 is better than 9... Kh8 is the fact that black's play on kingside is more important than an exchange of your bad bishop. In this position it is simple: You can't ignore a whole pawn structure because of only one piece (while I was writing this I realized that this is probably just an explicit rule that won't help you in any other position, but... OK).

The 3 moves you would have given white for the queenside attack can be fatal for you.

I also remember a quote but don't know who said it:

  In King's Indian (this line) white's attack is usually faster, but black's attack is usually stronger, because he attacks the king.

Another (concrete) reason against 9... Kh8 is that after 10. b4 (white starts his attack) white can simply play Bb2 next and no exchange will be possible for black.

The final judgement: 9... Kh8 with the idea of Ng8 and Bh6 is a bad plan because black should concentrate his play on the white king.


The difficult part of this puzzle is the realization that the pawn on b7 can actually be black. When this is established, the rest of the puzzle can be figured out without too much difficulty. Thus, if we assume that the pawn on b7 is black, what does this entail for the other pieces? Well:

The bishop on a8 must be white, since it must've gotten there by means of pawn promotion. This further implies that the path to a8 must've been cleared for a white pawn at some point. Hence, the pawn on a7 must be white as well.
Next, we realize that the rook on d8 and the queen on c6 must be of the same color (otherwise both kings would be in check). Moreover, these must be of the color opposing that of the king on c8; otherwise the king on d6 would be in check by the queen and the rook, which cannot be the result of a legal move on the previous turn. This, in turn, proves that the king on d6 is of the same color as all of the heavy pieces and the knight, since it couldn't possibly be in check.
Finally, we determine the color of the king on c8. If it were white, then the rooks, and queen must be black by the previous point. But there is no legal move on the previous turn that black could've made to achieve this. So the king has to be black, which leads us to the realization that the last move played must've been cxd8=R, since the move must've been a discovered check (Note that this implies that the pawn on b7 must indeed be black, since the arguments concerning the heavy pieces are not dependent on the color of this pawn).

So, this must be the solution (the knight is indeed the only possible piece that could be on d8 in the initial position, as pointed out by James Martin in the comments):
[FEN "B1knN3/PpP5/2QK1R2/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.cxd8=R


One of my favorite chess you-tuber's - IM Christof Sielecki has written a book on it: Opening Repertoire: Nimzo and Bogo Indian http://www.amazon.com/dp/1781941092/

It would be worth to take a look at it!


When is a Queen stronger than two Rooks?

Let's assume that the material is equal, except that one player has a pair of Rooks while the other player has a Queen. In what situations is the Queen stronger than the pair of Rooks?

Since everything else is symmetrical, she can be stronger only if two rooks are not well coordinated and there is a presence of pawns on both wings. This gives you a chance to quickly snatch a few pawns and set them in motion, which should tie at least one rook.

If you fail to utilize this, then rooks will get coordinated-one will defend while the other will attack-and will slowly but surely regroup to attack the king, after which they can exchange themselves for a queen and a pawn resulting in a won endgame. Something like this:

[fen "8/Q4pk1/p3r1pp/1p6/1P6/P5PP/3r1PK1/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Qb7 Ree2 2.Qb6 Rxf2+-+

This is just an example, of course, but that is how I would play it. It all depends of the position but I doubt you can stop rooks from regrouping like in the above diagram.

Hopefully we shall see other interesting answers as well, looking forward to it.

EDITED IN RESPONSE TO OPs COMMENT:

  The material is equal, but the position doesn't have to be symmetrical.

It doesn't matter, the endgame should be won for the side with the rooks anyway.

The only "saving grace" for the side with the queen is asymmetric distribution of the pawns, plus they should be far ahead so when side with rooks enter pawn ending, side with the queen can still create a passed pawn. I guess it all depends from the efficiency of rooks regrouping. I am pretty sure they will be able to tie the queen down eventually, after which the transposition into a won endgame will occur.

To answer this question it would be important to find the exact evaluation of the following position:

[fen "r2r4/1p3pk1/p3p1pp/8/2P5/1P2Q1PP/P4PK1/8 w - - 0 1"]

This is the most realistic case I can come up with. If we can prove that Black can win with the regrouping of his rooks as above, then it is safe to assume Black wins in equal positions with 2 rooks vs queen. I will analyze this myself, or even post this as a question.

UPDATE:

No mater how I alter the pawn structure, White holds the game by sacrificing  king-side pawns to open my king.

Then he uses queens mobility to attack my queen-side pawns and to harass my king.

My rooks can not regroup into winning lineup because of the threat of double attack ( check on the king + attack on the rook/pawn ) or simply because side with the queen has perpetual check.

The only way for queen to win is to strip opponents king naked and use double attacks to win material. Even with such a pathetic setup for rooks as above they can still hold the game.

To conclude:

To win with the queen, you will need weaknesses in opponents pawn structure and you will have to blow up opposing kings cover.

Hopefully  you will be able to exploit pawn weaknesses and bad rook coordination with a double attack to win material.

Using queens mobility and giving "smart" checks is the key here. Keeping as many lines closed can help you-avoid pawn exchanges to restrict rooks mobility and to have greater chances of snatching a pawn with double attack.

Best regards.


Looking for books specializing in chess play from black

It was my pleasure and recognition to see somebody asking to recommend some books how to play with BLACK. They were suggesting 3 books. All of them happened to be mine:

Black is OK! (1988),
Black is still OK!
Black is OK forever!

It shows the good taste of the members... Gratefully I draw your attention to some more. Winning with the Gruenfeld (Batsford, 1986) which could not be a BLACK is OK! book by name, for this "Winning with ..." was a Batsford series. But I assure it qualifies by the content. Finally there is a Sicilian subvariations (1994) which appeared in 5 languages simultaneously. And last there is a 'Rare Openings' book (English, Deutsch, French) which deals with everything but 1.d4, 1.e4, 1.c4 and 1.Nf3. I'm glad to join you and look forward to receive your comments, thoughts, etc.

I'm waiting for your messages too in: aa_ok@interware.hu ADORJÁN András


What are all the most common transpositions between the Caro-Kann Panov–Botvinnik Attack with 5...e6 6. Nf3 Bb4 and the Nimzo-Indian Defence?

There are indeed a couple of transpositions from the Nimzo-Indian to the Panov variation of the Caro-Kann and they occur sometimes in practical games.

Using a database of chess games, they can be filtered by searching simultaneously on:

The position after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4
"B10-B19", i.e. the ECO-code of the Caro-Kann.

After finding the games where an actual transposition occured, they can be put in a tree-like structure to count the transpositions.

Using ChessBase Mega Database 2015, 91 games are found, for which both players have a FIDE rating of 2200 or more. Then, the found games were put in a ChessBase tree-file (.ctg).

The most common transpositions found this way are:

4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 c5 6.Nf3 d5 7.0-0 cxd4 8.exd4
4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 c5 (see 1)
4.e3 c5 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Bd3 (see 1)
4.e3 c5 5.Bd3 0-0 (see 1)


I've never used it myself, but I believe that Wizard is a strong and free Loser's Chess engine. An undated reference table on the same website shows that Wizard used to be one of the strongest Losers engines on FICS - however, I understand that the creator passed away many years ago so it may be outdated.


You are correct; there is no initiative.  The author is overstating the idea behind Nh4 which is to throw pieces and pawns toward the black king, who is at this point in no danger.

If you put this in a modern chess program it would probably show the position as completely equal.


How is this position possible in a normal game of chess?

Double check is only possible by using discovered check. So either the rook check or the bishop check was discovered by moving something in between on the previous move.

I don't see how that's possible with the rook check, but it is possible with the bishop -- if the board is shown with black at the bottom, contrary to what is usually done. Then there could have been a pawn in between the black king and the white bishop, it could have captured something on h8 and promoted to a rook.

E.g.,

[FEN "3K1B1q/6P1/7k/8/8/8/8/8 w KQkq - 0 0"]

1.gxh8=R+


The information on the Wikipedia page seems pretty up-to-date to me. I will retype a couple of the links from it.

The CCRL 40/40 list runs programs at the time control of 40 moves in 40 minutes.
The CEGT 40/120 list runs programs at the time control of 40 moves in 120 minutes.

There are four other links in the Rating List table from that Wikipedia link that may be worth exploring, though they seem to run at shorter time controls or with a smaller list of engines.

Pretty much every rating list that includes Houdini has it in the top spot.


How do engines evaluate a position (actual algorithm)?

Chess algorithms are complicated, but I'm sure static evaluation gets applied before reaching the leaf nodes. For example, it's very common to reduce or even eliminate a branch if it loses materials.

The best way to learn positional evaluation in chess is the Stockfish source code. There's simply nothing better than that. https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/blob/master/src/evaluate.cpp.
If you don't like reading C++ code. There's a page here: https://hxim.github.io/Stockfish-Evaluation-Guide/.

function middle_game_evaluation(pos) {
  var v = 0;
  v += piece_value_mg(pos) - piece_value_mg(colorflip(pos));
  v += psqt_mg(pos) - psqt_mg(colorflip(pos));
  v += imbalance_total(pos);
  v += pawns_mg(pos) - pawns_mg(colorflip(pos));
  v += pieces_mg(pos) - pieces_mg(colorflip(pos));
  v += mobility_mg(pos) - mobility_mg(colorflip(pos));
  v += threats_mg(pos) - threats_mg(colorflip(pos));
  v += passed_mg(pos) - passed_mg(colorflip(pos));
  v += space(pos) - space(colorflip(pos));
  v += king_mg(pos) - king_mg(colorflip(pos));
  return v;
}

Stockfish evaluates a position by linearly add each individual term. That includes piece values, square values, pawn structures, mobility, passed pawns etc. Nothing special here.

How to get those values, known as parameter tuning? Nobody knows for sure, we have to adjust the parameters, play many games, look at the results. Sounds dumb? Yes, it is, but that's what all chess programmers do. Google's AlphaZero is no exception.


How to tell how far you are from checkmate?

It is extremely difficult to know how far you are from checkmate. If you could calculate as deep as you wanted (essentially, solve chess), then you would be able to look it up on a database. My suggestion then is that you try to calculate and see if you find a series of moves that do the job. As this series of moves will very likely proceed from a tactical motif, I strongly suggest that you study a few of the many indicators that allow you to know whether a tactical combination is possible.

