Getting Stockfish to find all mates-in-n

Could not be any simpler, run stockfish, turn on MultiPV option to view all variation, not the only one, then run analysis and you'll get your output, for example for all mate-in-2 I could do this:

$ stockfish
Stockfish 09-06-13 64bit by Tord Romstad, Marco Costalba and Joona Kiiski
uci
id name Stockfish 09-06-13 64bit
id author Tord Romstad, Marco Costalba and Joona Kiiski

option name Use Debug Log type check default false
option name Use Search Log type check default false
option name Search Log Filename type string default SearchLog.txt
option name Book File type string default book.bin
option name Best Book Move type check default false
option name Contempt Factor type spin default 0 min -50 max 50
option name Mobility (Middle Game) type spin default 100 min 0 max 200
option name Mobility (Endgame) type spin default 100 min 0 max 200
option name Passed Pawns (Middle Game) type spin default 100 min 0 max 200
option name Passed Pawns (Endgame) type spin default 100 min 0 max 200
option name Space type spin default 100 min 0 max 200
option name Aggressiveness type spin default 100 min 0 max 200
option name Cowardice type spin default 100 min 0 max 200
option name Min Split Depth type spin default 7 min 4 max 12
option name Max Threads per Split Point type spin default 5 min 4 max 8
option name Threads type spin default 8 min 1 max 64
option name Use Sleeping Threads type check default true
option name Hash type spin default 32 min 1 max 8192
option name Clear Hash type button
option name Ponder type check default true
option name OwnBook type check default false
option name MultiPV type spin default 1 min 1 max 500
option name Skill Level type spin default 20 min 0 max 20
option name Emergency Move Horizon type spin default 40 min 0 max 50
option name Emergency Base Time type spin default 200 min 0 max 30000
option name Emergency Move Time type spin default 70 min 0 max 5000
option name Minimum Thinking Time type spin default 20 min 0 max 5000
option name Slow Mover type spin default 100 min 10 max 1000
option name UCI_Chess960 type check default false
option name UCI_AnalyseMode type check default false
uciok
position fen 8/k1K5/2R5/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1
setoption name MultiPV value 100
go depth 10
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8313 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 1 pv c6c1
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8313 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 2 pv c6c2
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8313 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 3 pv c6c3
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8313 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 4 pv c6c4
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8313 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 5 pv c6c5
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8313 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 6 pv c6b6
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8313 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 7 pv c6d6
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8313 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 8 pv c6e6
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8313 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 9 pv c6f6
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8313 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 10 pv c6g6
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8313 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 11 pv c6h6
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8313 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 12 pv c7c8
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8303 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 13 pv c7d6
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8303 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 14 pv c7d7
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 8303 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 15 pv c7d8
info depth 1 seldepth 3 score cp 0 nodes 311 nps 155500 time 2 multipv 16 pv c6a6 a7a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score mate 2 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 1 pv c6b6 a7a8 b6a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score mate 2 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 2 pv c6d6 a7a8 d6a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score mate 2 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 3 pv c6e6 a7a8 e6a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score mate 2 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 4 pv c6f6 a7a8 f6a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score mate 2 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 5 pv c6g6 a7a8 g6a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score mate 2 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 6 pv c6h6 a7a8 h6a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score mate 2 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 7 pv c7c8 a7a8 c6a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score cp 8308 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 8 pv c6c1 a7a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score cp 8308 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 9 pv c6c2 a7a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score cp 8308 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 10 pv c6c3 a7a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score cp 8308 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 11 pv c6c4 a7a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score cp 8308 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 12 pv c6c5 a7a6
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score cp 8303 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 13 pv c7d6 a7b7
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score cp 8303 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 14 pv c7d7 a7b7
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score cp 8303 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 15 pv c7d8 a7b7
info depth 2 seldepth 3 score cp 0 nodes 989 nps 494500 time 2 multipv 16 pv c6a6 a7a6
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 1 pv c6b6 a7a8 b6a6
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 2 pv c6d6 a7a8 d6a6
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 3 pv c6e6 a7a8 e6a6
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 4 pv c6f6 a7a8 f6a6
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 5 pv c6g6 a7a8 g6a6
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 6 pv c6h6 a7a8 h6a6
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 7 pv c7c8 a7a8 c6a6
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score cp 8308 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 8 pv c6c1 a7a6 c1b1
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score cp 8308 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 9 pv c6c2 a7a6 c2c1
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score cp 8308 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 10 pv c6c3 a7a6 c3c1
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score cp 8308 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 11 pv c6c4 a7a6 c4c1
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score cp 8308 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 12 pv c6c5 a7a6 c5c1
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score cp 8303 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 13 pv c7d6 a7b7 c6c1
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score cp 8303 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 14 pv c7d7 a7b7 c6c1
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score cp 8303 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 15 pv c7d8 a7b7 c6c1
info depth 3 seldepth 4 score cp 0 nodes 1858 nps 929000 time 2 multipv 16 pv c6a6 a7a6
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 1 pv c6b6 a7a8 b6a6
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 2 pv c6d6 a7a8 d6a6
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 3 pv c6e6 a7a8 e6a6
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 4 pv c6f6 a7a8 f6a6
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 5 pv c6g6 a7a8 g6a6
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 6 pv c6h6 a7a8 h6a6
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score mate 2 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 7 pv c7c8 a7a8 c6a6
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score mate 3 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 8 pv c6c1 a7a6 c1c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score mate 3 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 9 pv c6c2 a7a6 c2c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score mate 3 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 10 pv c6c3 a7a6 c3c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score mate 3 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 11 pv c6c4 a7a6 c4c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score mate 3 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 12 pv c6c5 a7a6 c5d5 a6a7 d5a5
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score cp 8303 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 13 pv c7d6 a7b7 d6c5 b7b8
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score cp 8303 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 14 pv c7d7 a7b7 c6d6 b7a7
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score cp 8303 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 15 pv c7d8 a7b7 c6d6 b7a7
info depth 4 seldepth 4 score cp 0 nodes 3184 nps 1061333 time 3 multipv 16 pv c6a6 a7a6
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 1 pv c6b6 a7a8 b6a6
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 2 pv c6d6 a7a8 d6a6
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 3 pv c6e6 a7a8 e6a6
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 4 pv c6f6 a7a8 f6a6
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 5 pv c6g6 a7a8 g6a6
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 6 pv c6h6 a7a8 h6a6
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 7 pv c7c8 a7a8 c6a6
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score mate 3 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 8 pv c6c1 a7a6 c1c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score mate 3 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 9 pv c6c2 a7a6 c2c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score mate 3 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 10 pv c6c3 a7a6 c3c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score mate 3 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 11 pv c6c4 a7a6 c4c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score mate 3 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 12 pv c6c5 a7a6 c5d5 a6a7 d5a5
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score cp 8313 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 13 pv c7d6 a7b7 d6c5 b7b8 c5b6
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score cp 8313 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 14 pv c7d7 a7b7 c6d6 b7b8 d6a6
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score cp 8313 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 15 pv c7d8 a7b7 c6d6 b7b8 d6a6
info depth 5 seldepth 7 score cp 0 nodes 4801 nps 1200250 time 4 multipv 16 pv c6a6 a7a6
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 1 pv c6b6 a7a8 b6a6
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 2 pv c6d6 a7a8 d6a6
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 3 pv c6e6 a7a8 e6a6
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 4 pv c6f6 a7a8 f6a6
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 5 pv c6g6 a7a8 g6a6
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 6 pv c6h6 a7a8 h6a6
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score mate 2 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 7 pv c7c8 a7a8 c6a6
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score mate 3 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 8 pv c6c1 a7a6 c1c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score mate 3 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 9 pv c6c2 a7a6 c2c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score mate 3 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 10 pv c6c3 a7a6 c3c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score mate 3 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 11 pv c6c4 a7a6 c4c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score mate 3 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 12 pv c6c5 a7a6 c5d5 a6a7 d5a5
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score cp 8308 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 13 pv c7d6 a7b7 d6c5 b7a7 c6b6 a7a8
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score cp 8308 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 14 pv c7d7 a7b7 c6d6 b7b8 d7c6 b8c8
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score cp 8308 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 15 pv c7d8 a7b7 c6d6 b7b8 d6d7 b8a8
info depth 6 seldepth 7 score cp 0 nodes 6642 nps 1660500 time 4 multipv 16 pv c6a6 a7a6
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score mate 2 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 1 pv c6b6 a7a8 b6a6
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score mate 2 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 2 pv c6d6 a7a8 d6a6
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score mate 2 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 3 pv c6e6 a7a8 e6a6
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score mate 2 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 4 pv c6f6 a7a8 f6a6
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score mate 2 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 5 pv c6g6 a7a8 g6a6
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score mate 2 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 6 pv c6h6 a7a8 h6a6
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score mate 2 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 7 pv c7c8 a7a8 c6a6
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score mate 3 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 8 pv c6c1 a7a6 c1c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score mate 3 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 9 pv c6c2 a7a6 c2c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score mate 3 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 10 pv c6c3 a7a6 c3c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score mate 3 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 11 pv c6c4 a7a6 c4c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score mate 3 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 12 pv c6c5 a7a6 c5d5 a6a7 d5a5
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score cp 8318 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 13 pv c7d8 a7b7 c6d6 b7b8 d6d7 b8a8 d8c7
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score cp 8313 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 14 pv c7d6 a7b7 d6c5 b7a8 c5b6 a8b8 c6c7
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score cp 8313 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 15 pv c7d7 a7b7 c6d6 b7b8 d6b6 b8a8 d7c7 a8a7
info depth 7 seldepth 8 score cp 0 nodes 9342 nps 1557000 time 6 multipv 16 pv c6a6 a7a6
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 1 pv c6b6 a7a8 b6a6
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 2 pv c6d6 a7a8 d6a6
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 3 pv c6e6 a7a8 e6a6
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 4 pv c6f6 a7a8 f6a6
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 5 pv c6g6 a7a8 g6a6
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 6 pv c6h6 a7a8 h6a6
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 7 pv c7c8 a7a8 c6a6
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 3 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 8 pv c6c1 a7a6 c1c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 3 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 9 pv c6c2 a7a6 c2c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 3 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 10 pv c6c3 a7a6 c3c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 3 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 11 pv c6c4 a7a6 c4c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 3 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 12 pv c6c5 a7a6 c5d5 a6a7 d5a5
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 6 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 13 pv c7d8 a7b7 c6d6 b7b8 d6b6 b8a8 d8c8 a8a7 c8c7 a7a8 b6a6
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 6 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 14 pv c7d6 a7b7 d6c5 b7a7 c6c7 a7a8 c5b5 a8b8 b5b6 b8a8 c7c8
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score mate 6 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 15 pv c7d7 a7b7 c6d6 b7b8 d6b6 b8a8 d7c7 a8a7 b6d6 a7a8 d6a6
info depth 8 seldepth 11 score cp 0 nodes 11643 nps 1455375 time 8 multipv 16 pv c6a6 a7a6
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 1 pv c6b6 a7a8 b6a6
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 2 pv c6d6 a7a8 d6a6
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 3 pv c6e6 a7a8 e6a6
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 4 pv c6f6 a7a8 f6a6
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 5 pv c6g6 a7a8 g6a6
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 6 pv c6h6 a7a8 h6a6
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 2 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 7 pv c7c8 a7a8 c6a6
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 3 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 8 pv c6c1 a7a6 c1c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 3 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 9 pv c6c2 a7a6 c2c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 3 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 10 pv c6c3 a7a6 c3c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 3 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 11 pv c6c4 a7a6 c4c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 3 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 12 pv c6c5 a7a6 c5d5 a6a7 d5a5
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 6 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 13 pv c7d8 a7b7 c6d6 b7b8 d6b6 b8a8 d8c8 a8a7 c8c7 a7a8 b6a6
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 6 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 14 pv c7d6 a7b7 d6c5 b7a7 c6c7 a7a8 c5b5 a8b8 b5b6 b8a8 c7c8
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score mate 6 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 15 pv c7d7 a7b7 c6d6 b7b8 d6b6 b8a8 d7c7 a8a7 b6d6 a7a8 d6a6
info depth 9 seldepth 11 score cp 0 nodes 13599 nps 1359900 time 10 multipv 16 pv c6a6 a7a6
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 2 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 1 pv c6b6 a7a8 b6a6
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 2 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 2 pv c6d6 a7a8 d6a6
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 2 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 3 pv c6e6 a7a8 e6a6
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 2 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 4 pv c6f6 a7a8 f6a6
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 2 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 5 pv c6g6 a7a8 g6a6
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 2 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 6 pv c6h6 a7a8 h6a6
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 2 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 7 pv c7c8 a7a8 c6a6
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 3 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 8 pv c6c1 a7a6 c1c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 3 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 9 pv c6c2 a7a6 c2c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 3 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 10 pv c6c3 a7a6 c3c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 3 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 11 pv c6c4 a7a6 c4c5 a6a7 c5a5
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 3 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 12 pv c6c5 a7a6 c5d5 a6a7 d5a5
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 6 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 13 pv c7d8 a7b7 c6d6 b7b8 d6b6 b8a8 d8c8 a8a7 c8c7 a7a8 b6a6
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 6 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 14 pv c7d6 a7b7 d6c5 b7a7 c6c7 a7a8 c5b5 a8b8 b5b6 b8a8 c7c8
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score mate 6 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 15 pv c7d7 a7b7 c6d6 b7b8 d6b6 b8a8 d7c7 a8a7 b6d6 a7a8 d6a6
info depth 10 seldepth 12 score cp 0 nodes 15888 nps 1324000 time 12 multipv 16 pv c6a6 a7a6
info nodes 15888 time 12
bestmove c6b6 ponder a7a8


