How much worse do GMs play in their blitz and bullet games?

Handicapping

I've played in blitz tournaments where the higher rated player was handicapped 1 minute per 100 rating points with a maximum of 3 minutes deducted.

When you play with one 1 minute physical ability becomes a huge factor.  If you are not fast enough to move a piece while your opponent is reaching for his clock, and then hit your clock near immediately after your opponent, you will likely lose on time.

There is an endurance factor as well.   When you play blitz or bullet it is typically a lot of games in succession.  You might note that in the recent Côte d’Ivoire Rapid & Blitz (which Magnus dominated), the quality of the blitz games dropped significantly as the day went on -- this is typical of these type of tournaments and you often see players brains just stop performing.

  Overall Strength

We don't have data on GM's playing with huge time handicaps as you proposed, but we can see their quicker games and compare them to their slower games.  Of course they have multiple FIDE ratings to represent this.  Magnus is further ahead of the world in rapid than he is in classical.

I personally think that when the players are young and in great form, they don't need much time.   When Anand was a rising star he played classical games at blitz speed.  Kamsky too played fairly quickly.  This is strategic as older GMs need to take their time and would get into time pressure.

Probably a computer program could rate the quality of the games to get a non-opinion based answer to your question.  My personal opinion is that if classical was level 10, rapid would be 7-8, blitz 5-6, and bullet under a 4.

Then it would be interesting to compare these against IM or Master games.  My guess is that GM games at Rapid are still better than IM classical games.


It is not allowed by computer programs or by FIDE.

PGN is designed to be parsable by computer programs. Those computer programs depend on PGN files actually adhering to the specification. It would be similarly unambiguous if you numbered the ranks 9-16 instead of 1-8, but computer programs would not be able to read your game scores.

If you are not concerned about computers reading your moves and just want to save time writing on your scoresheet, you are still out of luck. The FIDE rules of chess say

  C. FIDE recognises for its own tournaments and matches only one system of notation, the Algebraic System, and recommends the use of this uniform chess notation also for chess literature and periodicals. Scoresheets using a notation system other than algebraic may not be used as evidence in cases where normally the scoresheet of a player is used for that purpose. An arbiter who observes that a player is using a notation system other than the algebraic should warn the player of this requirement.

and

  C.8 Each move of a piece is indicated by a) the abbreviation of the name of the piece in question and b) the square of arrival. There is no hyphen between a) and b). Examples: Be5, Nf3, Rd1.


Sacrifices have the following goals:

exposing the king: for example after your opponent castled, sacrificing the bishop to take the pawn diagonally to the king.
cut the escape of the king: this one is hard to explain, but basically after the sacrifice, if the opponent recaptures, the king can no longer occupy this square. Note that this can also happen even if there was an enemy piece originally, and you sacrificed by capturing it, but under the scenario that the new piece there have different mobility (e.g usually a knight) so after a check this new piece can't block it as opposed to the old piece.
gaining (or making the opponent lose) tempos: sometimes you find combinations that allows you to make important moves in time, or make the opponent lose time that he doesn't have. One example is if the two players are about to promote, but you sacrifice a piece so that the king blocks his own pawn or moves into a square that will be attacked by the promoted Queen (so when you promote you deliver a check).
gain control of the center (or any other particular area): this usually happens by sacrificing pawns from the flanks to be recaptured with enemy pawns from the center.
weaken the pawn structure: in very closed positions, these kind of sacrifices are almost always played. I can't give examples since I have never done one and usually don't understand them without computer analysis.
removing of the defender (deflecting): when a piece is the only one stopping the inevitably, it is usually worth taking it down no matter if you lose material.
luring a piece to unwanted squares: luring the king into forks, screws, etc. Another example is when a enemy bishop is preventing your pawns to advance, making him move out of that diagonal is deadly.

Some quick examples from one of my games:

[FEN ""]
1. e4  e5 2. Bc4  d6 3. Nf3  h6 4. O-O  Nf6 5. Nc3  Be7 6. d4  exd4 7. Qxd4  O-O 8. Be3  Nc6 9. Qd3  Bg4 10. Bxh6  gxh6 11. e5  Nxe5 12. Nxe5  dxe5 13. Qg6+  Kh8 14. Qxh6+  Kg8 15. Ne4  Be6 16. Rfe1  Bxc4 17. Nxf6+  Bxf6 18. Re3  Bg5 19. Rg3  f6 20. Qg6+  Kh8 21. Rh3+ 1-0

(#1) - 10.Bxh6 might not be the best move from that position, but it is not a bad one either, there is a very dangerous pin by the white bishop that together with the Queen can do amazing things. The main idea is to expose the enemy king.