As a starting point, you may want to check Chess Tempo and it's Tactical Motifs list, which include many of the most basic and important ones.


Does the first-move advantage for White have real meaning apart from the highest levels of play?

I think any real answer to your question will have to be statistical in nature.  There's rationale behind the advantages and disadvantages of having the first move, but really, we'd be mostly guessing regarding how important these factors are.

With that in mind, I quickly ran some code to check what patterns I could pick up through the million base PGN library (check below for disclaimer / methodology):

ELO                  %W      %D      %B
1700: 56    games:  37.50 / 33.93 / 28.57
1800: 192   games:  34.38 / 35.42 / 30.21
1900: 736   games:  37.23 / 34.24 / 28.53
2000: 4682  games:  36.27 / 32.14 / 31.59
2100: 10568 games:  36.56 / 34.79 / 28.64
2200: 23486 games:  34.42 / 38.11 / 27.47
2300: 33444 games:  31.25 / 45.06 / 23.69
2400: 49706 games:  28.53 / 51.73 / 19.74
2500: 40264 games:  26.38 / 57.28 / 16.33
2600: 16946 games:  27.88 / 56.14 / 15.97
2700: 3581  games:  28.43 / 56.07 / 15.50
2800: 68    games:  27.94 / 55.88 / 16.18

As you can see, at the highest levels (around 2500 and above), the majority of games are draws (around 55%), and from the remainder, wins by White outnumber wins by Black with a ratio of around 1.75:1.  A very significant advantage, indeed.

The ratio drops rapidly at lower levels, and by the time we are around 2000 in rating, it's closer to 1.2:1.  From here, it doesn't seem to change much, and I don't really have data for under 1700 rating.  Of equal importance is the percentage of drawn games - along with the White / Black win ratio, the number of draws drops significantly.  I would interpret this data along the following lines (although I'm reading a bit into the data here):

White does have a tangible advantage, but needs to play very accurately to capitalise on it.  At the "lower levels", tactics (and thus mistakes) play a far larger role, almost drowning out the underlying small advantage.  It is still noticeable, however, even at the 1700 rating level, and with a small sample size.  So, to answer your question: yes, the choice of colour is relevant even at lower levels, although much less so than at GM level.

Disclaimers and whatnot - I ran through the million base PGN library (+- 1.7 million games), and simply discarded any games with a greater than 50 rating points difference between the players, in order to select only games between similar strength players.  Statistically, this shouldn't make all that much difference (the "unfair" games should have each other balanced out, given sufficient numbers), but there are a number of exhibition and simul games in that library which I was attempting to exclude from the data set.  In any case, this is not meant to be strictly scientifically correct; it's just the results of a few minutes of programming.


Instructive chess positions (and famous games/studies containing these) that engines do not understand well

The following two links seem to be exactly what you are looking for (many such positions in each one of them).

http://en.chessbase.com/post/can-we-still-deceive-computers-in-chess

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/positions-engines-get-wrong--please-contribute

A cute study, which engines are unable to solve last I checked (white to move and win):

6r1/p1p1p1pP/P1PpP1P1/8/2P1B3/2K3pp/3P2rq/R5bk w - - 1 0


Is it true that GM William Lombardy was homeless in the last year of his life?

He was evicted from his New York apartment more than a year ago for non-payment of rent. The New York Times covered the case in an article March 14 2016.
 This section would suggest that it was willful on Lombardy's part -

  Mr. Lombardy did not appear for his initial June 2014 court date, nor
  several that followed, though on some occasions, his student Mr.
  Siudzinski, a 26-year-old filmmaker from Long Island, went in his
  place. Explanations for his absence included a burn on his hands,
  travel in Kansas to teach a chess student and general ailments
  including double-hip replacement and asthma. Both men have filed
  motions claiming a lack of accommodation for Mr. Lombardy’s
  disabilities.

  In July 2014, a judge ruled in favor of the landlord, in part because
  Mr. Lombardy had not appeared in court. The next month, he did arrive
  to contest the new eviction notice, and Judge Anne Katz directed him
  to seek counsel through Manhattan Legal Services. Rubin Englard became
  his lawyer that December and began to work on a settlement. The
  landlord would have received $13,562.46, the balance of rent since the
  case started, with almost all of the money provided by social service
  programs. As the settlement progressed last spring, Mr. Lombardy
  rejected it and fired Mr. Englard (who did not respond to requests for
  comment).

An obituary from Chessbase says this -

  William Lombardy died Friday, October 13th, at a friend's home where
  he was staying, in Martinez, California (approximately 50 kilometers
  northeast of San Francisco) of a suspected heart attack. Another
  friend, Joseph Shipman, confirmed the news to ChessBase and reported
  visiting with Lombardy at a cafe in the nearby town of Berkeley on
  October 6th:

  Bill was in good spirits and looked good. We went over the key
  Caruana-Carlsen game from the Isle of Man tournament and his
  criticisms of Caruana’s play were on target. Although Lombardy was
  hospitalized for several months earlier this year, in recent months he
  was active and travelling, so news of his death came as a shock.

So, it is not that he spent the last year living on the street as has been suggested in some quarters.


High-quality (not bitmap) diagram software

As thb pointed out, you need vectors. I suggest you use a python-chess to generate SVG vector images.

Prerequisites:

Python 2.6+ or 3.3+
Python-chess:

Install form pypi using pip: pip install python-chess[uci,gaviota]

Creating a script

Since you might need to generate multiple SVGs, let's create a script.  So, you can use the script to generate multiple chess boards easily. The following is written in Python 3.x. Create a Python script, FENtoSVG.py for example. Insert the following code:

import chess, sys
from chess import svg
'''
This imports python-chess module and sys module.
Python-chess will generate the boards while sys.argv will take
arguments for your script.
'''
svgstomake = (list(sys.argv))[1:]
for svgs in svgstomake:
    board = chess.Board(svgs)
    nameoffile = svgs.replace("/", "")+".SVG"
    boardsvg = chess.svg.board(board = board)
    filetowriteto = open(nameoffile, "w")
    filetowriteto.write(boardsvg)
    filetowriteto.close()

If you are on linux, start script with #!/usr/bin/env python3.

Usage

Now, this is a very simple script if you know python but I want to keep it simple for those who don't code. To use the script, open CMD/Terminal where you saved the script. Then, use as follows:

./FENtoSVG.py "examplefen" "morefen"

Say I want two SVGs for the FEN "8/8/8/8/4N3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1" and "8/8/8/8/4Q3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"
, I would enter:

./FENtoSVG.py "8/8/8/8/4N3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1" "8/8/8/8/4Q3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"

This would create two files: 88884N3888 w - - 0 1.SVG and 88884Q3888 w - - 0 1.SVG

I suggest python-chess because of the customizations that can be easily made to the diagram using built-in functions. It is also well documented.


Which piece should I move and where should I move it when playing against black in chess when I have the first move of the game?

There is no magical move that will solve your opening problems. But if you learn opening principles you can find the correct moves for solving your problems your own.

I recommend you to read this: http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-principles-of-the-opening

I also found this video quite entertaining: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNO9KCloLRE

Also check these opening traps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_traps


Closed Sicilian Problem if Black Fianchettoes His Light-Squared Bishop

I think one of the biggest issues with the Closed Sicilian is that many players of the white pieces often feel that they should somehow be able to roll Black off of the board. However, if Black seeks active counterplay, such as the expansion on the Q-side with ...a6 and ...b5, then he is usually equal, if not slightly better.

Once the stereotypical moves of the closed Sicilian are made by white, the position is usually equal, and it's up to white to either outplay his opponent, or get dominated on the Q-side. Your line isn't a bad line, it's just that with the majority of your pieces located on the K-side, Black will usually have more than sufficient Q-side counterplay.

One of the reasons why many people play Open Sicilians is because it allows more variety on how you want to play the position, and often, which side of the board you want to play on. The closed Sicilian, in the manner that you played it, for the most part, only leaves you with one option. A K-side attack that can be negated with a few adjustments. Once Black counters that strategy, you are simply left with an even position where you may even have to relocate your pieces to the Q-side. Even more difficult to have to find a strategy for...at any given moment, Black will get in the move ...d5, followed by a possible ...f6 at some point as well. This position doesn't really hold any dangers for Black unless he grossly misplays it.


Why did Black play Ra8 in this situation?

Why Black play Ra8 in this situation?

He wanted to trap the White queen.

  I think it's better not to leave the queen unprotected.

You are correct, Black made a blunder, and now loses the game:

[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "2r1k2r/Qbq1bppp/1pn1p3/1Bp1N3/3PP3/P1P5/5PPP/R1B1K2R b - - 0 1"]

1...Ra8 2.Bxc6++- Qxc6 ( 2...Bxc6 3.Qxc7+-) 3.Nxc6! Rxa7 ( 3...Bxc6 4.Qxb6+- ) 4.Nxa7+-

Your question is not entirely clear but I hope this post answers it. If you need help or you have further questions leave a comment.

EDITED IN RESPONSE TO THE OP EDIT:

  The point is why is Nc6 a bad move?

Nc6 is a bad move because it allows a decisive pin along the a4-e8 diagonal. The fact is that Bb7 is badly posted to defend the knight on c6. If he were at d7 then Nc6 would not be pined and Black would be fine.

After Nc6 White is able to exploit the bad positioning of the Bb7 to net himself a pawn on a7, and still keep the pressure on Nc6. After White captures on a7 we have the second pin on Qc7 which paralyses Black. Now he must castle, but then White can win a piece:

[StartFlipped "0"]
[fen "2r1k2r/Qbq1bppp/1pn1p3/1Bp1N3/3PP3/P1P5/5PPP/R1B1K2R b - - 0 1"]

1...O-O 2.Bxc6 Bxc6 3.Nxc6! Qxc6 4.Qxe7 $18 Qxe4+ ( 4...cxd4 5.O-O ) 5.Be3 Qxg2 ( 5...cxd4 6.cxd4 Qxg2 ( 6...Qd3 7.Rd1 $18 ) 7.Kd2 $18 ) 6.O-O-O $18

I have checked the lines with the engine. If you have any doubts you can run these positions through the engine yourself. The point is that center is fixed, and White can defend himself by exchanging rooks on the c-file. Furthermore, bishop defends well too, and queen can come fast to defense. Black may be able to make a pressure but it will not be a permanent one. White will untangle eventually and convert his extra piece.