How do you draw in an opposite color bishops endgame with two pawns down?

Yes, if the pawns can be blockaded it's often an easy draw. One example:

[fen "8/4k3/4P3/3P4/2B1K3/b7/8/8 w KQkq - 0 1"]

As long as the black bishop controls d6, the pawns aren't going anywhere.

But two pawns are two pawns. If they are farther apart and far progressed often one pawn wins the bishop and the other pawn wins the game, or one pawn sacrifices itself so the other one cannot be blocked by the bishop anymore. But this depends heavily on the specifics of the position.


Why the extra rank on each side in 4 player chess?

As SmallChess notes, the rook pawns would be able to capture on the first move. That in itself wouldn't be a problem, since the player can just capture back, but then we have a situation with two half-open lines where the pawns are pinned against the rooks behind them. That's a lot of tension already after the first move, and on the flanks, which is quite rare in normal 1v1 chess.

I'm not sure how to visualize this, but if red takes the blue pawn, and blue responds by capturing with their rook, yellow's king's rook pawn is pinned by the red rook (and attacked by the blue pawn) and green's king's rook pawn is pinned by the blue rook (and attacked by the red pawn).

@RemcoGerlich notes another very early possibility for two players to gang up on the last player, by capturing two of their pawns on the first move. Perhaps this is part of a general problem with 4 player chess...


Bobby Fischer did not resign the title, although it may have looked that way.
As the New York Times reported at the time:

The International Chess Federation stripped Mr. Fischer of his title and gave it to the challenger, Anatoly Karpov of the Soviet Union, because the 32‐year‐old American failed to meet the deadline for formal acceptance of federation rules for a championship match this year.

To add further to the confusion according to Wikipedia:

In response to FIDE's ruling, Fischer sent a cable to Euwe on June 27, 1974:
As I made clear in my telegram to the FIDE delegates, the match conditions I proposed were non-negotiable. Mr. Cramer informs me that the rules of the winner being the first player to win ten games, draws not counting, unlimited number of games and if nine wins to nine match is drawn with champion regaining title and prize fund split equally were rejected by the FIDE delegates. By so doing FIDE has decided against my participation in the 1975 World Chess Championship. Therefore, I resign my FIDE World Chess Championship title.
Sincerely,
Bobby Fischer.
The delegates responded by reaffirming their prior decisions, but did not accept Fischer's resignation and requested that he reconsider. Many observers considered Fischer's requested 9–9 clause unfair because it would require the challenger to win by at least two games (10–8). Botvinnik called the 9–9 clause "unsporting".

So, FIDE said "We don't accept your resignation. You're fired!"
Basically, just as in 1972, Fischer made demands that the rules be changed. FIDE and Karpov accepted one of his two proposed rule changes but rejected the other.
According to the NYT:

The federation last month agreed to his demand for an unlimited match, instead of one with a 36‐game limit, with draws not counting and the winner being the first to take 10 victories. However, it rejected his demand for having the champion retain the title in the event of a 9‐to‐9 tie.

Fischer was essentially not just demanding draw odds but, because of the other stipulations, was demanding that his opponent had to beat him by 2 clear games to take the title. This was rightly rejected as giving him an unfair advantage. FIDE gave Fischer an original deadline to accept the conditions and then when he didn't reply they gave him an additional day. When he still didn't reply they did the only thing they could and defaulted him.
It sounds as if Fischer was just being stupid and some people said he deliberately made an unreasonable demand because he was frightened of Karpov but that fails to take account of Fischer's poker-like approach.
In 1972 he made demands that put the match at risk and they paid off.
He might reasonably have expected the same to happen in 1975. The key point being that there was $5 million dollars at stake if the match went ahead, with the winner getting the larger share but the loser still getting a large sum of money. Granted the Soviet chess federation would have taken a large chunk of Karpov's share but Karpov would still have been rich. No match, no money!
Bottom line Fischer's gamble didn't pay off and his bluff was called.


What are the mistakes that I have done in the following game?

The first mistake you made was playing against Stockfish. Modern engines are so strong (and have been ever since at least Fritz 5!) that you learn nothing from playing them. They'll punish all your tactical mistakes (and at 1000 Elo you make plenty), but you'd get much more useful tactics training out of just doing exercises.

If you want to improve your game you should seek out human opponents somewhat above your level (100-200 Elo points) instead.


Are contemporary chess players now stronger than players in the 90's or 80's?

No. The vast majority of club level players still play like the vast majority of club level players always did. Changes in knowledge about chess mostly apply to high levels of play; the kind of mistakes class A players make were already known to be mistakes for ages, and opening theory doesn't help much if your opponent deviates from theory at move 5 anyway.

As evidence of this, see the paper "Intrinsic Chess Ratings" by Regan and Haworth, PDF. They analyzed the games of players of various rating ranges from various time periods with an engine, and found no significant difference in the mistake rate between games from the 70s and from the 2000s.


Why does Fritz prefer underpromotion in this position?

It's because 1. exf8=Q+ Kxh7 2. Rxd7?? would be stalemate. I think it is a even a theoretical draw after 1. exf8=Q+ Kxh7 2. Qg7+. Therefore 1. exf8=B+! (with check!) is better, since white then can keep an extra piece and win easily.

[FEN "5r2/3qPbkB/8/7P/8/8/8/1K1R4 w - - 0 1"]

1. exf8=Q+ (1. exf8=B+!) Kxh7 2. Rxd7? (2. Qg7+)


How to play vs. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 d6?

The game will get the characteristics of the Philidor Defense rather than the Italian Game. Wikipedia calls it the Semi-Italian Opening.

  I. A. Horowitz called the defence "solid", also writing: "It does not seem quite sufficient for equality."

The Wikipedia article notes several possible continuations for White, with 4. d4 probably the best bet for advantage.


Is this a draw despite the Stockfish evaluation of −5?

This is a fortress and a draw.
The black king can't advance as the rook, shuffling between h3 and f3, prevents it.  The only way to break the fortress is to trade the queen for the rook and pawn, but the resulting endgame is still a draw.


In Bb5 systems against the Sicilian, why does White exchange their b5 bishop without playing a6?

Some things that are probably part of the answer, but probably not complete and concrete enough:

1...a6 won't come. There is no threat to a pawn on e5, the knight isn't pinned, the only point of 3.Bb5 is to exchange it on c6. So black doesn't waste a tempo on forcing white to do what he was already going to do.

On the other hand, black has a choice to make, between ...bxc6 and ...dxc6. By taking earlier, white can see which way black goes and set up his pieces accordingly. If, in contrast, he takes later, black can first see where white puts his pieces and then choose which way to take. So since it's going to happen anyway, better do it immediately and not give out more information just yet.


Why are ratings calculated by tournament instead of by game?

The way that rating systems work, your most recent results have a greater influence on your rating than your earlier results. So if your rating was adjusted after each game in a tournament, then the games in later rounds would affect your final rating more than the games in the earlier rounds. Most of the time this wouldn't make much sense, as a tournament usually takes place over a fairly short period of time. It makes more sense to adjust the rating just once, after the tournament has finished, with all games counting equally.


What is the solution to single-check chess?

If you trust Stockfish's evaluation on lichess.org, using the "three check" variant where both sides already have two checks, White wins in 5 moves with 1. e4, 1. e3, 1. Nc3, or 1. Na3, and loses otherwise.


Why would trading this bad bishop be a bad move?

Tactics.

Trading dark-squared bishops is useful in the long run, but a4-Ba3 is a bit too slow to exchange the Bf8 that hasn't moved yet; Also you weakened the dark square b4 in the process. Black can take advantage of the misplaced Ra3 to attack the weak pawn on d4.

After 12...Bxa3 13.Rxa3 Qe7! {eyeing both a3 and h4}, any rook retreat or protection would allow 14...Qb4, when you cannot parry the simultaneous attacks on Nc3 and Pd4.

14.b4!? is slightly more stubborn but also lose a pawn to either 14...Nxb4 or 14...Nh4.

The game continuation, 12..Nb4??, on the other hand, deprived Black's Nf5 of any retreat square that wouldn't block the Bb8-Nb4 connection. Your smart retort, 13.g4!, won a piece.