(#3 and #6) - 11.e5 if the Knight moved, I would have achieved #6 over the bishop, however he didn't and decided to take the pawn, I didn't care which way he take the pawn, my #3 is achieved since all I wanted to free the Queen diagonal.

(#6) - 15.Ne4 I attempted to remove the defender of the bishop, with the plan of capturing the bishop with this line 15.Ne4 Nxe4 16.Qg6+

(#3) - 16.Rfe1 is also interesting, some people would say it is not a direct sacrifice though, but it is deliberately not protecting a piece. The main idea is to don't waste any time and activate the rook ASAP, while still having a chance to protect the other piece if he decides to go for NxN first.


Bullet is completely different from OTB game. In bullet what tells is your experience, your ability to spot hanging pieces and combinations very fast to make natural moves and not to blunder. Also time management and focus is very important.

In an OTB game things like positional knowledge, and long term thinking are very important, and if it takes you a few minutes to notice, that the move you want to make hangs your queen, it's not a tragedy. Also you can get away with holes in your opening knowledge.

Another point: in bullet setting traps can earn you a lot of points, but in a long game traps are a lot of times counter productive.


In a lot of cases you just rely on your intuition. With enough experience you can tell whether a fianchetto makes sense in setups like the Sicilian. But here are some tips for when to do it:

If the long diagonal is open, since the bishop will not be blocked along it.
If your opponent doesn't have a bishop on the same colour as the soon to be fianchettoed bishop. This will make it more difficult for your opponent to trade off your bishop. Note that if the bishop does get traded off, it's not a huge deal, but now there's a hole in front of your king.
If the bishop has no responsibilities on its normal diagonal of development. E.g., in the Sicilian, if you've pushed ...d6 and then either ...e6 or ...e5, your bishop is often important in defending the d6-pawn. So fianchettoing it here usually isn't recommended. But if the e-pawn is left on e7 (like in the Dragon), there are no issues with the d6-pawn when you fianchetto.
If it would take two moves to develop the bishop anyway along the normal development diagonal. I.e., if your e-pawn hasn't moved yet, you'll have to spend a tempo pushing it and then bringing out the bishop. This means that if you go for the fianchetto, at least it won't waste any extra time.

All of these guidelines can absolutely be broken though. They are just some things to factor into your decision -- each position should be treated on a case by case basis.


The point system in chess gives a rough indication of how strong each piece is. So the short answer to your question is, yes, a rook is more valuable than a knight, and so in the vast majority of cases, if you can trade a rook for a knight, you should do it.

This does beg the question, however, about why a rook is considered more valuable. At its best, a rook can control long files (columns) and ranks (rows). While the knight's tricky movement can sometimes be an advantage, in general we consider it to be inferior. One way to demonstrate the value of a rook is to try the rook and king vs king endgame. (I would definitely recommend looking it up first.) Note that there is no way of checkmating just with a knight and king. In fact, the game would  be drawn by insufficient material. This is just a fancy way of saying that neither player has enough firepower to achieve checkmate. As you progress, it will become clearer to you why rooks are more valuable than knights. At some point, you might even be able to notice when a knight is better than a rook! But for now, concentrate on the points system—it's a great way of knowing who is ahead in the game.

Edit: it's worth noting that the points system is not part of the rules of chess. The bottom line is that you are trying to checkmate your opponent's king. But having more material (i.e. points) is a key way of getting closer to this goal.


How do you checkmate with the pair of bishops?

I always like to explain this in a visual way.

Basic Idea: Keep the bishops together. They form a large net (restricted area) from which the opponent king cannot escape.

Step 1: Push Opponent's King To Edge Rank or File

Keeping the bishops together and using the king for support, make the restricted area smaller to push the opponent's king back to an edge rank or file.