If you still have doubts you can post the position as a new question and we can see if other members can spot something that I did not.

END OF EDIT

Hopefully this helped.

Best regards.


Why don't I have more success with the King's Indian Attack?

Am I just seeing the successful games?

Of course! If you were writing a book trying to sell / promote a particular opening you wouldn't call it something like "How to Lose with the KIA". Nor would you fill it full of games where white played the KIA and lost. You'd fill it full of games where white won.

  I get the planned control of e5 and the desired strong piece and pawn
  presence on the kingside for an attack but rarely seem to be able to
  bring home the point.

Hey! You know what? That's chess. It's a pretty even game. The thing is, every time you move your opponent gets a move too. There is no forced win for white from move one and nor is there a forced win for either white or black at the end of the "book" part of almost all openings.

Your realistic aim should be to get a good playable position out of your chosen opening with white, a position you feel comfortable in, one where you know and understand the plans that follow from that particular opening. Then it's an even game. If your opponent understands the position and plays it better than you then he will likely win. If not and you both play it with equal understanding and ability it will be a draw. Only if you play the resulting positions better than your opponents will you win.


The answer is plain and simple: You cannot castle twice without breaking the rules. The only chance for this thing to happen is that the illegal move (the second castling) stays unnoticed until the game is ended with an accepted outcome.


How many moves needed to reach this position?

I have no idea about this kind of problems, but my guess would be something like this.
[FEN ""]

1. g4 h5 2. Bg2 hxg4 3. Bf3 gxf3 4. Kf1 fxe2+ 5. Kg2 exd1=R 6. Kf3 Rxc1 7. Ke2 Re1+ 8. Kxe1

Is that unique? I have no idea.


Software with support for Database with opening analysis

I found a software that complies with the specifications, at least most of them, it is pretty good and personally I really liked it, its name is CHESS POSITION TRAINER and is a paid software. Thank you everybody.


What is the physical response to a high level chess game?

European Journal of Applied Physiology studied the physiological consequences of the tension caused by playing chess in 20 male chess players, by following heart rate, heart rate variability, and respiratory variables. We observed significant increase in the heart rate (75-86 beats/min), in the ratio low frequency (LF)/high frequency (HF) of heart rate variability (1.3-3.0) and also a decrease in mean heart rate variability with no changes in HF throughout the game. These results suggest a stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system with no changes in the parasympathetic system. The respiratory exchange ratio was rather elevated (over 0.89) at the start and significantly decreased during the game (0.75 at the end), indicating that energy expenditure progressively switched from carbohydrate to lipid oxidation. The changes in substrate oxidation and the sympathetic system seem to be due to high cognitive demands and bring new insight into adaptations to mental strain.


With 1. e4 c5 2. c3 white is aiming to create a strong center with pawns on e4 and d4 (after capture cxd4 cxd4).

... Nc6 does not prevent white from playing d4 and the knight on c6 might later be kicked away by white playing d5. In any case after 1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. cxd4 white occupies the center and is ready to develop his bishops. Black on the other hand is not fighting much for the center yet and still needs to make space for his bishops..

More principled replies to 2. c3 are 2.... Nf6 or d5 that take advantage of the fact that white cannot develop his knight to c3 anymore.

After 2... d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 black has a centralized queen which is not easy to attack (because c3 is played) and the game might develop into a typical isolated queen pawn game. If white choses to play 2...d5 3. e5, black gets a better version of the advance French, where the bishop on c8 is not blocked by a pawn on e6 yet.

After 2... Nf6 the game typically continues 3. e5 Nd5 where white gets a pawn chain on dark squares similar to the French, but black has an easy game attacking the chain with d6, Nc6.... and developing naturally. The same positions can also result from the Morra gambit.

Another option is to play 2.... e6 which might very well transfer into the French defense (but that's likely not something you are happy with if you are a Sicilian player).


One very popular beginners book about openings from the black side is this one. The focus isn't on grandmaster level opening theory, but on keeping everything understandable and manageable.


Game with computers choosing the worst possible moves

Yes. Chess engines can be reprogrammed to play a bad move. This is not very hard, just pointless and waste of time.

Some possibilities:

Choose the worst move statically without even going into search
Choose a move randomly from the move generator
For each legal move in the position, play it internally and the run a regular search. Choose the move that gives the worst score.
Reverse piece material sign, so that the engine would give away materials for free. For example, scoring +9 for giving away the queen without any compensation.
Similarly, play around the piece square table values.

A few years ago, someone made a chess engine Moron for exactly what you descrbe.

  http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=47026&highlight=julien+loser


How to create a file in Scid-vs-pc; new chess pieces?

The info is here: http://scidvspc.sourceforge.net/doc/Board.htm

Create a pieces folder in ~/.scidvspc (~ means your home folder in linux).

Create a file fritz.txt with the content of http://gorgonian.weebly.com/uploads/1/7/2/2/17221082/fritz.txt

Save fritz.txt in  ~/.scidvspc/pieces

Restart your scid-vs-pc

Enjoy


asmFish is NOT the same engine as Stockfish, so the answer by Dave is wrong. The difference is that asmFish is written in x86 Assembly (~20% faster), while Stockfish in C++.
Here is an issue I opened to test basically the time fasmg did to compile asmFish. It was closed, however, because the latest fasmg version fails to compile asmFish. The latest working version is this one.
You can download the version you want, but this is not necessary. You just need to open a command line and clone the repository:
git clone -b master https://github.com/lantonov/asmFish.git

Then, run cd asmFish to enter the directory and make.bat to compile.
For what it's worth:

There are already MacOS binaries in the main repository. They are in the MacOS_binaries folder.

There is also an archive of the executables in the executables branch, which is rarely updated.

You can directly compile asmFish from MacOS from the command line just having the whole x86 folder and the fasmg file:
 fasmg "x86\fish.asm" "asmFishX_type" -e 1000 -i "VERSION_OS='X'" -i "PEDANTIC = 1" -i "VERSION_POST = 'version'"

Replace type and version with the version post you want (base, popcnt, bmi1 and bmi2)


The chess programming wiki is correct:

  https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Perft+Results

197281 is the number. I remember I used Stockfish to generate the same number while debugging my code.


What if both players always play the worst engine move?

You may find this game interesting: https://lichess.org/A9ZRnDcE.
Here Stockfish (black) is programmed to select the move leading to the most negative eval position. White is a human who is aiming to lose (i.e.: be checkmated). White is ultimately successful, which goes to show that really playing to be checkmated is a variant in its own right - we could call it Misère chess - and simply playing negative eval moves, even the most negative eval moves, doesn't make one a good player of Misère chess.
The reason for this is that chess engine positional evaluation assumes the 'optimal' responses (as far as the engine can tell) for subsequent plies. If we were to choose the move most likely to lead to our own checkmate ('selfmate') given  both sides on every subsequent move will be doing the same (as opposed to the assumption both sides are playing optimally for checkmate), then we would have a Misère chess engine. I am not sure what the technical challenges involved in developing such would be, but they are likely to be substantial given how far behind the state-of-the-art in selfmate solvers is compared to even the on-the-fly mating capabilities of a standard modern engines.
Lastly to answer your initial question, regarding engines playing the lowest eval moves on both sides assuming current eval metrics, have a look at this paper: http://tom7.org/chess/weak.pdf. The algorithm WorstFish does exactly what you ask. Its results against itself and even slightly less bad players are almost entirely draws. Even a much less bad algorithm like a random mover rarely actually beats WorstFish! So I'm afraid the answer may not be as dramatic as you'd hoped: players just keep offering and rejecting offers of material until it becomes impossible to do so, before swiftly trading down into a drawn endgame.


You're asking code for validating a chess position. There're a lot, tons and tons libraries. However, I don't think there's anything that you can compile for StarCraft. Consider:

Learn chess yourself. Make sure you know the rules well.
There's nothing you can just grab for your project. You'll need to do it yourself. If speed is not important, you could encode the chess board as a 8x8 two-dimensional arrays. Simple programming. Loop throught the arrays for moves, slow but it'll work for sure.
If speed is important, consider bitboard implementation. Please google bitboard for chess.

Some references:

https://github.com/niklasf/python-chess
https://github.com/official-stockfish
https://github.com/jhlywa/chess.js/

and many many more. Decide your programming language. Your question is too broad for us to answer.


1.Nf3 can transpose into almost any opening depending on your opponent and you, it is ultra-flexible.

Just to show its flexibility:

If you play 1.Nf3 and your opponent responds with 1...d5 then you can play 2.c4 to go into the Reti or 2.g3 to maintain flexibility and play the King's Indian Attack or some other pseudo-slav with Bf5/g4, all this stuff. Or you could play 2.d4 and it would transpose to a Queen's Pawn opening then from that point it would be a different story.

The same goes with 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 where it transposes to a queen's pawn opening with an early Nf3.

As user3671618 said you could also go into King's Pawn openings after 1.Nf3 c5 2.e4 which would be a Sicilian.

Also after 1.Nf3 g6 2.e4 would also transpose to a modern.

The point is that most Grandmasters use 1.Nf3 as a trans positional tool, like for example to get to the Catalan after 1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.0-0 Be7 5.c4 and later d4 and White has avoided all the Bb4+ problems associated with employing the Catalan through its classical move order which is out of the scope of this post. Of Course Black does not have to play in such fashion and the drawback of the early fianchetto is that Black usually has the luxury of bringing his dark squared bishop out instead of blocking it in via e6.

1.Nf3 is mainly used as an ultra-flexible trans-positional tool to avoid certain lines. For example after 1.Nf3 d5 many grandmasters play 2.d4 and so they avoid all the King's Indian, Grunfeld, Nimzo, Benoni, Benko systems as the pawn on d5 is already committed. One of the most famous practitioners of this approach was GM Alexander Wojtkiewicz, there is a famous book series written on him titled Wojo's Weapons, he played 1.Nf3 exclusively as a trans-positional tool.