By the way, earlier at move 10 you had a possibility to ensure the bishop trade without any weakening: 10.Ba3!? and trade on f8 once the Ne7 moves.


This article from Chessbase answers most of your questions.

This was the position in which Kasparov had set a "computer chess" trap.

 [fen "r1r1q1k1/6p1/p2b1p1p/1p1PpP2/PPp5/2P4P/R1B2QP1/R5K1 w - - 0 35"]
[White "Deep Blue"]
[Black "Gary Kasparov"]

He was expecting
36. Qb6 Rd8
37. ab Rab8
38. Qxa6 e4

 [fen "1r1rq1k1/6p1/Q2b1p1p/1P1P1P2/1Pp1p3/2P4P/R1B3P1/R5K1 w - - 0 35"]
[White "Deep Blue"]
[Black "Gary Kasparov"]

when, for the cost of 2 pawns he has generated dangerous counterplay based on the idea of Qe5 possibly followed by e3.

Instead Deep Blue played the immediate ab followed by Be4 thereby nipping in the bud any chances of counterplay via ... e4 and ... Qe5 for black.

According to the article -

  In fact, if you consult any of the top engines of today, whether it be
  Houdini 4, Stockfish 6, or Komodo 8, they all choose Deep Blue's move
  36.axb5. For example:

  Komodo 8: 36.axb5 axb5 37.Be4 Qd8 38.Kh2 Rcb8 39.Ra6 Kf8 40.R6a5 Kg8
  41.R1a2 Rxa5 42.Rxa5 Bc7 43.Ra1 Bb6

  +/- (0.84) Depth: 29 00:02:15 686MN, tb=57

So, nothing to see here (2 min 15 sec for the computer) ;-) Move on!


Games with two knight promotions in them

Not all the games are by strong players, let alone, players, who are well-known, but here is a complete list in the Mega 2019 database. If you would like to see a particular game, or two, I can post the PGN, and add it to this answer.

This one is interesting since one of players is famous, and both promotions happened so early in the game.

 [Event "Greenhills op"]
 [Site "Greenhills"]
 [Date "1989.??.??"]
 [Round "?"]
 [White "Valdez, P."]
 [Black "Xu, Jun"]
 [Result "0-1"]
 [ECO "A25"]
 [BlackElo "2510"]
 [PlyCount "44"]
 [EventDate "1989.07.??"]
 [EventType "swiss"]
 [EventRounds "12"]
 [EventCountry "PHI"]
 [SourceTitle "EXT 2010"]
 [Source "ChessBase"]
 [SourceDate "2010.11.25"]
 [SourceVersion "1"]
 [SourceVersionDate "2010.11.25"]
 [SourceQuality "1"]
 [FEN ""]

 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d3 d6 6. Rb1 f5 7. Bd2 Nf6 8. b4 O-O 9. b5 Ne7 10. Nf3 h6 11. O-O Be6 12. Qc1 Kh7 13. h3 Qc8 14. Kh2 Bf7 15. c5 g5 16. Qa3 g4 17. cxd6 gxf3 18. dxe7 fxg2 19. exf8=N+ Bxf8 20. Qa4 gxf1=N+ 21. Rxf1 Qd8 22. Qh4 Nd5 0-1

Here is a list of links to all of the games, minus the ones already in the question, from the list in order of date. Most of them are either the 365chess or chess-db databases. N/A is used for games that have not been found.

Kiili-Katajainen,1990

Valdez-Xu, 1989

Natri-Salokangas, 1990

Kosonen-Vuori, 1990

Dobos-Lehtivaar, 1990

Korhonen-Eskola, 1991

Lehto-Ketola, 1991

Carpenter-Scott, 1994

Myc-Walach, 1994

Sintici-Zubavicius, 1995

Norqvist-Kochetkov, 1995

Richards-Fongers, 1997

Rasmussen-Arnkilde, 1997-N/A

Doettling-Euler, 1999

Quintero-Bognar, 1999

Mellem=Borchgrevink, 2000

Reich-Lauer, 2002

Choma-Karstens, 2004

Urbisaglia-Del Cont Bernard, 2004

Vajcner-Vancat, 2006-N.A

Polok, Jagodzinski, 2006-N/A

Moura-Goncalves, 2006

Hager-Specht, 2007

KaunzingerSternheimer, 2008-N/A

Huszar-Gerendas, 2008-N/A

Kast-Becker, 2010-N/A

Khamko-Prosvetov, 2010

Hapke-Uksini, 2010

Bango-Bango, 2011-N/A

Simo-Volna, 2011-N/A

Woehl-Schwab, 2012-N/A

Effenberger-Barak, 2013

Bellahcene-Barbot, 2014

Lokwani-Lee, 2015

Radenic-Fikus, 2015

Fridman-Svane, 2015

Popchev-Dyulgerov, 2015

Davanso-Jenidarchiche, 2018


How many new openings did Fischer use against Spassky in 1972?

Fischer kept changing the openings quite a bit:

Game 3 (black) he played a Benoni (slight surprise).
Game 6 (white) he played c4 for the third time in a serious game (transposed to -QGD).
Game 8 (white) he played c4 again and it was a proper English
Game 9 (black) Queens Gambit Declined - Semi Tarrasch (slight surprise)
Game 10 (white) he played c4 again (transposed to QGD Orthodox)
Game 13 (black) he played Alekhine's defense.
Game 14 (white) he played c4 (QGD)
Game 17 (black) he played the Pirc Defense for the first time in his career
Game 19 (black) he played Alekhine's defense again
Game 21 (black) he played a line of the Sicilian (Taimanov) that was new to him.

You can check the list of opening here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_1972
And here are the list of Fischer's most played openings:
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=19233


Database program for statistics about mistakes

I've built a web tool (https://www.chessinsights.org/) that you can use to upload your games, filter them, and find mistakes you made. The tool is free and open-source.

I'm currently working hard on adding features. If there's something you really want added, just let me know, and I can work on it.


Do Grandmasters think using algebraic notation?

I wrote to Dan Heisman to get his take on the question. Here's his reply:

  “Everyone is a little different. The book is algebraic so others can
  read and understand it. In practice some just think in pictures; no
  verbalization is accompanying. Others might think more "If I go
  there..." Sometimes algebraic is helpful to clarify in your own mind
  what you really mean.”


How does one apply the Principle of Two Weaknesses into their own game?

Pushing the rook pawns can be a powerful idea at the right time. But the reason you really need maturity is for big decisions like whether you should do a pawn storm, attack with pieces, or just choose quiet moves to improve and consolidate your position. The "principle of two weaknesses" is just a term for the concept that you shouldn't be so preoccupied with playing for a certain advantage (and perhaps even playing well for it) that you lose sight of a better strategical idea in the position. I like the example of Vladimir Kramnik vs Ernesto Inarkiev. Kramnik played the opening like Kramnik, starting out by isolating and weakening his opponent's queenside pawns, creating the first weakness. He was able to play a timely 16. b4, which made the problem worse, since the black c4 pawn couldn't watch over the b-pawn anymore. After forcing the knight trade on d4, he recaptured with the rook, and after the 24th move white is clearly better. But what I love about this game was Kramnik's move 26. Rg4! You rarely put your rook there. Kramnik was able to realize in the middle of a good position that the best way to finish Inarkiev would be to launch a tactically correct kingside attack, and he finished it off with a nice flourish. Inarkiev was a strong GM, what what sets Kramnik apart was that he was able to change his vision from the queenside to the kingside at a moment's notice.

[FEN ""]
[Event "Petrosian Memorial"]
[Site "Moscow RUS"]
[Date "2014.11.05"]
[EventDate "2014.11.03"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Vladimir Kramnik"]
[Black "Ernesto Inarkiev"]
[ECO "D53"]
[WhiteElo "2760"]
[BlackElo "2688"]
[PlyCount "79"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Qc2 O-O 6. Bg5 c5
7. dxc5 dxc4 8. e4 Nfd7 9. Bf4 b5 10. cxb6 Nxb6 11. Rd1 Qe8
12. Be2 Na6 13. Ne5 Nb4 14. Qc1 Ba6 15. a3 Nc6 16. b4 Bf6
17. Nf3 Bxc3+ 18. Qxc3 Qc8 19. O-O Bb5 20. Bd6 Rd8 21. e5 h6
22. Nd4 a6 23. Bf3 Nxd4 24. Rxd4 Bc6 25. Be2 Bb5 26. Rg4 Kh8
27. Qg3 Rg8 28. Rh4 Qd8 29. Qf4 Re8 30. Rxh6+ gxh6 31. Qxh6+
Kg8 32. f4 Bc6 33. Bf3 Qc8 34. f5 exf5 35. Qg5+ Kh8 36. Bxc6
Re6 37. Rxf5 Ra7 38. Qh4+ Kg7 39. Rh5 Qg8 40. Be4 1-0


What are the most popular chess community websites?

In no order of priority:

http://chess.com is relatively new to the scene, but they have Pogolina on
board who will definitely pull in the traffic
Chessbase News is really a chess product site masquerading as a news
site, but they cannot be disregarded. They have relay services on their playing server (similar to ICC and FICS), but here we will limit discussion to the onsite features only
Chess in Translation is an initiative by mishanp to offer
translation of Russian content (particularly juicy commentary by
Shipov of chess.ru)
WhyChess is known for its live relays (probably the most
feature-complete at time of writing, and have been used at several
official events) but they have expanded into news and blogs as well.
ChessBomb is a relay and playing site getting constant plugs from Susan Polgar.
Chess Games Database and Community (and frogbert) probably needs no explanation.
ChessOK is a product and relay site, probably the first to integrate full Rybka (now Houdini) evaluations into its relays. The interface is not as fanciful as WhyChess but is clean and good.


Alekhine's defence: Exchange variation 5.e5?

It's losing for Black because 6.c5 N(6)-d7 7. dxe!  Black can't capture the pawn on e5 because 8. f4! wins a piece (e.g., 8. ... Nd7 9. Qe2+) so Black must play 7. Nxc5 and after 8. Bf4 White's pawn on d6 is a dagger in Black's heart.  The chess engines say White is winning.


How would you make a queenside pawn storm opening idea work?

That is a beautiful checkmate, but I personally don't consider a pawnstorm in the opening or early midgame a really good idea, since its easy to penetrate and it loses in terms of development.

But if you were to make a queenside pawnstorm, you could probably start with the queens gambit? You can probably push your queen pawns and still end up with a playable midgame in that case. As you mentioned, the bishops are important (and so are the knights) so you maybe would like to get your minors out and attacking or supporting the pawns.


Solving the Game of Chess: Trans-Computational in Nature or No?

Also, to solve the game of chess means that everything would have to
  be decided on the first move and any subsequent deviation from the
  'correct line' would result in a guaranteed loss.

Then this will never happen, even theoretically. Chess does not have that much instability. In many positions multiple moves are equally good. This is both obvious and has been proven (see tablebases).