1.Nf3 is just as good as 1.e4 and 1.d4, this can be best explained by the simple opening principle that it develops a Kingside piece towards the center! Former World Champion Vladimir Kramnnik is another 1.Nf3 devotee and many of the World's best players employ it in their repertoires.

The drawbacks are that you just cut out so many openings and lose many options, but this is why many 1.Nf3 players play it! They want to avoid the problematic defenses associated with 1.d4 and 1.e4. It is mainly used as a move-order trick and to maintain flexibility.

But I would recommend for a beginner not to play 1.Nf3 as many times you would have to venture into the English and complex sub-variations of other openings which I believe contain so many subtle-move orders so 1.d4 or 1.e4 are much better in improving your play since they are much easier to understand for the improving amateur and you gain a greater wider variety of positions from them which exposes you to many different themes and ideas and would contribute greater to your improvement.


Why underpromote in this KNNP-KR endgame?

If you promote to a queen with 1. b8Q, black has:

  1...Re2+ 2. Kd1 Rb2

attacking the queen and hinting at mate with Rb1++. If white takes the rook 3. Qxb2 it is stalemate.

Because of the mate threat white does not have any other good square for the queen either (no good check and no square that would defend b1).

If you promote to a rook, black does not have this defense, because after 3. Rxb2 it would not be stalemate. The resulting endgame (King, rook and two knights vs king and rook) should be a reasonably easy win.

Also you need to know that if the queen gets exchanged for the rook (e.g. after 1. b8Q Re2+ 2. Kd1 Rb2 3. Qb5+ Rxb5 4. Nxb5) , the endgame (king and tow knights vs king) is draw.

For the same reason white cannot postpone the promotion because black has (at least) a draw if he can give his rook for the pawn (e.g. after 1. [random non-pawn move by white] Rb2 2. [random move] Rxb7).

Lastly, any other underpromotion (to knight or bishop) does not work either, because black will win the piece on b8 in the above line after 2. ... Rb2 because of the mate threat on b1.

So the only way to play for a win is by promoting to a rook.


Where do black's centre pawns and light square bishop belong in the symmetrical English?

This does not seem symmetrical to me.

After 8...dxc6 you could have reached a symmetrical and very drawish position.

Playing 8...bxc6 seems more ambitious. Seems like black will want to play d5 sooner or later to get rid of that backward pawn on d7 and to limit the white bishop on g2. Depending on what white does, this might require to play e6 and/or to put the bishop on b7 to support d5 or to a6 to ask white how he wants to defend the c4 pawn. I don't see how the c8 bishop could find any good square along the h3-c8 diagonal anytime soon.


"6 and 2 going" is not idiomatic English or chess-speak.

My first assumption is that there are words missing and the speaker actually said or meant "My score was 6 and 2 going into this round." This means that s/he earned 6 points out of the possible 8 in the previous 8 rounds (you get 1 point for a win, 1/2 point for a draw, and 0 points for a loss) before the game being annotated.


Why is Jovanka Houska introduced as a WGM when she holds the more prestigious IM title?

I think an important aspect to consider is the audience of the show. For the Champions Chess Tour, chess24 has two English language shows; one with Houska and David Howell targeted to a more casual audience, the other with Tania Sachdev and Peter Leko that is aimed towards an audience that is more familiar with chess terminology and concepts.
I think a decision was made that the title of "international master" is too unfamiliar to a casual audience. Everybody knows a grandmaster is "someone who is great at chess", but only people who know chess lingo know what an IM is. I think either the producers of the show or Houska herself decided to go with the easier to understand "Woman Grandmaster" title because the viewers would better understand it to mean "a lady who is great at chess".
It is interesting to note that Tania Sachdev, herself also both an IM and WGM, is introduced as an IM on the show targeted to the more technical audience.


The Bishop's gambit variation of the King's gambit

After 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Be7 4.Nf3 Bh4+ probably 5.g3!? fxg3 6.0-0 does the job.
[fen ""]

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Be7 4.Nf3 Bh4+ 5.g3!? fxg3 6.O-O

In typical King's gambit style, you're down in material and probably a bit worse with perfect play, but you have great compensation and attacking chances. If Black makes a mistake, they will pay the consequences.


Why am I losing so much more often with black (newer player)?

It's hard to say without analyzing your games but I imagine there are two parts of your problem.

General lack of opening principals

Investing time in learning concepts like "what is the goal of the opening" can be just as valuable as practicing tactical puzzles. Openings aren't just about memorizing move sequences but there are plenty of general concepts that can improve your game.

Lack of confidence specifically with black

You might subconsciously discount black's ability to play great games. You could look up some grandmasters game analysis videos where black wins for some inspiration. You can find some incredible presenters online.
You also might want to consider changing up the opening systems you play. I imagine you mostly play a lot of e4 e5 games. Consider learning a little bit about openings like the caro-khan or the French. With a little preparation you'll catch a lot of new players by surprise. Even without prep chances are you'll be taking your opponents out of their comfort zone too, hopefully that can even the playing field.


This position has six pieces on the board, and is hence present in a number of chess endgame tablebases.

For example, the Syzygy tablebases show that this position is a theoretical draw, but that there is only one move which guarantees the draw: Kc8. All other moves allow black to force a win.

[FEN "1K6/1P3q2/1P6/P7/3k4/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kc8 Qe8+ 2. Kc7 Qe7+ 3. Kc8

This position is a draw because White is constantly threatening to promote and win, which leaves Black with no choice but to perpetually check White.  The problem with Ka8 and is that Black can pin the White pawn and gain tempo through constant checking, gaining time to advance their king and win.

If this position were to occur in an actual game, the result would likely be unclear as it would be incredibly easy for either blunder, and end up losing.


The settings used for the Stockfish levels on lichess can be found at https://github.com/niklasf/fishnet/blob/53e218bd184554265748513f85d19e601f18c310/fishnet.py#L117-L119:

LVL_SKILL = [0, 3, 6, 10, 14, 16, 18, 20]
LVL_MOVETIMES = [50, 100, 150, 200, 300, 400, 500, 1000]
LVL_DEPTHS = [1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 22]

where LVL_SKILL refers to the Skill Level UCI option in Stockfish, LVL_MOVETIMES to the maximum move time in milliseconds, and LVL_DEPTHS to the maximum depth for each of the eight levels.

The move time and depth might not be easy to set in a local GUI, but you can simply use the Skill Level option to adjust playing strength where 20 means best play and 0 is the lowest available level for Stockfish.


One way it is evolving is with the informal 'super-GM' title.  At one time, there weren't many GMs.  Being a GM was being in an elite club.  Now there are a lot of GMs and the differences in their strengths are beginning to show.  (I'm not talking about a GM's performance degrading due to age...)

From the wiki linked below:

  In 1972 there were only 88 GMs with 33 representing the USSR. The
  current FIDE ratings list includes over 1000 grandmasters.

Perhaps 20 years ago, a GM rated 2600 was a 'super GM'.  Now 2700 could well be that mark, with some GMs peaking at 2850 or so.

Also from the article:

  December 2008 saw a record number of GMs (1,192) and IMs (2,916)
  causing some FIDE officials to suggest that FIDE should consider an
  "elite grandmaster" title.[17] The unofficial title, "Super
  Grandmaster", is often used by players to refer to those with a 2700+
  rating to distinguish the most serious world champion contenders.

Read more here.  This article also includes a synopsis of how GM and IM norms are earned, including rules changes by year.  It's very interesting.


Did Hans Berliner win the world ICCF championship using computer help?

Short of asking a deceased man, I would say that the answer is "no way".

He won the 5th World Correspondence Chess Championship in 1965. Computer chess, if it existed at all, was not strong at all. Even with mainframe-type hardware back then, it paled on comparison to the first Chess Challengers of the early 1980's, and they were only rated about 1200 then.

My first chess computer in 1985, and it was the strongest and most expensive on the marker at the time, was only about 1600. There is no way that you could win against correspondence Grandmasters with that type of help.

I would say, fairly confidently, that is was all his work.


There are certainly several chess engines, but as a result of the additional complexities referenced by @TonyEnnis, these engines are weaker than reasonably strong players. It's extremely difficult to take into account the different scenarios that can arise from two positions as pieces switch from board to board every move. The resulting search tree increases at an exponential rate even greater than that of standard chess.

The engine that I'm most familiar with is Sjeng which claims that it has an ELO of around 2000 on FICS, equivalent to a strong human player.


What kind of hand-crafted features do top performing family of engines use to evaluate a position?

The paper is right. Traditional chess engines use a set of tedious hand-crafted features for positional evaluation.

I'd say nothing surprising, to name a fews (I can't name everything):

Mobility bonus
Outpost bonus
Attack bonus
Rook on the seventh rank
Material advantage
Minor pieces behind pawn

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

If you take a look at the source code, it's quite complicated. Difficult programming for something that is understood even by chess beginners.

What about replacing the entire file with a deep neural network? Training a network is easier than tweaking those numbers in the file.


Does anybody knows about how the Polgar sisters were trained?

The Polgar sisters: Training or Genius? by Cathy Forbes states that the main studying was the flash card method.  (Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations and Games by (the father)Laszlo Polgar [https://b-ok.cc/book/857033/54e4d4] provides the puzzles on the flashcards.)
The most important passage (IMO) is the Judith would continue using the flash cards on her free time. When told that she could leave the cards alone, she replied that that cards wouldn't leave her alone.  The desire to improve is the most important factor in improvement.


Mark Taimanov, WC contender in 1971, was a world-class concert pianist.

Here is a duet he played in 1957.

One more. I don't know when it was played. This one shows he and his partner playing.


For those who play the Catalan Opening, what are typical responses to the KID and slav defense?

This is the exact situation where I found myself and I decided to employ
the following move order/repertoire to keep me in the spirit of the Catalan.

King's Indian defence

Against the King's Indian Defence you can use the fianchetto variation (which requires studying the Panno variations from the black side), which is actually quite solid and positional.

[fen ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.g3 d6 5.Bg2 0-0 6.0-0 Nc6

The above can be met in many different ways: there are 7.h3 lines, 7.Nc3, 7.Qc2 and so forth (you should dig into a little theory here). Notice that 3.Nf3 avoids forcing Grünfeld lines that could occur after 3.Nc3 (3...d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 bxc3 6.c5) because there is in fact no Knight on c3 to be exchanged after 5.e4.
The fianchetto variation moreover avoids the automatic plan by Black in the standard variations of the King's Indian (Mar de la Plata) with f5-f4-g5-g4, as the construction
with g3-Bg2 by White makes it really hard to sac-sac-checkmate the King.

Slav

To be honest the best way to meet the Slav is to play the main line, as it gives
White always a slight edge and if well played Black must defend (though it is by
all means very robust and solid for the second player). Here it is important to
go 3.Nf3 instead of 3.Nc3 to avoid the Winawer gambit 3...e5 (well, unless you want to play against it and feel comfortable).

[fen ""]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.e3 e6 7. Bxc4

and the standard plan is to play Qe2 and then e4-e5 (at the right moment) followed by Bd3 and attack on the Black King. There are fianchetto lines against the Slav as well, however, if you really feel the need to play fianchetto all the times.


To get an official FIDE rating, you need to compete in tournaments which are FIDE rated. At least in the US, it's more common for tournaments to be just USCF rated, while larger events will also FIDE rate the top section(s).


With e2-e4, you create "holes" at d3 and d4 that can never again be attacked by pawns. Any enemy pieces that land on those holes have to be kicked out by your pieces, which is harder to do (because every piece runs away from a pawn job).
World champion Botvinnik used to set pawns on c4-d3-e4 which we call The Botvinnik Triangle. The world champion can live with those holes, but beginners have a tougher time.
Beginners shouldn't be playing 1. c4.  If you'd played 1. d4, we wouldn't be having this conversation.


How will the World Championship work in 2013?

The World Chess Championship 2013 will be a match between the World Chess Champion Viswanathan Anand, the winner of the World Chess Championship 2012, and a challenger.

The challenger to the match will be decided using an eight-player double round-robin tournament (the Candidate's Tournament), to be held in London from March 13 to March 31, 2013. The eight players will in order of rules announced by FIDE consist of:

Peter Svidler (Russia), Alexander Grischuk (Russia), Vassily Ivanchuk (Ukraine), Boris Gelfand (Israel), Magnus Carlsen (Norway), Levon Aronian (Armenia), Vladimir Kramnik (Russia), Teimour Radjabov (Azerbaijan).

The championship match is scheduled from November 6 to November 26, 2012. The match conditions (number of games played, time controls and tie breaks) have not been announced.

FIde has not determined location yet, supposedly Chennai, India is being considered, but this has not been confirmed on the FIDE website.

You can find more details here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_2013

http://www.fide.com/index.php?option=com_fidecalendar&view=fidecalendar&ny=2013


Software for reading aloud the moves of a chess games in Arena or SCID vs PC

Scid vs Pc offers Speak-out-moves.
Assuming Version 4.21. (latest at the time of writing)

Go to Options Sounds
Under Move announcement, tick from the list what you want. For eg. Announce new moves will speak out loud the new moves on board.

For a basic installation, the Sounds folder must be chosen (on top of Move Announcement). For that, Scid offers a set of sound files. To download and call use it with Scid,

Go to support files
Choose and download sounds.tgz
Put it in your Scid vs Pc installation folder. For eg. C:/Scid vs Pc/lib.
Extract sounds.tgz file which contains sounds.tar. Extract sounds.tar that contains sounds folder.
In the Scid vs Pc gui, under Options Sounds Sounds Folder, choose C:/Scid vs Pc/lib/sounds.

Restart Scid vs Pc and you will be good to go.


Is there a heuristic for how much time handicap to give players of different skill levels?

we have even odds when poor player myself (1200 lichess) gets 5 minutes and stronger player him (1900 lichess) gets 1 minute

That's probably not too far out. As I wrote in this answer about some of the winding down at the prize-giving party after the 2019 Isle of Man:

IM Lawrence Trent (~2400) was playing blitz / bullet with Caruana with 3 minutes to Caruana's 1 minute and losing in a proportion of about 2 to 1. He then took on Nakamura with 5 minutes to Nakamura's 45 seconds with similar results.

Interesting differential there. At those time controls Caruana and Nakamura were playing bullet to Trent's blitz. Caruana is stronger at standard time controls than Nakamura but at bullet Nakamura is just a beast and you have to take that into account and not use standard ratings.
It's worth adding that you can't play with an increment either in these circumstances. A much stronger player can almost play just on increment alone.


What is the negative thinking method in chess?

Taken literally, this seems a bit absurd. You don't explicitly reject moves that are so awful that no chess player would seriously consider them in the first place. Furthermore, there isn't a simple dichotomy of bad moves and good moves, where all but one move is bad (so that the good one can be arrived at by a process of elimination). There is more typically a continuum between awful moves and excellent moves, with many of the non-excellent moves not being actually bad but just not as good as possible.
On the other hand (if taken less literally) this way of thinking is related to prophylaxis in chess, which is a recognized approach to chess planning. Petrosian was a virtuoso in prophylaxis. He likely sometimes made moves after determining that any plausible alternative left his position potentially vulnerable to some future threat.


The answer is that they either played it on some very handicapped mode, they took back A LOT of moves, or they are probably lying.

Stockfish 11 is currently rated about 3607, and that is in standard chess. Computer programs are typically even HARDER to beat for humans at even faster controls.

There is a reason elite humans have not played matches against computers for a long time: even the Carlsens of the world cannot beat them any more. According to the ELO winning expectancy calculator, there is currently a 745 point difference between Stockfish 11 and Carlsen, and per the chart, that gives the computer a 99.5439696% chance of winning.

Note: The ratings used above are from different rating pools, and thus, are not truly directly comparable, but used as a rough estimate of what would happen between the computer and Carlsen.


What is the longest non-cyclic forced sequence of moves?

9 moves
In the linked thread (not quite a duplicate), a valid answer is posed to this question:

You mean like this?

[Title "Vilhelm Röpke, Skakbladet 1942, Mate In 6"]
[FEN "K1k5/P1Pp4/1p1P4/8/p7/P2P4/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

White mates in 6.

I guess that's 9 consecutive forced moves. It would be eleven except for black's choice of promotion piece on his fifth move. I don't know if it's a record, and I don't know who composed this classic chess problem.


According to my analysis, it seems like a clear win. Black can't force the exchange of the remaining white pawn,  White has the Bishop of the appropriate color, and Black can't prevent White to improve the position of its pieces.

An important tactical finesse:

1..Ke5 2.Kg2 Rxe1 3. Re7+, winning the Rook.

Another important idea:

1..g4 2. Rf6 g3 3. Rg6! (3. Rxh6 g2+ 4. Kxg2 Rxf1 5. Rf6 =) 3..Ra5 4. Rg4+

and the g pawn falls.

(Note that 2. Kg2 is also possible, with the same idea as above.)

It should be a matter of time for Black to lose its remaining pawns, since the black King is cut off from them.  I can't offer any concrete lines, so perhaps I'm wrong here. But what I know is that

W: Kf1, Be1, Rh6, h5
B: Ra1, Kf5

is a win in the tablebases. It does not seem to be possible to prevent White to play Rh8 and h5-h6, after which the pawn is immune. As soon as it gets attacked by some Rh2, White has Rg8+, repeating the same tactical theme as above, or Bd2, protecting the pawn directly.

I've played some games with an extra Black pawn, and I have yet to save one game against Stockfish. One annoying bug of having a pawn on g4 is that black King can't move on g4.


Why is Kh8 the best move in this position for black?

If you don't play ...Kh8, then for every move you consider making, you're going to have to worry about what happens if White responds Qb3+ or Bc4+. If you're analyzing variations, you always have to take into account that White might play Qb3+ on the fourth move of the sequence or something. This means that

You're going to have to spend extra time on the clock every move checking those checks.
You might mess up and miss one of those times when one of the checks works, and get a disastrous result.
Even if you don't mess up, natural moves that you might want to play might fail due to one of the checks, and you'll have to play a less nice move instead.
When White looks for tactics, he has built-in "hooks" to try to build combinations around. If there's some other weakness in your position at some point, there's a decent chance some double-attack tactics will become possible, for example.

Of course, Stockfish only really cares about the last two, but even that's enough. If you can afford the tempo, it's a really good idea to just get the king out of the way and completely quash all four problems for the whole future of the game.


Your time is up on an online correspondence game but your oponnent has only his king; is it a draw?

Note: This was answered before the OP edited the question, and specified it was an online competition.

According to ICCF (international) rules, yes, it is still a draw.

6.7 Except where one of  the Articles 5.1 or 5.2 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that  the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

The USCF rules are more convoluted. First, there is a special rule 11 in national events that if someone oversteps the time limit, they are not forfeited, but rather penalized five days reflection time on the succeeding 10 moves/30 day time control. They lose the second time this happens. (Plus there are entire sets of rules for specific national events linked on that page)

Otherwise, they also follow the traditional USCF rules of chess, so yes, it would also be a draw in that case too.

14D. Insufficient material to continue. The game is drawn when one of the following endings exists as of the most recently determined legal move, in which the possibility of a win is excluded for either side.

14D4. No legal moves leading to checkmate by opponent. There are no legal moves that could lead to the player being checkmated by the opponent.


Why does White fianchetto the light square Bishop in QID

There are 3 reasons why White fianchettos the light square bishop:

White's plan is to play e4 to gain space. The bishop on g2 supports this
Building from point 1), white could play e3, Bd3 then e4, but that is an extra tempo spent to play e4
White has latent pressure on the queen-side, and may be able to play discovery or pinning tactics with a bishop on g2


How to get out of "Hope" chess into "Real" chess

Just to ensure that we get the definitions correct, I will quote Dan Heisman on the definition of these two terms:

  "HOPE" Chess - This is NOT when you make a move and hope your opponent
  doesn't see your threat. Instead, Hope chess is when you make a move
  and don't look at what your opponent might threaten on his next move,
  and whether you can meet that threat on your next move. Instead, you
  just wait until next move and see what he does, and then hope you can
  meet any threats. In my first 3 tournaments I played Hope chess and
  never won more than 1 game in any of the three. The speed at which you
  can play Hope chess also explains why I usually took only about half
  an hour for each game in these tournaments, even though the time
  control was 50 moves in 2 hours. Most high school level players play
  hope chess, but almost always lose when they run into a serious player
  who plays "Real Chess."

and...