Assuming now that you are just talking about "playing theoretically optimally" (if it is possible to win it wins, otherwise if it is possible to draw it draws), then it is certainly possible that a computer merely the size of the earth could play perfect chess, but it is exceedingly unlikely that a computer the size of the earth could prove that it was playing perfect chess. No one has been able to prove things about the state of a chess position except by, effectively, brute force (except for special cases where the situation is simple enough that you can reason logically about it, such as bishop and wrong rook pawn).

(The context of the mathematical limit is the number of possible chess positions, which has been estimated to be on the order of 10^43.)


5D Chess - Why is white king not in check in this position?

The rook on the center board in the present is blocking the check. Even if it goes to the past, a copy stays on the board where it moved from. The rook on the center board isn't checking the king because it already moved to the past.


Where can I watch live commentary and live matches between Grandmasters?

Chess24 has a lot of live transmissions of tournaments. Often even with live commentary and always with computer evaluations (though those can be turned off).


There's no known recipe that works for everyone for how to approach the Sicilian (or any new opening) as a newcomer to the opening, but it definitely helps if you concretize your target even more than what you've described in the OP. To do that, you might find the following general considerations helpful, specially given that Sicilian is a vast and rich system in opening theory:

Mindset and approach:

Find players whose approach to employing the Sicilian suits your style, in terms of: the type of play (closed, open, sharp), depth of needed theory, whether it's midgame or endgame oriented etc, and study their games (e.g. Kasparov's games).
When studying such games, for at least the first 10 moves, constantly ask yourself what the purpose of each move is in theory (for the move order you're trying to learn), and if you find the point of a move goes over your head, follow through a few variations with the engine with and without that move and see what repercussions it has on the ensuing variations.
Even more important than understanding specific moves, try to learn what the underlying plan of the particular Sicilian variation you're studying is, this really cannot be emphasized enough. Once you know what the line aims to achieve from a strategic point of view (e.g. is it to create an isolated pawn structure, is it to establish a permanent knight post in the centre, is it to trade bishops or keep bishop pair, etc), making sense of the moves and the ensuing play becomes much easier to grasp.
Once your particular type of Sicilian system (Kan, Sveshnikov, Dragon, Taimanov, etc) is decided, then you can focus your resources on that system and your search becomes much more meaningful.
Once you get a grip of the basic ideas behind the system of choice, start carving your own version of the system, personalize it according to the kinds of positions you feel comfortable playing and where your skills lie (middlegame, tactical, strategic, endgame player etc), and in that regard learn the relevant transpositions, while always checking your new ideas with an engine.
Keep practicing your developed system, 1-2 two blitz games won't cut it, you need to play many many games until the concepts start to sink in and you form a good intuition for the opening. Keep analysing each game irrespective of the outcome, go back to the opening stage and find improvements.
A training exercise that is often quite helpful is to: play the opening lines you're trying to master in your head without any visual aid (board, phone) against yourself, e.g. when on a commute or during a nice walk. When playing blindfolded against yourself, saying the moves helps a lot to remember the position (that is, literally saying to yourself Nc3, d5, etc).

Tools for the learning process:

To keep a clear note of the ideas you learn along the way for each line and move order, create a study on lichess and fill it up with annotations and arrows, and go over these studies to review and brush up on what you've learnt every now and then.
Similarly, create a study for the personalized system you start building for yourself. These studies can be made private, and of course they will always be work in progress as you will regularly update them with any new finding. For more on lichess studies see also this post.
To explore opening lines and try new ideas, use the opening explorer on lichess (and many other available ones online) with the Stockfish cloud engine active in the background, play through the lines and cross check your ideas with the engine.
There exists various video series on the Sicilian, e.g. on chess24 see here (for instance the Taimanov one by Robin van Kampen has become quite well reviewed).
Other online resources: Check out the content on various chess youtube channels, e.g. ChessExplained or ChessNetwork, they provide very clear commentary as they play or analyse games, and they both frequently play the Sicilian too. And of course the wonderful lectures by Yasser Seirawan, e.g. on the Pin variation or the Accelerated Dragon.
Last but not least, books, books, books! They still remain the best resources in chess. There are plenty written on the Sicilian too (e.g. see the recommendations by Chris), find one author and book level that matches your taste and get started! Reading chess books is almost always an interactive process, where either you're pausing to calculate something blindfolded, or setting up a board and going through some variation discussed in the book. Generally, they're not read cover to cover, and specially if they are extensively covering something, such as Endgames in chess, or Pawn structures, you will be jumping around the book frequently to read up on the bits that currently are relevant for your improvement. Remember that there's no one book that is the best, these things are always subjective to our preferences, so try to explore and find one that you like and read up patiently ;)


Counting attackers and defenders, which pieces count?

First, I think you are looking for a hard-and-fast rule that does not exist since it really depends on the position. There still can be some guiding factors.

In the Karpov game above, which only lasted another 6 moves, it turns out that literally every white piece was an attacker, and was necessary for the attack to succeed, so the original question about whether Nf3 and Re1 were attackers, the answer was "yes", even if the Re1 was indirectly attacking by defending the other rook going to e8.

I would also say that it is not really related to a pure ratio. Sometimes, it can be a simple majority of one more attacker than there are defenders, and not all defenders are equal in every position. That said, if you have a 5 or 6 pieces bearing down on the opposing king position, and there are only one or two defenders, there is almost always going to be something there. You can safely go by instinct in such a case, even if you do not see your attack clearly all the way to the end.

For each position, when trying to figure this out, determining which pieces are attackers is usually not as hard as figuring out which ones are defenders. That is because, depending on the position, sometimes a pawn may be a defender, but other times it really is not, as in the Karpov game above f7 did nothing to defend. Also, you have to consider that the defending king also counts as a defender of itself: If you sacrifice so much material to the point that it is just your queen left, and there is no mate or win of material, the queen, just as in a pure K vs K+Q ending, cannot win without some support against the king it was attacking. You really have to judge what pieces can really help defend, and which ones only appear to be in the vicinity to help. Be especially aware when the opposing queen is way offside, and cannot get back to help. That alone, is often a deciding factor.

You also need to look at how pieces combine. For example, if you have a queen and knight attacking a castled black king with only the three pawns as cover, they can be very powerful with the knight on f5, and the queen on g5, and they might be able to go it alone. If it were instead a bishop on d3, and that same queen, then g6 might stop you cold without maybe many more attackers.

I also use this principle more when worrying about my own king safety rather than my opponents, but that is more that my positional style does not lend itself to attacking Morphy-style. It may also be because all-out attacks do not occur every game, but we always have to think about king safety.

  [Event "Tilburg"]
  [Site "Tilburg"]
  [Date "1994.??.??"]
  [Round "5"]
  [White "Karpov, Anatoly"]
  [Black "Georgiev, Kiril"]
  [Result "1-0"]
  [ECO "D58"]
  [WhiteElo "2780"]
  [BlackElo "2615"]
  [EventDate "1994.09.??"]
  [FEN ""]

  1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 O-O 7. e3 b6 8. Be2 Bb7 9. Bxf6 Bxf6 10. cxd5 exd5 11. b4 c6 12. O-O Qd6 13. Qb3 Nd7 14. Rfe1 Be7 15. Rab1 a5 16. bxa5 Rxa5 17. a4 Re8 18. Bf1 Bf8 19. Qc2 g6 20. e4 dxe4 21. Nxe4 Qf4 22. Bc4 Bg7 23. Re2 c5 24. d5 Raa8 25. Rbe1 Rad8 26. Qb3 Ba8 27. g3 Qb8 28. d6 Rf8 29. Bxf7+ Rxf7 30. Neg5 hxg5 31. Nxg5 Rdf8 32. Re8 Qxd6 33. Qxf7+ Kh8 34. Ne6 1-0


How do UCI chess engines handle the 50-move or threefold repetition rules when playing against other engines?

Your engine doesn't need to offer a draw. This is the responsibility for GUI. A good GUI should stop the game for 50 moves or three-repetition.

If you want to run game matches, try: https://github.com/cutechess/cutechess


Looking for a chess engine that instead of playing the best move randomly chooses among the best moves?

There are few engines that are capable of such thing. One name that I can recall is the old Spark UCI engine by Allard Siemelink.
Very aggressive engine with twistable attacking parameters.
It has a feature called MultiPVMargin which enables you to set certain number difference between the PV (Principle Variations) measured in centipawn.
For example if your best calculated variation in certain position is measured as +1 for white and you want the engine to play something less "valuable" than that, you can set the MultiPVMargin to a 100 so that the engine looks for a different variation within the 100 centipawn difference.
You can find older versions of the Spark engine that are available for free download.
Hope this was the answer you were looking for!


What is the strongest reply to Czyzewski Opening?

2.b3 is so vanishingly rare after 1.e4 e5 that you really should not bother preparing anything against it unless you have a friend who plays it all the time or something. Emms in Play the Open Games as Black, a repertoire book for Black after 1.e4 e5, does not even mention it.

  How I should react to this type of situation on the board.

Bologan's Black Weapons in the Open Games suggests starting with 2...Nf6 3.Nc3 Bb4, which seems as good as anything.

  Is this some kind of trap?

No.


Can a king be checked with another king when checking square is protected by the side which gives the check?

Hi David and welcome to chess.stackexchange.com. This is a common question.

It's illegal to move a king into check, or to leave it in check. This includes moving a king adjacent to the opposing king. If you have no legal moves then the game is over: if your king is in check then you are checkmated and you have lost, otherwise you are stalemated and the game is drawn. This is basic to chess, and doesn't require any particular Laws.

If you want chapter and verse, you can find it in the FIDE Laws (which operate in all parts of the world apart from USA) Articles 1.4.1 & 3.9.2. While reading Article 1.4.1, you might also notice that it's illegal to capture the opponent's king. You might reflect that this is a curious rule in two respects (a) it can never apply in a legal position - because it would have been illegal for the opponent to have left his king in check! (b) it would never be a good move to capture the opponent's king - because then you could never checkmate it! You would be right in this reflection, but the rule is there to stop things get too crazy if an illegal move isn't spotted immediately.

To summarize: you can never move so that your king is in check, even if the king is "protected".


How should I play wiith White and Black in the Sicilian Dragon?

My personal opinion:
If you are really annoyed of your opponents opening preparation of early dragon then just avoid it in the beginning. There is a friend of mine who crammed the dragon at length. I was extremely annoyed. To avoid the dragon I started to play Morra's Gambit. Morra's Gambit is quite effective. It can take your opponent out of the opening. You can try Morra Gambit if you are an attacking player otherwise do not go for it. You need to play quite sharp in Morra's Gambit. If you lose your tempo then the Gambit will go in vain and the opponent will get a clear advantage of 1 pawn.