  Real Chess: In a nutshell, it’s making sure that before you make a
  move, you make sure you can safely meet your opponents checks,
  captures, and threats that he could play in reply to your move, and
  you must do that every move. So in terms of threats:

  ...

  3) Real Chess - you make sure you can meet next move's threat
  (actually checks, captures, and threats).

If you still sometimes play Hope Chess you need to train it out of you as a player. The fact is, you will play the way you train and thus you should always train the way you want to play. Regardless of what sort of training you are doing you must always ensure that you are meeting the exceptions of "Real Chess". If you are doing tactics puzzles DO NOT simply push your pieces into the most forcing moves you can find without having come to a real conclusion, instead think about the position. Make sure you have evaluated all of your checks, captures, and threats as well as your opponent's checks, captures, and threats. The same goes for training games or anything else you are doing. If you don't make a rigid habit out of it, you will not do it during an over-the-board game.

In my opinion the best way to train playing Real Chess is ensuring that you are meeting the expectations in chess puzzles (those from real games), K+P(s) v. K(+Ps) endgame puzzles, "solitaire chess" and, of course, practice games against either a computer or human player at long time controls. I think Practical Chess Exercises is a great collection of problems for this sort of training because it does not include only tactical positions but also has strategic themes and endgames all mixed together so that it really lends itself to this sort of training. Some of the positions even have bad combinations in them that don't work because they allow your opponent to equalize or even pull a combination of their own. Instead you have to find the best move, even if it isn't a forcing move.


What prevents chess engines from being undetectable?

Engines have no concept of natural moves and they have no fear. An engine will play for the most advantage, not for the most manageable advantage, even if it allows a fierce attack, because it sees that the attack does not work, while a human would probably prevent an attack and settle with a smaller, but practical advantage.

"Randomly" picking good moves is not easy. The second best move may only be second best if you see a very hard ONLY MOVE which comes 15 moves after. And sometimes, the best move is very obvious, and playing the second best move would be very suspicious.

It is not very known how engine detections on chess websites work, but I have read that they also account for playstyle inconsistency (ultra-aggressive to defensive, even though an aggressive move is available and not much worse), mouse movement, time management.


It's likely a draw. After going through a few lines (which strengthens the transposition table), Stockfish 11 at around depth 42 gave me 0.74 in the starting position. Especially in such a simplified endgame, this shouldn't be enough for White to claim a win. I also set it to White to move in the starting position.
Some variations I analyzed with Stockfish:
a) 1.Kd2 Kd6 2.Be4 Nc6 3.Bg6 Nxa5 4.Bxh5 Nc4+. Depth 38 gives 0.13, a clear draw.
b) 1.f3 gxf3+ 2.Kxf3 (2.Bxf3 Ke6 is 0.13, at depth 42) 2...Kd6 3.Kf4 Nc6: 0.13, depth 40.
c) 1.Be4 is the most challenging. Black should play 1...Kf6, and here White has a few tries:
c1) 2.Kd1 must be met with 2...Ke7!. After 3.Bg6 (3.Kc1 Kd6 4.Bg6 Ke7 5.Bxh5 Nd3+ is drawn: 0.25, depth 42) 3...Nc6 4.Bxh5 Ne5!, Black should hold: 0.38, depth 48. A more challenging move is 3.f3, but after 3...gxf3 4.Bxf3 Ke6 5.Bxh5 Nc6 6.Bg4+ Ke5 7.h5 (7.Bc8 Nxa5 8.Bxa6 Kf5 is theoretically drawn in the 7 piece tablebase) 7...Nxa5 8.h6 Kf6 9.Bh5 Nc4 10.g4 Ne3+ 11.Ke2 Nxg4, Black draws. Note that this 10...Ne3+ is extremely important - if Black couldn't play it with check, then White wins. This is why in variation c2 below, where White plays 2.Ke1 instead of 2.Kd1, 2...Ke7 will end up losing: this 10...Ne3+ resource no longer works.
c2) 2.Ke1 must instead be met with 2...Ke6!. Now 3.f3 can be met with 3...gxf3 4.Bxf3 Nd3+ 5.Kf1 Nc1 6.Bxh5 Nb3, which should be drawn, as Black is about to capture the a5-pawn. The 4...Nd3+ idea works nicely as its with tempo - in variation c1, this wouldn't have been the case as the White king was on d1. Another third move White can try here is 3.Bg6, and after 3...Ke7 4.Bxh5 Nd3+ 5.Ke2 Ne5, Black should draw - Stockfish gives 1.08 at depth 56, which shouldn't be quite enough to win. If White forces matters with 6.f3, then 6...gxf3+ 7.Bxf3 d3+ 8.Ke3 d2 9.Be2 Nc4+ 10.Kd3 Nxa5 11.Kxd2 is drawn in the 7 piece tablebase, as long as Black plays 11...Nc6 here.
c3) 2.f3 gxf3+ 3.Kxf3 Ke5 4.Bb7 Kf5 looks like it should be drawn.
c4) 2.Kd2 Ke7 3.Bg6 Nc6 4.Bxh5 Ne5 should be drawn (1.08, depth 55). Or 3.f3 gxf3 4.Bxf3 Ke6 5.Bxh5 Nc6 6.Bg4+ (6.Be2 Nxa5 7.Bxa6 is drawn in the tablebase) 6...Kf6 7.Bf3 Nxa5 8.h5, and here 8...Nc4+ or 8...Nb3+ both work, bringing the knight over to the centre/kingside with tempo. Yet another 3rd move is 3.Kc1, hoping to attack the knight with the White king. But after 3...Kd6 4.Kb2 (4.Bg6 Ke7 5.Bxh5 Nd3+ 6.Kd2 Ne5 should hold) 4...Nc6, the game is drawn.


How can one become a very good chess player without studying chess or openings?

Capablanca didn't like to "study chess or openings" means that he didn't like to study formal chess (as it was understood in his time).

On the other hand, he studied more, and had a better grasp of chess principles, particularly as they related to the middle and end game. His best exposition of this was "Chess Fundamentals."

Because he focused on principles, rather than "book" moves, he was the hardest person in the world to surprise with a new line. He beat back the Marshall Attack that Marshall had reserved especially for him.

Nowadays, there is more and better book knowledge, so it's helpful to learn some of it. And the other reason is that not many players have the instinctive grasp of the game that Capablanca had.


Abbreviations like 't', 'm', 'zt', 'sf' in chess databases

Wikipedia says TT is Transposition Table...
When the search encounters a transposition, it is beneficial to 'remember' what was determined last time the position was examined, rather than redoing the entire search again. For this reason, chess programs have a transposition table, which is a large hash table storing information about positions previously searched, how deeply they were searched, and what we concluded about them. Even if the depth (draft) of the related transposition table entry is not big enough, or does not contain the right bound for a cutoff, a best (or good enough) move from a previous search can improve move ordering, and save search time. This is especially true inside an iterative deepening framework, where one gains valuable table hits from previous iterations.
IT seems to hint at Invitational Tournament, though I cannot confirm this.


Can anyone analyze my game and mistakes?

[Title "Game analysis"]

[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. d3 Bc5 3. Ne2 { I prefer Nf3 here, it is more active} d6 4. Nbc3 f5 5. d4 exd4 6. Nxd4 fxe4 7. Bb5+? {Waste of time, Black easily defends while consolidating extra pawn} c6 8. Ba4 Bxd4? {Relinquishing bishop pair, playing twice with the developed piece, improves opponent's development} 9. Qxd4 Nf6 10. Bg5 O-O 11. O-O (11.O-O-O!? $40) 11...h6? (11...d5 $15) 12. Bb3+ d5 13. Bh4 (13.Bxf6!? Qxf6 14.Qxf6 Rxf6 15.Nxe4 Rf8 16.Nd6 $14) 13...Be6 14. Qb4? (14.Nxe4! dxe4 (14...Nxe4?? 15.Bxd8 +-) 15.Bxe6+ $16) 14... b6 15. Rad1?! (15.Nxe4!) 15...c5 16. Qb5 Qd7 17. Qxd7 Bxd7 18. Nxd5 Kh8 19. Nxf6?! (19.Nc7+- ) 19...gxf6 20. Rd6 Bc6 21. Bd5?! (21.Bxf6+) 21...Bxd5 22. Rxd5 f5 23. Rfd1 Nc6 24. Rd7 Nd4 25. Be7 (25.c3) 25...Rfe8 26. Bf6+ Kg8 27. Rg7+ Kf8 28. Rh7 Kg8 29. Rg7+ Kf8 30. c3+- {White has decisive advantage. He will penetrate with the rooks on the 7th rank and eventually mate Black.} 0-1

If you do not understand symbols behind moves, go to this link.

Some advices:

Improve your opening repertoire, what I saw is very risky -> it might cost you in the future if you continue to open this way;
Work on tactics, that Nxe4 blow was obvious;
Find a book/online tutorial/... on basics of opening play -> you wasted tempo several times without any good reason to do so;
Generally speaking, you played well for your level of skill -> keep improving, you have good prospects in becoming good player.

If you need further help leave a comment. Best regards.


What is covered in "Grunfeld Defense: Russian Variations" (1988) by Eric Schiller?

This is D96/D97 classification - ECO D would be your best bet. It would be comprehensive in variations but in Chess Informant style.

I would add this:
Even though Eric Schiller is somewhat known for his error-prone books, this book is in it's second edition. I would venture to say that, as far as Schiller books go, it might not be all that bad. It really depends on your playing level. If you are a relatively weak player (say, 1400 rating or less), I'm sure it is fine to get your feet wet using this book. It is important to know how not to play an opening as well as know how to play it. It might be a good jumping off point for the opening. Of course, get an inexpensive used copy if possible.

Good luck!


Exploiting wrong deviations from theory in chess openings

I would recommend the Chessok Opening Tree.

You can browse the lines you are interested in and see which moves have already been played (which at the beginning of an opening is almost every halfway sensible move). And most importantly you'll get an engine evaluation for each move, which immediately tells you which of these halfway sensible moves is a blunder.

If you are further down the rabbit hole and the line has never been played before, of course you have to rely on your own chess understanding to come up with the most likely human moves and can then use an engine to find out how to punish them. Online, this would be possible on Chess24, though as non premium member you might have to wait a while for the engine evaluation to come up.


What are the sites and links to get a FIDE rating?

Chess.com is a private organization that is not affiliated with FIDE (the World Chess Federation). Also, Chess.com's ratings are based on online play (and so unofficial), whereas FIDE only rates official, over-the-board tournaments. So it is not possible to get a FIDE rating based on Chess.com rating.

You can get a FIDE rating by playing in a tournament that will get rated by FIDE.


When and why was the notation changed from descriptive to algebraic?

Though the previous answers have made some solid points, I think they have not yet given the main reason why algebraic notation has generally come to be preferred over descriptive notation: it is more absolute, less relative, than descriptive notation. What I mean is just this: in algebraic notation each square on the chessboard receives only one name, while in descriptive notation each square receives a different name depending on whether a move by white is being notated or a move by black. This alone makes algebraic notation more transparent, because things aren't relative to which side is on the move.

Consider, say, the g4 square (in algebraic notation). When white moves a piece there, descriptive notation says it is headed to KN4. But if black is moving a piece there, it is headed to KN5. There is just no need to have two names for this square, and it serves only to sow possible confusion in a way that algebraic notation does not.


Here is a link to the FIDE record for a norm tournament where I was the chief arbiter. Two or three lines up from the bottom it says "PGN file" and next to it is a brownish icon. If you click on it you can see a list of all the games with the possibility to play through them in a PGN viewer or to download them.

Here is a link to a low level (Minor) tournament I played in a few weeks ago. Towards the bottom of the header it says "Games: There are 59 games available for download". Clicking on the link gives you options to download games by round or to download all the entered games for the tournament.

These games have been entered and uploaded by arbiters and their assistants (cue for you to say "Thank you, arbiters!"). Some of this work (norm events) is done because it is a FIDE requirement. Some of it (like the low level tournament I played in) is done out of the goodness of the arbiters' hearts.

Generally speaking if you enter a tournament and the scoresheets provided are single copy then your game won't end up in an online database and if it is a two-copy scoresheet then it will. The two-copy scoresheets cost more and a tournament organiser would not waste money on them unless the games were to be recorded and uploaded.

People who run websites that include all the games they can find have written bots which crawl the web (or at least select parts of it) looking for PGNs which they download and add to their collection for their website or database.


First of all, despite the stigma attached to early queen moves Nakamura has played the white side of 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 several times in top level play, so it is a move you should treat with respect.
The best approach is probably to play moves like 2... Nc6 to protect the e pawn, 3... g6 to kick away the queen, then Nf6, Bg7, castles to get your king safe. Then if the white queen is still in the middle of the board try and attack it with your pieces.
Then you are in a normal game and if you blunder pieces because of your low rating then consider that your low rating is probably because of your poor tactical ability. To correct this you need to work on tactics. Learn about pins, forks, skewers, discovered attacks, etc. and do lots of puzzles to try and improve.


Do GPL-licensed engines permit modifying and closing the source code?

GPL-licensed software cannot become closed software. If you 'fork' it, then the rights on this fork remain the same (see GNU General Public License on Wikipedia).


Losing the queen and then winning the game

Losing a queen early on without any compensation or counterplay means almost certain defeat against anybody except for absolute beginners.

There is a certain "point system" which can be used to evaluate a position:

Basically you assign points to certain aspects of the position, like material, piece activity, king safety, space advantage, etc. Adding all those points (with weights depending on the aspects), you come up with a final number, for instance -2. The sign (-) means black is better and the number 2 means that all other things being equal, black could be up by 2 pawns. Of course it could also mean that material is equal and black has much more active pieces, etc.

Just for the material aspect the points assigned to the pieces is usually pawn: 1, knight/bishop: 3, rook: 5, queen: 9 (see this for details) or thereabout.

While this point system is used by computers, for practical play it is not really relevant. I don't know any decent player who would start adding numbers to assess a position.

Still you can use it to answer your question...

Looking at games of top players, within an evaluation of roughly -1 to + 1, i.e. at most a pawn up (all other things being equal), the game usually ends in a draw.

Around +-2, the game would usually be lost/won at GM/IM level, though people might still fight for a while depending on the position.

Around +-3, good players would typically resign immediately.

Of course there are exceptions to this rule and particularly in very tactical/wild positions with open kings and attacking potentials, there could be chances for the losing side.

Still it could give you an idea of what losing a queen (value 9) means...

  I would like to know more about tactics when some player lost some important pieces, but played so well that he won the game. Are there any tricks that can be used here? I

The word you mean is "strategy" not "tactics". As outlined above, most people would resign in a situation like you describe. Still, if you think your opponent is weak enough to continue fighting there are a few things you can do to increase your chances:

keep many pieces on the board (don't exchange pieces): this increases the potential for tactics
keep the position complicated: typically this means open positions with lots of piece activity
start a direct attack on the enemy king
if time is limited try to force your opponent getting low on time, e.g. by moving quickly, doing unusual moves, etc.
play for tricks/tactics (you really should never do this in chess because it is not how you play chess beyond a certain level...)


Deep Fritz 14, Show Plans-How to activate?

It appears to be for future use: Although it is two versions later, to quote the Fritz 16 online manual: "Show Plans - Displays the planned Manoeuver of the engine. The function is not supported by any engine!"

Fritz 16 Manual


Chessbase 6 light version, free if you can find it, has an option to view the notation in descriptive notation.
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/499956-How-to-Convert-Descriptive-to-Algebraic-Forums may be a useful link.

The promotion does go before the check. There is no check before the promotion.  Some people put an "=" before the promotion.

An interesting game to try to convert would be one with multiply Queens.  This gives a promotion and ambiguity.  You should also get a game with Queenside castling.  When I test my move generator, I setup a semi-random position to test each position.  To test your output, I agree with Tony Ennis, convert it to algebraic and play through the game.  If all else fails, post them online and ask for someone to check the result.

Descriptive notation lesson:
The first character is the piece being moved, pawns are not considered a pieces except for when they are capturing.  The second character is "-" for a normal move or "x" for captures; if a Pawn captures, use the piece symbol, "PxP."  The third character is the square where it lands.  The files are named after the piece's home square.  The third character is the rank counting from the side which made the move.  "e4" is written as "P-K4" if White played the move else "P-K5."

Note:  The old style did not include a rank if it is the first.

Ambiguity is settled by an expanded description.  The first method is to try to expand the destination square.  That is if you move a Bishop to "N5", if both Bishop can reach "N5", the square is expanded to either "QN5" or "KN5."  If two pieces can reach the same square, the piece is expanded by the original side it started on.  That is if both Knights can go to "Q2," you prefix the piece with its starting side, e.g. "QN-Q2."  If a promotion occurred, you have to use long notation, "QN5-N6."

Castling was "castles" with the expanded form being "castlesQ."  In modern times, people adopt the algebraic form.


Diagonal opposition can be thought of as a means to an end. No matter where your opponent's King moves, you can get direct opposition sooner or later. Examples from your position:

1...Kf7 2. Kf5 (White gets the direct opposition).

1..Kg6 2. Ke6 (White gets the direct opposition).

1...Kg8 2. Ke6 Kh8 3. Kf6 Kh7 4. Kf7 (White gets the direct opposition).

As per your question regarding f8, g8, and h8, White could not reach the squares even if he had direct opposition in a similar position. Put White's King on e6, and Black's King on g6 (Black to move). You'll find that Black can defend the 3 squares, despite White having the opposition.

The purpose of opposition is that it forces your opponent to move his King out of the way, letting you pass in one way or the other. Note that the way your opponent moves his King out of the way is up to him, so he could protect f8, g8, h8 indefinitely by keeping his King there. However, that would let your King pass his by playing Kf5, Kg4, Kh4 (and reaching the h-file, if that was your goal).


I entered the position in ChessBase and got Komodo 9 to analyze it -- it says 70...Rb3+ was Black's best move by far, only giving White a +0.64 advantage (which means the engine thinks White is "64% of a pawn" better). The reason Rb3+ is a good move is that Black needs counterplay -- if he sits and does nothing, White will win easily (due to being up 2 pawns).

So, at that point the game was close to drawn, but White still had good chances to press and win (which he did).

Black's mistake was playing 76...Bf4+, giving White a winning advantage. Instead, he should have played 76...Bf3, attacking White's g4-pawn. Playing 76...Bf4+ allowed White to play 77. Ke2, stopping Black from playing Bf3.

It's important to note though that Kramnik's mistake isn't close to a blunder -- rather's it's a small inaccuracy that lost the game (at GM level this can happen). It's easy to analyze a game with an engine and criticize the play of even the top players in the world.

EDIT - I checked again on the engine, and Black should play 75...Bf3 instead of 75...Be4+ 76. Kd2 Bf3, since that just brings White's King one square closer.


You don't have a checkmate plan. Let's talk about it when you are able to queen a pawn. 1.Rxd8 is a reasonable move here.


An objective measure of the difference in strength between top programs and top human players in the four most popular forms of chess?

I would have to answer no in my opinion. The four forms of chess are different. Shogi from what I remember is a form of chess where capturing an opponent's piece allows you to, at a time of your choosing, put one of that piece on the board as yours. Now that is a level of tactical complexity that surely gives any engine a huge advantage over any strength of human. I have played a little Xiang Qi and I would say the same; in the 90's when Chinese players played Professional western chess for the first time they were awesome tacticians; Xiang Qi as their previous game being very tactical led to that.


Engines that predict the outcome of current matches in real-time

Any chess program (Crafty, for instance) will do that.  Use analysis mode.  Key in the move, and it will produce a score.  The score implies how well one side is doing.


I play it to avoid 'normal' sicilian lines.
When possible I do attack often on the Kside.
OTOH your example line is not one that gives me a lot of problems.
What causes me more problems as white is fighting for an early d5 by black and attacking on the Q side.
Yes some opponents have castled Qside as black which led to other type of play than a Kside attack by white.


In my opinion, it's almost impossible to say that a game is perfect if you include the opening.  If you take the first few moves as a given (for example 1. e4 e5), then it is possible to say that a series of moves is perfect.