Short answer:

If you want to deal with the position after 6...Bg7 then you will have to learn the theory. The main options are  7.Bc4,Be2,f4,f3.  Other option are 7.Bb5+, even moves like 7.a3,a4  or  7.h3,h4 are playable. 7.h4 is quite attacking and 8.h5 can be sacrificed for a open file. 7.g3 is also playable but it seems like a dull move because Bg2 won't be very effective because black's Night can soon jump at g4.

In 7.Be2 or Bc4 line sometimes after some moves there is an option of retreating the bishop on f1.

There is so much theory that a full fledged book can be written.

In some lines you may go for opposite castling but you will loose your small opening advantage. It will be still playable because the game will become highly tactical and attacking for both the sides. If you are good in tactics you can try this.

If you do not like very much Black's dark bishop on g7 then you can double your bishop with Queen(7.Qd2) and force Black to trade the bishops. Again doing this will give up your opening advantage.

If you are not playing at GM level then small opening advantage doesn't matter. Infact the whole opening doesn't matter.

The real answer to your question is read a book of dragon variation and use latest stockfish engine to analyse different lines :-)


How to iterate over all FENs in Syzygy table?

To my knowledge the Syzygy tablebase doesn't have a function that magically returns all FEN positions from a file. I don't think it should because that's not what tablebase is designed for.

However, there's nothing stopping you from constructing all possible FENs. You know from the file name you have four pawns in the endgame. All you need to is:

Use python-chess package
Generate all possible FENs
For each FEN, use the Python package for probing

Please take a look at:

  http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?start=0&t=61003&topic_view=flat

for FEN generation. Sven Schüle is an experienced engine programmer, so please study his code and adjust it if necessary.

// Usage example: fengen.exe [-m|--mirror] Q r n 2p
// See http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=61003
#include <cstdio>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <cstring>
#include <cctype>
#include <algorithm>
#include <vector>

// definitions for chess board representation

typedef int Color;
enum { White = 0, Black, Empty };

typedef int Piece;
enum { NoPiece = 0, Pawn, Knight, Bishop, Rook, Queen, King };

typedef int Square;
enum {
    A1 = 0,B1,C1,D1,E1,F1,G1,H1,
    A2,    B2,C2,D2,E2,F2,G2,H2,
    A3,    B3,C3,D3,E3,F3,G3,H3,
    A4,    B4,C4,D4,E4,F4,G4,H4,
    A5,    B5,C5,D5,E5,F5,G5,H5,
    A6,    B6,C6,D6,E6,F6,G6,H6,
    A7,    B7,C7,D7,E7,F7,G7,H7,
    A8,    B8,C8,D8,E8,F8,G8,H8,
    FF = 0xff
};

Color opponent(Color c) { return c ^ Black; }
Square makeSquare(int file, int rank) { return 8 * rank + file; }

struct Board {
    Color   color[64];
    Piece   piece[64];
    bool isPiece(Square s, Color c, Piece p) const { return color[s] == c && piece[s] == p; }
    void set(Square s, Color c, Piece p) { color[s] = c; piece[s] = p; }
    void clear(Square s) { set(s, Empty, NoPiece); }
    Board() { for (Square s = A1; s <= H8; s++) clear(s); }

    void printFEN()
    {
        int nEmpty = 0;
        for (int r = 7; r >= 0; r--) {
            for (int f = 0; f <= 7; f++) {
                Square s = makeSquare(f, r);
                if (color[s] == Empty) {
                    ++nEmpty;
                } else {
                    if (nEmpty > 0) {
                        fputc('1' + nEmpty - 1, stdout);
                        nEmpty = 0;
                    }
                    static char const pieceSym[] = ".pnbrqk";
                    if (color[s] == White) {
                        fputc(toupper(pieceSym[piece[s]]), stdout);
                    } else {
                        fputc(tolower(pieceSym[piece[s]]), stdout);
                    }
                    nEmpty = 0;
                }
            }
            if (r > 0) {
                if (nEmpty > 0) {
                    fputc('1' + nEmpty - 1, stdout);
                    nEmpty = 0;
                }
                fputc('/', stdout);
            }
        }
        fputs(" w ", stdout);
        if (isPiece(E1, White, King) && isPiece(H1, White, Rook)) fputc('K', stdout);
        if (isPiece(E1, White, King) && isPiece(A1, White, Rook)) fputc('Q', stdout);
        if (isPiece(E8, Black, King) && isPiece(H8, Black, Rook)) fputc('k', stdout);
        if (isPiece(E8, Black, King) && isPiece(A8, Black, Rook)) fputc('q', stdout);
        fputs(" - 0 1\n", stdout);
    }
};

// definitions needed to set up the initial position
// usually more simple than that but we need to iterate over each group of pieces of same type

struct PieceInitDescr {
    int     nPieces;
    Square  initSqr[8];
};

PieceInitDescr pieceInitDescr[2][1+6] = {
    {
        { 0, { FF,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF } },
        { 8, { A2,B2,C2,D2,E2,F2,G2,H2 } },
        { 2, { B1,G1,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF } },
        { 2, { C1,F1,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF } },
        { 2, { A1,H1,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF } },
        { 1, { D1,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF } },
        { 1, { E1,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF } },
    },
    {
        { 0, { FF,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF } },
        { 8, { A7,B7,C7,D7,E7,F7,G7,H7 } },
        { 2, { B8,G8,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF } },
        { 2, { C8,F8,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF } },
        { 2, { A8,H8,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF } },
        { 1, { D8,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF } },
        { 1, { E8,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF } },
    },
};

// data related to command line parameters

int missing[2][1+6] = {
    { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 },
    { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 },
};

bool mirror = false;

template <bool Mirror>
void enumerate(Board & b, Color c, Piece p)
{
    Color cMiss = (Mirror ? opponent(c) : c);
    Color cStop = (Mirror ? White : Black);

    PieceInitDescr const & d = pieceInitDescr[c][p];

    // setup initial pieces of given color and type
    for (int i = 0; i < d.nPieces; i++) {
        b.set(d.initSqr[i], c, p);
    }

    if (p == King && c == cStop) {
        b.printFEN();
    } else {
        // generate all permutations of missing pieces for the given color and piece type
        int nPresent = d.nPieces - missing[cMiss][p];
        std::vector<bool> v(d.nPieces);
        std::fill(v.end() - nPresent, v.end(), true);
        do {
            // remove missing pieces
            for (int i = 0; i < d.nPieces; i++) {
                if (!v[i]) {
                    b.clear(d.initSqr[i]);
                }
            }
            // recursive call
            Color cNext = (p == King) ? opponent(c) : c;
            Piece pNext = (p == King) ? Pawn : p + 1;
            enumerate<Mirror>(b, cNext, pNext);
            // restore removed pieces
            for (int i = 0; i < d.nPieces; i++) {
                if (!v[i]) {
                    b.set(d.initSqr[i], c, p);
                }
            }
        } while (std::next_permutation(v.begin(), v.end()));
    }

    // clear initial pieces
    for (int i = 0; i < d.nPieces; i++) {
        b.clear(d.initSqr[i]);
    }
}

int main(int argc, char * argv[])
{
    // scan parameters (illegal parameters are ignored for simplicity)
    for (int i = 1; i < argc; i++) {
        char const * arg = argv[i];
        if (strcmp(arg, "-m") == 0 || strcmp(arg, "--mirror") == 0) {
            mirror = true;
        } else
        if (strlen(arg) <= 2) {
            int number  = (strlen(arg) == 1) ? 1         : arg[0] + 1 - '1';
            char p      = (strlen(arg) == 1) ? arg[0]    : arg[1];
            Color color = (p == toupper(p)) ? White : Black;
            Piece piece = NoPiece;
            switch (tolower(p)) {
                case 'p': piece = Pawn;     break;
                case 'n': piece = Knight;   break;
                case 'b': piece = Bishop;   break;
                case 'r': piece = Rook;     break;
                case 'q': piece = Queen;    break;
                // king must not be missing
                default: break;
            }
            if (piece != NoPiece && number >= 1 && number <= pieceInitDescr[color][piece].nPieces) {
                missing[color][piece] = number;
            }
        }
    }

    // enumerate combinations of missing pieces
    Board b;
    enumerate<false>(b, White, Pawn);
    if (mirror) {
        enumerate<true>(b, Black, Pawn);
    }
    return 0;
}


Grave Danger in King and Queen vs lone King

It's important for the winning side to avoid this common pitfall in this basic endgame.

The winning side should avoid placing their queen on the c2, c7, f2 or f7 squares if the opponent's King is in the nearby corner, because this leads to stalemate.

Below, I include some other types of stalemates that are not as well known.

Basic Idea

The plan is to drive the king to one of the edge ranks or files.

After this is achieved, the checkmating positions are usually like this -

Rectangle Method

This method is the fastest and similar to the rectangle method involving checkmate with a rook. The trick is to confine the opponent's king in the smallest possible rectangle with the queen's first move (if not already confined or can be confined at a later move) and then bring the side's own king closer to the opponent's king.

In the position to the left below, White plays 1. Qc6 as the first move, making the rectangle smaller.

Once this has been achieved, White simply brings the King closer to the Black King to drive it into one of the edge ranks or files. The rook check trick discussed in the rectangle method for the rook applies here with the queen check.

  [FEN "8/8/8/4k3/8/8/8/K6Q w - - 0 1"]

  1. Qc6 Kf5 2. Kb2 Ke5 3. Kc3 Kf5 4. Kd4 Kf4 5. Qf6+ Kg4 6. Ke3 Kh5
  7. Qg7 Kh4 8. Kf4 Kh3 9. Qg3#

Knight's Square Method

This method is mainly for beginners. Normally, experienced players will do better to use the rectangle method even in time trouble. However, it may at times help to use a  combination of this and the rectangle method.

If you're a in time trouble, this a very fast (in terms of how quickly you can make the moves on the board without thinking much) and foolproof (stalemates are always to be watched out for) way to checkmate the opponent's king.

With this method, you can literally finish playing the move before the opponent's hand even reaches the clock (assuming you're not playing online).

Consider this position where the Black King is on e5.

The King can be checked by a White knight from each of the 8 squares d3, c4, c6, d7, f7, g6, g4 and f3. In the Knight's Square Method, the idea is to move the queen to one of these squares (preferably one away from your king to avoid collisions in time trouble!) and then simply "copy" the opposite king's move.
Thus, in the position below, White first moves the queen to a "knight-square" 1. Qc6!

After that, the White Queen can "copy" the Black King's moves and remain in the knight's square, except, I REPEAT!!, except when the king moves to the corner (a1, a8, h1, or h8). For example, king moves right one square, queen moves right one square; king moves diagonally up one square, queen moves diagonally up one square. Once the Black King is driven to one of edge ranks or files, White brings the King to deliver the checkmate. This is demonstrated below.

  [FEN "8/8/8/8/3k4/8/8/K6Q w - - 0 1"]

  1. Qc6 Ke5 (1... Kd3 2. Qc5 Kd2 3. Qc4 Ke3 4. Qd5 Kf4 5. Qe6 Kf3 6. Qe5 Kg4
  7. Qf6 Kg3 8. Qf5 Kg2 9. Qf4 Kg1 10. Qf3 Kh2 11. Qg4 Kh1 12. Kb2 Kh2 13. Kc2 Kh1
  14. Kd2 Kh2 15. Ke2 Kh1 16. Kf2 Kh2 17. Qg2#) 2. Qd7 Kf6 (2... Kf4 3. Qe6 Kf3
  4. Qe5 Kf2 5. Qe4 Kf1 6. Qe3 Kg2 7. Qf4 Kg1 8. Qf3 Kh2 9. Qg4 Kh1 10. Kb2 Kh2
  11. Kc2 Kh1 12. Kd2 Kh2 13. Ke2 Kh1 14. Kf2 Kh2 15. Qg2#) 3. Qe8 Kg5 (3... Kg7
  4. Qe6 Kf8 5. Qd7 Kg8 6. Kb2 Kf8 7. Kc3 Kg8 8. Kd4 Kf8 9. Ke5 Kg8 10. Kf6 Kf8
  11. Qf7#) 4. Qf7 Kg4 5. Qf6 Kg3 6. Qf5 Kg2 7. Qf4 Kg1 8. Qf3 Kh2 9. Qg4 Kh1 10.
  Kb2 Kh2 11. Kc2 Kh1 12. Kd2 Kh2 13. Ke2 Kh1 14. Kf2 Kh2 15. Qg2#

Sometimes, one's own King can get in the way of the Queen in this method, as shown below.

     [FEN "8/8/8/2k5/4K3/5Q2/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

     1. Qb3 Kd6 2. Qc4 Ke7 3. Qd5 Kf6

In such cases, the King can simply be moved away and the same method continues.

     [FEN "8/8/5k2/3Q4/4K3/8/8/8 w - - 0 4"]

     1. Kf4 Kg6 2. Qe5 Kh6 3. Qf5 Kg7 4. Qe6 Kh7 5. Qf6 Kg8 6. Qe7 Kh8
     7. Kg5 Kg8 8. Kg6 Kh8 9. Qg7# *

As mentioned before, the one pitfall to be avoided in this method is the stalemate that can occur when mistakenly occupying the knight's square when the king is in the corner.

     [FEN "8/8/8/4Q3/8/8/6k1/K7 w - - 0 9"]

     1. Qf4 Kh1 2. Qg3 $4 (2. Qg4 $1)


What is the percentage of players who are women in the sections where both men and women can play in?

In France, there are women only team championships but not all women chess players supports them.

Here is the point of view of Mathilde Choisy (WFM, FIDE 2181), in French http://echecsetmixte.fr/?p=665

The main points are :

If you want to make progress, don't think about women competitions, think bigger and aim for results in "general" competitions. A top 20 in French mixed youngster championship is a better result than a top 3 in European Girl championship.
France has only a few active women players rated 2000+ so they always play against each other in these competitions
If you stay too long in girl competitions, you won't realize the gap in level with the boys until it's too late
Women championships promotes "amateur chess" but are no use for professionnal competitions.

It's clearly not an answer to the question but I think it's worth sharing.

Btw I met my wife in an French mixed open, so there are some chances that you'll played against some. I checked the data for this open and here are the rates :

Open A , Elo >1700 : 5-10% women
Open B, Elo <1800 : 12-15% women


Maybe because it threatens BxN PxB, Nxc6, gaining a pawn? Therefore it reduces the range of moves that Black can play this move. Qa4 can then follow up (to a move like Ne7) to place pressure on the A knight and the C pawn.
It also allows threats like Qf3 or Qh5, whose refutations might weaken Black's pawn structure?
Just speculating.


Conversion of Shredder elo rating to FIDE elo rating?

I don't think it is possible to convert the Shredder rating to a FIDE Elo rating.

In general, the rating system has the purpose to create a relative ranking of all players based on their results against one another. Your rating from playing games with classical time controls makes it possible to say something about your level of play. Already at this point it is difficult to compare ratings from different time controls (e.g. blitz versus classical).

My point is that you can use your online blitz rating to estimate what FIDE blitz rating you could get over the board (OTB). Yet, it is harder to use your online blitz rating to estimate your OTB rating with classical time controls.

One way to get an estimate of your OTB rating is

Register on a serious online blitz site
Play rated blitz games with the minimum time control of (5 min or 3 min + 2 sec per move)
Ask your opponents what their OTB rating is
Make notes on your results and the opponents' OTB ratings
Calculate your performance rating.


When I feed the position to Stockfish (12), it's first impression (depth<20) is that it is won for Black (evaluation at around -8.0). But that's probably just counting material.
After some calculation, the evaluation changes to 0.0 - for four different first moves by Black: 1...h6, 1...h5, 1...Nxa3 and 1...Ne3 (still holds at depth 43).
That's probably enough options to claim that White cannot bust them all and win.

Example analysis of 1. Ng5 h5 2. Bxh5 Nxa3 (0.0 by Stockfish at depth 41)

2...gxh5 3.Bf2 with mate in 6.

3. bxa3 b2 4. Rb1 gxh5 5. Rxh5 Qb3 6. Rh7 Qc2 7. Rg7+ Kh8 8. Rh7 Qxh7** -+.

The sacrifice 3. Bxg6 fxg6 is harmless, Black can bring in defenders via the opened 7th rank.

After 3. Bg4 or 3. Bf3 or 3.Be2, it's a draw, e.g. 3. Bf3 Nc2 4. Bd2 a3 7. Rg1 axb2 and White is one move short. 8. Rg4 b1=Q+ 2. Kg2 Ne1+ loses, the queen either goes to e1 or to f5 and takes one rook.

However, White seems to actually gain a small advantage by 3.Bd2 Nb5 4.Rg1 Qa7 5.Rg4 Nd6 6.Nxf7 Qxf7 7.Bxg6 Qxg6 8.Rxg6+ Kf7 9.Rg7+ Ke8 10.exd6 with +1.0 ~ +2.0.

Never mind, 3. Bf2 wins for White (because he can later shield his king by Bg1, allowing the king to stay out of reach of the Nc2 and thus gain that critical one tempo he needs to mate). Neat.

The same idea applies in the 1...Nxa3 variation: 2. Rxh7 Nc2 3. Bf2! a3 4. Rg1 axb2 5. Rg7+ Kh8 6. Rg3 b1=Q+ 7. Bg1 and Black can't stop the mate.

Well, it looks like the position is won for White after all, the engine just can't see it from the beginning.
Why it can't is a different question - that is already answered in length elsewhere on this site. In this instance, I guess the constant option of perpetual check combined with the serious material disadvantage completely throws off the pruning mechanism.


It's not that unpopular amongst off-beat lines that can emerge from the Sicilian defense, on top which it has a natural tendency to transpose to Owen defense type of positions.

As to why it's not as popular as Sicilian mainlines, much similar to 1.b3 or 1...b6 openings, 1...c5 2...b6 is not a sound starting setup strategically, for the following summarised reasons:

From opening theory principles:

2...b6 does not contribute to kingside development. King safety in Sicilian structures is of paramount importance as the opening easily leads to very open play where: white's 4 minor pieces are efficiently and centrally developed, central files become semi-open, etc.
2...b6 is not an effective developing move either, that is to say, it does not pose any immediate threats to white. As opposed to e.g. a Dragon Sicilian development (diagram below), where the coordination of knight on c6 and bishop on g7 come with tempo as white has a number of targets on that long diagonal and black's quickly finishing development and will be in time to either create space on the queenside or play the d5 advance. So it being a passive non-effective developing move, it gives free vital play to white.
It resolves the address of your king, as the early b6-c5 setup makes it very unlikely for black to castle queenside, and that's useful information for white! And generally, the reason why kingside fianchettos tend to be stronger and more important early on than queenside ones, is because the structure provides a good fortress for the king!

(Diagram for 2nd point)

 [title "Dragon Sicilian example"]
 [fen ""]

 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7

From a Sicilian opening theory point of view

2...b6 is inconsistent with what the Sicilian defense aims to achieve: The Sicilian, unlike the French defense, it is an active type of defense where black aims to claim their own share of central space control, not immediately challenging white's light square control (provided with 1.e4) but instead, focusing their play more on the dark squares. With this in mind, it is clear that b6-Bb7 are not assisting black's cause in dark square control.
b6-c5 setup tends to be a decent structure when the c5 pawn cannot easily be challenged, much like the white pawn setup in English or 1.b3 type openings with b3-c4-e3 or c4-d3-g3. But as you yourself pointed out, d4 advance is happening immediately for white and black's forced to capture at once as to not provide white with the complete control of the sweet centre.
1...c5 is already a queenside, non-central-pawn commitment, but its aim is justified as it offers to trade a non-central c pawn for white's important central d2 pawn. But 2...b6 has no such immediate justification, it's a move away from the centre, and by itself does not provide control over any important squares.
The latter point is really important when dealing with Sicilian: as it stands, even in the mainlines, white always has the lead in both development and central control and black is always playing catch-up at best. So b6 in that sense is really putting black even further behind in development. Again as explained earlier, the light square control that Bb7 provides is really of minimal relevance for black at the beginning considering white's natural setup in the Sicilian.
All the last couple of points translate into: the later your knights can be centrally developed, the later your castling is prepared, the more difficult you are going to find it to create any threats against white to balance the game. And playing a Sicilian defense, you have to be able to create threats, or at least have strong prospects in doing so. These are fundamentally different from an opening like the Caro or French. For inspiration, I highly encourage you to study the following game by Kasparov, which truly epitomises the kind of play the Sicilian opening aims to achieve.

(note the very early pawn sacrifice to resolve the Moraczy bind, and the active piece development that follows after d5, gradually taking more and more options from white, no tempo is wasted on a slow non-developing move)

 [title "Karpov - Kasparov 1985 match game 16"]
 [fen ""]

 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nb5 d6 6.c4 Nf6 7.N1c3 a6 8.Na3 d5 9.cxd5 exd5 10.exd5 Nb4 11.Be2 Bc5 12.O-O O-O 13.Bf3 Bf5 14.Bg5 Re8 15.Qd2 b5 16.Rad1 Nd3 17.Nab1 h6 18.Bh4 b4 19.Na4 Bd6 20.Bg3 Rc8 21.b3 g5 22.Bxd6 Qxd6 23.g3 Nd7 24.Bg2 Qf6 25.a3 a5 26.axb4 axb4 27.Qa2 Bg6 28.d6 g4 29.Qd2 Kg7 30.f3 Qxd6 31.fxg4 Qd4+ 32.Kh1 Nf6 33.Rf4 Ne4 34.Qxd3 Nf2+ 35.Rxf2 Bxd3 36.Rfd2 Qe3 37.Rxd3 Rc1 38.Nb2 Qf2 39.Nd2 Rxd1+ 40.Nxd1 Re1+ 0-1

Last but not least, here's one possible continuation for c5-b6 which is cherry-picked to emphasise how quickly it can go wrong for black as they are behind in every aspect of development:

[title "Concrete example"]
[fen ""]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 b6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Bb7 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. e5 Nd5 7. Nxd5 Bxd5 8. Nb5 Bb7 9. Bg5 Qc8 (9...h6 10. Nd6+) (9...d6 10. Nxd6+) 10. Qe2 e6 11.O-O-O


You're having issues with the transition to the middle game. I'm not sure what your current skill level is, so this advice is going to be a bit scattered.