One example of a so-called perfect game is the Immortal Draw.  Carl Hamppe and Philipp Meitner played to a draw in 1872, and in the next century, no improvements have been found for the game.  It has stood up to all sorts of computer analysis and GM analysis.

Obviously the argument can be made that there is a "flaw" in the first 3 moves - maybe 1. e4 is not best, or 3. Na4 was an error, but if we ignore those 3 moves, every move starting with move 4 has held up as arguably the best move.  For instance, 7. Qe1 is often given as an option for white, but black can once again sac his queen for a perpetual check.

While there are certainly other lines that draw, the game line is the most beautiful IMHO.

[FEN ""]
[Event "Vienna 1872"]
[White "Carl Hamppe"]
[Black "Philipp Meitner"]
[Site "Vienna"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[PlyCount "36"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Bc5 3. Na4 Bxf2+ 4. Kxf2 Qh4+ 5. Ke3 Qf4+ 6. Kd3 d5 7. Kc3 (7.
Qe1 Nf6 8. g3 Qg4 9. Bh3 dxe4+ 10. Kc3 Nd5+ 11. Kb3 Nc6 $1 12. Bxg4 Na5+ $11)
7... Qxe4 8. Kb3 Na6 9. a3 Qxa4+ 10. Kxa4 Nc5+ 11. Kb4 a5+ 12. Kxc5 Ne7 13.
Bb5+ Kd8 14. Bc6 (14. Nf3 $4 b6#) 14... b6+ 15. Kb5 Nxc6 16. Kxc6 (16. Ka4 Nd4
17. Qf1 Bd7+ 18. Qb5 Bxb5#) 16... Bb7+ 17. Kb5 (17. Kxb7 Kd7 18. Qg4+ Kd6 19.
Qe6+ fxe6 20. Nf3 Rhb8#) 17... Ba6+ 18. Kc6 Bb7+ 1/2-1/2


What is the purpose of 12.a3 in the QGD Lasker Defence?

12. a3 in this position is a very concrete move, and as such, the best way to understand its purpose is to play out a handful of the main variations with and without the a3 inclusion. If it's difficult to do that on your own, keep an engine on your side while you're doing your exploratory analysis.

Short answer: a3 is not necessarily needed for white here, as there are alternatives such as Be2 (see Ivanchuk vs Carlsen 2012), but a3 helps keep a slight additional edge for white, as in a number of lines that can ensue white will have stopped any options of Qb4+, Qb5 (stopping white's castling) and Nf6-Nd5-Nb4 (specially in lines where black opts for b6.) To see why either of these options are relevant, let's go through some lines.

Longer answer (annotated, first go through the lines without a3):

 [title "Without and with a3 from move 12"]
 [fen "r1b2rk1/pp1nqpp1/2p1p2p/3p4/2PP4/2R1PN2/PPQ2PPP/4KB1R w K - 2 12"]

 1. Be2 (1. a3 {for the sake of comparison, let's follow through with both sides similarly to the Be2 line in order to highlight the underlying difference} dxc4 2. Bxc4 b6 3. Bd3 Nf6 (3...Bb7 {connecting the rooks and defending c6 directly} 4. Be4 Rfc8 5. Bxc6 {if c6-c5 could be played after Be4, black would be fine, but the knight on d7 leaves the queen and bishop disconnected, therefore, leaves c6 stuck on c6 and black cannot muster enough defense to hold on to it. So in this subvariation black still loses a clear pawn. We can conclude that after a3, black cannot really proceed with dxc4 and b6 ideas to finish development. However, dxc4 followed by e5 seems like a better alternative, but that's another discussion altogether.}) 4. Rxc6 Nd5 5. Qe2 Bb7 6. Rc1 {thanks to a3, white's a safe pawn up, has avoided simplifications for black, kept a healthy pawn structure and is ready to castle and maintaining control over the open file. Thus, a3, clearly refutes Nf6-Nd5 and leaves c6 hanging for black, so let's do better for black now.}) {Simply focusing on kingside development and to prepare short castles} dxc4 {a key forcing line that emphasizes the importance of control of b4 square} 2. Bxc4 b6 {in order for black to finish development, a solution has to be found for the locked out c8 bishop, therefore, either one opts for the e5 break early enough, or sets up the bishop on the long diagonal with b6, with either pawn breaks c5-e5 postponed for later.} 3. Bd3 {white's immediate reaction should be to prevent black's easy development, which here is simply to pressure the vulnerable c6 pawn, so Bd3 both uncovers the semi-open file and keeps the option of Be4 to add more pressure on c6.} Nf6 (3...Bb7 {for completeness let's consider the immediate Bb7 as well} 4. Be4 {usually throwing a Bh7+ first is good, but for the purpose of our discussions here it's not so important.} Rac8 5. Bxc6 Bxc6 6. Rxc6 Rxc6 7. Qxc6 Qb4+ {b4's not controlled by white!} 8. Qc3 Qb5 {black's well compensated for the pawn as white's unable to finish development and bring its last piece into play, black seems to be well in time for Nf6-Ne4-Nd6 followed by Rc8 claiming the open file, while white's left with no real initiative or even a clear path to finishing development.}) {but Bd3 is not even with tempo because black doesn't even have to immediately respond to the defense of c6 as Nf6 followed by Nd5 indirectly defends c6 as it comes with a double attack threat of Nb4 either forking the rook and queen, or the queen and bishop.} 4. Rxc6 Nd5 5. Qd2 {side-stepping the fork} Nb4 {b4's not controlled by white!} 6. Rc3 Nxd3+ 7. Qxd3 Bb7 8. O-O (8. Qe2 {as an alternative attempting not to prevent the kingside damage and holding on to the extra pawn} Rfc8 9. O-O Rxc3 10. bxc3 Rac8 11. Rc1 Qa3 12. Qd2 Bd5 {black's completely equalized as white's both weak pawns are under pressure and white has no initiative, Rc2 Be4 can even potentially lead to repetition.}) Bxf3 9. gxf3 Qg5+ 10. Kh1 Qd5 {black's winning back the temporarily sacrificed pawn and has a perfectly playable position without any weaknesses. This shows that Nf5-Nd5 is a very strong idea and if white wants to stop all these forcing variations which heavily simplify and equalize the game, then the said knight maneuver has to be stopped.}

Summary after our analysis: Very concretely, a3 puts a clear stop to dxc4 and b6 type of continuations for black (which would let them complete development comfortably), while maintaining the asymmetry of the position and avoiding simplifications which would favour black.  Black on the other hand, still has a number of choices at their disposal after a3, one of which is dxc4 followed by e5, either way, black has to have planned for a well-timed pawn break with c5 or e5 if and when they decide to take on c4.


Threefold repetition in view of castling rights

This is dealt with explicitly in article 9.2.2 -

  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.

Neither of white's rooks move hence castling rights are not affected until the king moves.

In general provided white has not moved his king he may castle on the side on which a rook which has not moved has been captured. I believe there are even puzzles which rely on this for the solution.


Strange pawn double move in McDonnell attack

I checked the position on Stockfish and its 1st or 2nd recommendation is to play 6...d5 after 6.Nc3, so your Chessable opening line is sound.

The reason for playing 6...d5 is that White's c3-knight is misplaced. If you were to attack it by pushing ...d4, it doesn't have a good square to move to (normally, it would like to move to e2 but a bishop is sitting there).

The reason for not playing 5...d5 on the fifth move is that White doesn't have to bring his knight to c3. Instead, he can move it to d2, where it won't be attacked by your pawn.

In the line you posted, I think White went for the stuff with 8.e5 and 9.d4 in order to prevent Black from playing ...d4 at an opportune moment. The pawn structure that arose after 9.d4 is favorable for Black, since White's missing his centre pawn.


A castling variant-how would it change the game?

In most cases, I'd imagine the queen wouldn't castle, as it would mean it would have a harder time getting out. The only useful case I can think of would be if you developed your bishop to e3 and "castled" queenside with your queen, putting it on c1, preparing for Bh6 to potentially trade off a fianchettoed bishop while also bringing your a1 rook to an active square.  Being able to castle with your king or rook after you moved would change chess quite substantially, and it'd be difficult to quantify all the changes, but if I had to guess, kings would stay in the center longer and rooks would move around more in the middlegame.


Is tactics training just a waste of time when you cannot play long games?

Thank you for sharing your very discouraging story. I've been an IM for years and recently I've tried to become a grandmaster, did a lot of tactics but: I failed, and now with corona and 0 OTB games it feels a bit silly anyway. So I started to learn code, which is fun haha and very off topic here.
The biggest difference you can make to get from 2200 to 2400 is understanding of pawn structures and having a coherent repertoire. Especially facing 1.Nf3 and 1.c4 becomes more important. But apart from a broad coherent repertoire I would say start learning openings 20 moves deep, and in case you have some forced line, start memorizing 30 moves, take research seriously, try to get some great books to guide you. And then in the main lines, try improving on the book.
Another great help is to take Dvoretsky's endgame manual and go through it a lot. That book is pure gold. Especially online a lot of games end in some kind of endgame. And making rabbits appear out of hats is great.
The reason for focusing so much on openings is because that's probably your bottleneck right now. You don't have the strategic insight to make your tactics work. e.g. different players need different things. Try to identify where you're weakest.
One trick to do that is to study the topics you most dislike in chess. For me that was opposite coloured bishops, and that has helped me a lot getting better at positional play.
You can still do the tactics, but I am 100% sure you would regain your motivation when you would work on something you need more!
Last but not least: chess progress is a bitch! The rating always comes too late, when you lost motivation and think about quitting.
Cheers!


You can move your other piece to make your queen attack the king in a normal position such as:

4r3/8/8/2QB1k2/p5q1/3K4/8/8 w - - 0 1

1.Bf3+**[Discovered-Check]
(1.Be4+**[Double-check])

But you are forbidden to do so if the piece you move will put your own king in check, such as:

3r4/8/8/2QB1k2/p5q1/3K4/8/8 w - - 0 1

1.Bf3**[illegal-move]

Here both Be4 and Bf3 are illegal because the rook on d8 will be attacking your King.

So to conclude, there is no standard rule avoiding you to play discovered check except when the move puts your own king in check.