First World Correspondence Champion CJS Purdy (Art of Chess Annotation vol 1 and/or Search For Chess Perfection) details a thinking process which consists of things to think about when on move and when your opponent is on move. Jeremy Silman (How To Reassess Your Chess) has a modified version of it. There's another approach in Alexander Kotov's Think Like A Grandmaster.

If your problem is more what to think than how, Former World Champion Max Euwe (with Walter Meiden) did a two-volume set (Middlegame) and the Soviet school was fond of a two-volume set from Romanovsky of the same name.

They all say it better than I can, but the tl;dr of it is that once you have completed development you look first for the tactical opportunities your opponent will give you. Everyone you play will give you those opportunities, you just need to be able to recognize them when they happen.

Sometimes there will be nothing specific to do. If that's the case, then proceed with a more general approach.

Try to "read" the position, the way a golfer might read a green; look for strengths and weaknesses in your opponent's position and your own. Your task is to weaken your opponent's strong squares, and use their weak squares to advance your pieces across the the center of the board. As for your own, you eliminate your own weak squares and keep the strong ones strong.

As you might expect, you can't do all four at the same time, so your thinking centers around what weaknesses you can exploit that will gain you more than you lose by exploiting them, and whether your own weaknesses can be easily exploited. (A weakness isn't real unless it can be exploited.) As you locate tasks (undermine this point, occupy this one with a knight, defend this) you'll see that some fit together into a sequence (can't occupy this outpost until I control this other square, need to defend this point so the opponent can't get around me, etc.) and that "sequence" is called a plan and you decide to follow it until/unless something better presents itself.

Kind of vague, I know, but so was the question.


The Pointing Rule and its relation on which side to attack?

The examples in your question are not great for this "pointing rule".  In general, this rule of thumb only holds when there is a locked pawn structure.  In each of the examples, both colors can play for a pawn break by pushing the d pawn.

Here's a better example:

[FEN ""]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3

Already, the plans for both sides are clear: white must play on the kingside with an eventual f2-f4-f5 push, and black must attack the c and d pawns with moves like Nc6 and Qb6.   In general, the extra space can be utilized to maneuver the pieces to support the necessary pawn break or to attack a focal point.

Look at another example from the Bayonet Attack in the King's Indian Defense:

[FEN ""]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9. b4 Ne8 10. a4 f5

Once again, the center pawns show the correct plans for both sides - white defends on the kingside and attacks on the queenside while black goes all out for a kingside attack.  White has a huge lead in space - enough to be nearly "positionally winning", however black has sufficient play in the form of the attack and the opening is dynamically balanced and has been seen in top level play over the last few years when black is playing for a win.


It seems that member Dag Oskar Madsen was right, ...Kd7!, cutting off the White bishop's access to c8, is the winning idea. The only trap Black must evade is to lose the bishop after ...Ba2. Below is my analysis:

[Title "White to move"]
[fen "8/p3k3/1p2b2p/2pBPpp1/7P/P1P1K1P1/2P5/8 w - - 0 1"]

1.Bb7 $8 { Every other move lose the pawn on e5. } ( 1.c4? Bxd5 2.cxd5 b5!-+ ) 1...Kd7! { As member Dag Oskar Madsen pointed out, this move offers best winning chances because it cuts of bishop's access to c8 square. Now when Black bishop moves White will not be able to stop Black king to reach e6 and the e5 pawn will fall. } 2.Kd3 b5! ( 2...Ba2 3.hxg5 hxg5 4.c4 Ke6 5.a4! Kxe5 6.Kc3 f4 7.gxf4+ Kxf4 8.Bd5 $8 g4 9.Kb2 Bxc4 10.Bxc4 Ke4 11.Kc3 g3= ) 3.Ke3 $8 { Otherwise Black plays Bc4+ and gets time to play Ke6, winning the e5 pawn and with it the game. } Bc4 4.Ba6 Ke6 5.hxg5 hxg5 6.a4 Kxe5 7.Kf2 { There is no need to fear axb5 because White can not keep that pawn in the long run because his bishop is badly placed. White will need to reposition the bishop in order to fight Black passed pawn, after which Black bishop takes the b5 pawn. } Ke4 8.axb5 Ke5 9.Kf3 Bd5+ 10.Ke2 Be4 11.Ke3 Bxc2 $17


Strange(?) opening by computer (beginner level)

Well, to be honest, it's not a very good opening by either of the players.
While you haven't made any real mistakes, there were chances for black to seize the initiative.

In The French defence, you hardly see black taking the initiative. Black always hopes to sit tightly and looks for counter attack, usually on the queenside. i am not a huge fan of your move (2.Bc4)(Better was 2.d4). The bishop has no future on c4. Well, yes it controls the d5 square but Black could simply have moved (3..d5) instead of that horrible (3..Nh6) and your bishop would have moved twice in the opening 5 moves. Not a good sign. Black's opening here is almost terrible. White gains a substantial advantage and with logical play should win this game without much trouble.

A good move at this stage would be 7.Bxh6 which doubles up black's pawn on the h file and a future Qc1 would mean that the pawn would always be upon attack by enemy forces.


Well, humans have the advantage of identifying potential long term positional ideas where as computers are better at calculating quite complex positions. I predict most of the games would end up in draws but in some situations (specially endgames where you need depth as well as complex strategic plannings), human and computer partnership would triumph. A famous example would be the Caruana vs Nakamura game where computers never identified the queen sacrifice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMjj9SPnlBE.

Also it's self evident that artificial intelligence programs such as Alpha-go-zero has both human like abilities (long term strategic plannings) as well as computer like abilities (deep calculations). So it would be a great example for you to see the games played between Alpha go zero and chess programs like Stockfish (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP2J4WNN4Qg)


Can someone describe a good/easy mental procedure to choose the best move here?

I would say there are two tactical possibilities for black here:

1…Bxd3 2.Rxd3 Rxa4 3.Qxa4 Nxb2 wins the pawn back with a better position (the a3 pawn is now weak).
1…Rxe3 2.fe Nxe3 3.Qe2/d2 Bxd4 and the a4 Knight is hanging and the d1 rook is hanging with check … it still isn't over, in a game you should probably calculate further, but I'm to lazy to do that now.

There actually is an easy rule to find both of these tactical strikes:

Consider all captures!

Usually this rule is even broader: Consider all forcing moves! This includes captures, checks and attacks on stronger pieces.

Disclaimer: As with all rules this maxim has to be tempered by experience.


Are there good variations for White against the Sicilian that do not involve an early d4?

It's quite common the Closed Sicilian, with, for example:

[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6

The Grand Prix Attack is of course another possible way to face any Black player after 1.e4 c5. Nowadays the main line is:

[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7

After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 (any) 3.g3 White can build a King's Indian Attack, which is less common and less sharp, but perfectly playable.

These variations are not as popular as the "Open" ones, but you may encounter them from time to time even during high-rated torunaments.


Is it true that women's style of play tend on average to be slightly more aggressive than men's style of play?

No. The evidence I've heard for the argument you saw was that top women's play has a lower draw rate than top men's play. The problem with that line of thinking is that if you look at men's games at the same Elo level as the top women, about 2500-2600, the draw rate is the same.


What are the different rules for claiming a draw?

FIDE's "Laws of Chess" is a good place to start, as these are generally accepted as the governing rules of the sport: http://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf

Article five has the general rules for a draw and article nine has more detail on them. Article 9.2 is relevant to your question. It seems clear that the arbiter was correct in Wang's case, as he had not written down his move. Everything that transpired in this case, down to the three minutes of extra time, appear in accordance with FIDE's rules.

Of course, things differ in blitz and speed chess - and this is where I think different federations might really come up with their own takes and interpretations of procedural rules, since these iterations of the game have often been developed in a less formal context.

It's also quite possible that the arbiter in your brother's case simply didn't know the rules.


Carlsen vs Karjakin individual encounter results statistics so far?

There is a list of chess games between them here; I'm not sure if any games are missing. The list includes blitz, rapid and blindfold games, but there's a convenient statistics block at the top of the page:

  LIFETIME RECORD:

  Classical games: Magnus Carlsen beat Sergey Karjakin 4 to 1, with 17 draws.
  Including rapid/exhibition games: Magnus Carlsen beat Sergey Karjakin 18 to 8, with 22 draws.
  Only rapid/exhibition games: Magnus Carlsen beat Sergey Karjakin 14 to 7, with 5 draws.


What is the algebraic notation for the bishop?

The expression I used is bc3

Lowercase letters ALWAYS refer to pawns/files. Uppercase ALWAYS refers to pieces. You need to use Bxc3 for "Bishop at d2"xc3.


Why do people make a huge pause before making even a simple checkmate?

I do not know what other players do. I pause because I

have time on the clock,
am (at Lichess classical 1590) not a strong player,
am not a quick calculator,
have insufficiently memorized some basic mating patterns, and
do not wish to blunder.

If your opponent still has time left on his or her clock, do you know a reason he or she should not pause?

When an annoyed online opponent of mine (usually an opponent who is losing) demands that I move faster, I merely

kill the chat so that I can finish the game in peace and
block the opponent so that he or she need suffer no further annoyance in connection with me during future games.

Meanwhile, if my opponent prefers not to wait while I use the time on my clock to think, then he or she can always resign.

Admittedly, it is indeed slightly impolite to run one's clock down for the mere sake of running it down, but I seem to encounter this peculiar form of impoliteness in no more than five percent of all games. When I do encounter it, I relax, stretch my legs, review the game's earlier moves, read a nonchess book, catch up on the news, do chores, attend to children, etc., and don't let the play bother me much. Otherwise, the time on a player's clock is the player's to use as he or she sees fit. A player owes no explanation of a thinking pause, not even before delivering mate.

A sportsman should probably not presume to instruct an opponent regarding how fast to think.

As to whether cheating is occurring, I have no idea. I doubt that it happens much in my games. It isn't happening on my end; and on the other end, who knows? Insofar as cheaters are not especially targeting me and insofar as the online platform on which one plays makes a reasonable effort to detect and deter cheating, I have not found it profitable to worry too much about that.


One of the key principles of opening play is that control of the center is vitally important. If one of the players has complete control of the center then they can much more easily launch an attack and it is much more difficult for the other player to defend.

A white knight on c3 supports/attacks e4 and d5.
A white knight on f3 supports/attacks e5 and d4.

Those 4 squares define the center of the board. A similar story is true for black knights on f6 (controls e4 and d5) and c6 (controls e4 and d5).

A pinned knight doesn't support or attack any squares. It is pinned. It can't move. It no longer plays any role in the fight for the center although it can come to life again if it is unpinned.

Hence the normal progression in the opening of moving a center pawn 2 squares to control one of the center squares, then move one or more knights out to also control center squares, then move bishops out to either control center squares or to pin opposition knights which has the same effect.


FIDE Laws of Chess:

  3.8.b.1. The right to castle has been lost: a) if the king has already moved, or b) with a rook that has already moved.

Emphasis mine.


The move exploits three things:
1. The black knight on f4 is trapped and will fall.
2. The black pawn on d6 is pinned.
3. The black King is trapped behind its own pawns allowing the threat of a back-rank mate.

Qxe5 dxe5 2. Rxd8+ Qf8 3. Rxf8+ Kxf8 and White has stolen a pawn
Qxe5 Qxb3 2. Rxd6 and White has a lovely game


Why is 1. d4 2. c4 3. b3 so bad for white?

Stockfish evaluation is not the only criterion to determine whether a move is sound or not. The main issue with committing so early to 3.b3 (against this particular Black setup) is that there are no downsides to delaying that move.
In other words, even if you want to play some setup with b3, there's no reason do it right now. Instead, other moves that prioritize development like Nf3 should go first.
Anyway, just because a move isn't popular, it doesn't mean it's "bad". It just means people prefer something else. Think for instance of 1.Nc3, a move that is hardly ever played. Is it "bad"? Not really. There are worse moves that get played more often. The reason 1.Nc3 is so rarely played is that there are more "comfortable" move orders from which you can get the positions that arise from 1.Nc3


Is it allowed to be an arbiter and have your kid playing in the same FIDE rated tournament?

The FIDE arbiters' Commission disapproves very strongly of arbiters playing in the same competition that they are arbiting in but does not ban it.

My own federation told me when I was still qualifying as an arbiter that I may not play in any tournament at the same time that I am arbiting a FIDE rated event. So, for instance if there was a FIDE rated tournament taking place alongside a national rated tournament then I may not play in the national rated tournament and arbit in the FIDE rated one. I am allowed to do the reverse.

The ECF, the federation running chess where I live now, does allow playing and arbiting in the same tournament whether FIDE rated or not.

From what I have written it should be clear that there is no problem whatsoever with every member of the chief arbiter's extended family playing in the same tournament that he or she is arbiting. Arbiters are required to be impartial and this applies whether it is with regard to family members, friends, lovers, bosses, work colleagues, etc., etc.

  What should be done?

The best advice I can give is to try not to be too paranoid. It will affect your chess playing and destroy your enjoyment of the game.


What is the time control for FIDE chess tournaments?

The clocks would start at 90 minutes, with 30 seconds added per move, starting at move one.  When move 40 (not 20 - we're counting full moves, not half moves) is completed, 30 minutes would be added (along with the 30 seconds that's added for every move.)

Events would ordinarily state what time control they are using.  If it's not on the list of major events (which is on the page you linked to) they don't have to use the time control specified for major events.


This is really dependent on

which gambit
the style of play you prefer.

For 1, consider the King's Gambit. The theoretically preferred line for Black is 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d5! which immediately returns the pawn. On the other hand, in the main lines of the Benkö gambit, White holds a pawn advantage well into the late middlegame.

As for 2, I'm usually fine with having a material advantage, defending against an attack, simplifying and winning in the endgame. Other people like having the initiative and will usually try to return the gambited pawn in exchange for a (counter)attack.


The answer is that both the FIDE world champions and the PCA world champions were world champions.

The situation was actually less chaotic than the normal situation in boxing. In boxing there are four bodies awarding world champion titles. They are -

WBA - World Boxing Association
WBC - World Boxing Council
IBF - International Boxing Federation
WBO - World Boxing Organization

In the heavyweight division the British fighter, Anthony Joshua, holds three of the four titles (WBA, IBF, WBO) but in the light heavyweight division four different boxers hold the four titles -

WBA - Dmitry Bivol
WBC - Oleksandr Gvozdyk
IBF - Artur Beterbiev
WBO - Sergey Kovalev

If boxers are clever enough to get their heads round having up to four different world champions in one weight division then I'm sure chess players are clever enough to manage just two for the short period of time of the existence of the PCA.


"Chess is 90% tactics" - should a player focus more on tactics in order to improve?

Although I agree that chess is 90% tactics when actually playing at the board, it really depends on where you are strenght-wise as to how much time you spend on tactics. By the way, when they use the word "tactics" there, I would say "tactics and calculation".

When you are beginning, I firmly believe that spending 90% of your time on tactics will be the best use of time, and you will get your biggest bang-for-the-buck time-wise. I once guided a 38-year-old from 1000 to 1850 on ICC in just three months by having him do 50 tactics problems per day, spending no more than two minutes per problem. He did nothing but tactics during that time, and play. I firmly believe in that immersion method of learning.

As you get stronger, let's say, 1800, you need to start spending more time learning about position. That will continue forever, but it becomes much more refined as you get stronger. You should still spend a lot of time doing tactics. I have found that even 2100 players are not that strong tactically, and even as a 2200+ for decades, I miss too much.

As you become a strong master, in particular GM, they need to work on openings more than any other group since so much is won at that level based on preparation.


If a scenario comes up where a piece is out of its square and is disturbing me , can I say adjust during his turn ? ( maybe he may get irritated once in a blue moon )

If it's your opponent's move, you were the last person to modify the board and had the opportunity to adjust then.

If it's bothering you that much then get up, get a drink of water, look at the other games, and wait until your opponent has moved and you can make the world right again.


What is the Pirc Defense (1... d6 or 1... g6)?

1. e4 g6 could certainly transpose into a Pirc but it is not the first two standard moves. If you look at the ECO entry for B07, B08, B09 you will see the standard variations for the Pirc/Modern. I would say the link you give is wrong.

ECO B07

1. e4 d6

without 2. d4

2. d4 without 2... Nf6

2... Nf6 without 3. Nc3

3. Nc3 without 3... g6

3... g6 without 4. Nf3, 4. f4

B08

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Nf3

B09

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. f4


Mouse vs Touch performance for bullet chess

Your question is interesting. I think I can share my experience because I am playing bullet for quite some time now. I used to use a touchscreen (Galaxy Tab S5E), but for the last couple of months, I am using a mouse.
Both of them have benefits as well as drawbacks to their side. The best benefit for the touchscreen is reachability with accuracy. You can touch wherever you wish to and that too with accurate (assuming you are using 5.0+ inch touchscreen). On the other hand, the mouse is fast, but not accurate and may also "slip" in the crucial move (often known as mouse-slip).
So, the question is why is the mouse still the favourite option to major chess players?
The answer is "Polling Rate". An average wired gaming mouse offers a polling rate of 1000 Hz, compared to 120Hz touch refresh rate from the touchscreens. And this plays the crucial role in bullet because of each millisecond counts in it. So, I think, it's important to choose almost 10x faster equipment, though it's not that accurate.
Last but not least, Hardware. I ran lichess lag test on Google Chrome in my PC  [Windows] as well as in the official android app [Pixel 3A XL]. Both of them were connected to the same wifi network. Though the lichess-server latency was the same in both devices [0.1 milisecond], "Network between Lichess and you" (i.e ping) varies significantly from mobile (181ms) to PC (103ms). So, clearly, mouse in a PC is more superior choice than the touchscreen, at least for me.
Thank you.


Which classical players' games should I check if I want to analyze positional players?

Smyslov
Fischer
Karpov
Keres
Anand
Kramnik


Can chess.com diamond package improve my game?

Yes, Chess Mentor training and chess.com videos can improve your game with daily training.

I've been a chess.com diamond member since November 2013 and have been pleased with the gradual knowledge and rating increase I've seen since subscribing.

The main perks of the Diamond package are their Chess Mentor and the chess.com video library. You get unlimited access to both. Here's how I'm using them:

The Video Library

Choose a video series such as GM Melik Khachiyan’s three-part “Becoming an Expert” (part 1, part 2, part 3), watch them all, and make quick notes about the key points you took away from each video. Really – take short notes; you'll retain more that way. Skimming through your notebook becomes really helpful too. There is little point in gaining knowledge if you can't retain it.

Every time you find an instructor you enjoy listening to, use the video index to find other courses they've authored and watch more from them — or just write down the name of their course in your notebook under a “to watch” list. Not sure who to start with? GM Melik Khachiyan, GM Ben Finegold, IM Daniel Rensch, and IM Thomas Rendle are all fun and informative. They make me feel good about chess. Melik, Ben, and Thomas are all professional full-time chess coaches, and Daniel's a strong player and one of the founders of chess.com.

Do this every day and you'll soon build up a thick notebook of tips and take-aways. You won't see a sudden dramatic improvement by doing this alone; instead, the idea is to absorb as many opinions, patterns, and maxims as you can. That way, in your future games, you'll have a team of amazing chess coaches in your head talking to you, whispering the knowledge and mantras you wrote in your book.

For example, GM Melik says in his Positional Tips series that, when you think you've finished calculating a line, always ask yourself, “what am I missing?” and make one final check. Hearing that voice has helped me avoid blunders. And, when an opponent plays aggressive chess right out of the opening with traps and fake threats, I often hear Melik’s advice to “stay strong, stay focussed” and repeat it to myself — a defensive mantra of sorts!

Chess Mentor

Chess Mentor is a fabulous tool — it forces you to play through the lines by moving the pieces as well as visualising the sequence, explains why you went wrong, cheers you along, and flows onto the next challenge automatically.

Use it every day for an hour if you can alongside tactics training and video watching. You can pick out an individual lesson that takes your fancy, or follow a more thorough Chess Mentor course by an author you like. You can also repeat lessons to drill them. For example, I did the opposition drills several times, and have found I'm winning more endgames now. I knew the principle of opposition, but it was only by practising it — by actively moving the pieces on a board rather than reading a book describing the sequence — that it sunk in.

Don't forget to bookmark your chess mentor rating page to keep an eye on your progress report and encourage yourself to keep going.

Not a replacement for playing slow games

Of course, while I've really enjoyed Chess Mentor and the videos on chess.com and ICC, if you want to get good faster, the things that have helped me so far are to:

Play lots of slow time control games, where you have time to think and find the best move every move. (Blitz is okay too, but most instructors will tell beginners and improvers to spend about a tenth of their time playing blitz as they do playing chess at longer time controls of 45 minutes or more.)
Review those games with your opponent, a computer, and a teacher.
Identify and correct flaws in your thought process that caused you to lose your game. (e.g. “I forgot to identify my opponent's checks, captures, and threats before making my move. In the future I will always think, ‘checks, captures, and threats’ before I play my move – every move.”)
Become really disciplined in your thinking process.
Play chess in two modes only: you play your best move every move, or you resign. (A tip from Dan Heisman.)