     [FEN "8/8/8/3k4/8/8/8/K2BB3 w - - 0 1"]

    1. Bd2 Ke4 2. Be2 Kd5 3. Kb2 Ke4 4. Kc3 Kd5 5. Bd3 Ke5 6. Be3 Kd5
    7. Bd4 Kd6 8.Be4 Ke6 9. Kc4 Kd6 10. Bd5 Ke7 11. Be5 Kd7 12. Kc5 Ke7
    13. Kc6 Kf8 14. Bf6 Ke8 15. Be6 Kf8

1. Bd2 Ke4 2. Be2

2...Kd5 3. Kb2 Ke4 4. Kc3 Kd5 5. Bd3 Ke5 6. Be3

6...Kd5 7. Bd4 Kd6 8.Be4

8...Ke6 9. Kc4 Kd6 10. Bd5 Ke7 11. Be5

11...Kd7 12. Kc5 Ke7 13. Kc6 Kf8 14. Bf6 Ke8 15. Be6 Kf8 (note: I intentionally chose the 13...Kf8 line because that is more instructive. For the 13...Kd8 line, please see the sample mates provided at the end).

Step 1 Accomplished!

Step 2: Push the Opponent's King to a Corner

In the above position, we shall choose the h8 corner. The key is to keep the opponent's king on the back rank while slowly taking away squares from the other side.

The idea now is to move the king over to the right hand side via Kc6-d5-e5-f5-g6 to cover f7 and then move the bishop to d7 to cover e8, thereby pushing the opponent's king to the corner.

   [FEN "5k2/8/2K1BB2/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 16"]

   1. Kd5 Ke8 2. Ke5 Kf8 3. Kf5 Ke8 4. Kg6 Kf8 5. Bd7 Kg8

Now, we can take control over f8, thereby pushing the opponent's king to the corner.

   [FEN "6k1/3B4/5BK1/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 21"]

   1. Be7 Kh8

Step 2 Accomplished!

Step 3: Checkmate the Cornered King

Here, it is important to be careful to avoid a common stalemate that occurs in this position.

We observe that White has to make a waiting move in order to challenge the g8 square with check, so that then after Kh8, Bf6+ would be mate.

And now the mate is easy.

    [FEN "7k/3BB3/6K1/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 22"]

    1. Be8 Kg8 2. Bf7+ Kh8 3. Bf6#

Below, I have included other types of checkmates that can occur if Black play's differently. I've also included the fastest mate from the original position which starts with 1.Bc3!

    [FEN "8/8/8/3k4/8/8/8/K2BB3 w - - 0 1"]

    1. Bd2 (1. Bc3 Ke4 2. Kb2 Kd3 3. Bf3 Ke3 4. Bd5 Kd3 5. Be5 Kd2 (5... Ke3) 6.
    Bd4 Kd3 7. Bc5 Ke2 8. Kc2 Kf1 9. Kd3 Ke1 10. Bg2 Kd1 11. Bf2 Kc1 12. Kc3 Kd1
    13. Bf3+ Kc1 14. Be3+ Kb1 15. Kb3 Ka1 16. Bd1 Kb1 17. Bc2+ Ka1 18. Bd4#) 1...
    Ke4 2. Be2 Kd5 3. Kb2 Ke4 4. Kc3 Kd5 5. Bd3 Ke5 6. Be3 Kd5 7. Bd4 (7. Bf4 Kc5
    8. Be4 Kb5 9. Be3 Ka6 10. Kc4 Ka5 11. Bc6 (11. Bb7 Ka4 12. Bb6 Ka3 13. Kc3 Ka4
    14. Bc6+ Ka3 15. Bc5+ Ka2 16. Kc2 Ka1 17. Ba4 Ka2 18. Bb3+ Ka1 19. Bd4#) 11...
    Ka6 12. Bc5 Ka5 13. Kd5 Ka6 14. Kd6 Ka5 15. Kc7 Ka6 16. Bb4 Ka7 17. Bb5 Ka8 18.
    Ba5 Ka7 19. Bb6+ Ka8 20. Bc6#) 7... Kd6 8. Be4 Ke6 9. Kc4 Kd6 10. Bd5 Ke7 11.
    Be5 Kd7 12. Kc5 Ke7 13. Kc6 Kf8 (13... Kd8 14. Bd6 Ke8 15. Be6 Kd8 16. Bf7 Kc8
    17. Be7 Kb8 18. Kb6 Kc8 19. Be6+ Kb8 20. Bd6+ Ka8 21. Bd5#) (13... Ke8 14. Bd6
    Kd8 15. Bf7 Kc8 16. Be7 Kb8 17. Kb6 Kc8 18. Be6+ Kb8 19. Bd6+ Ka8 20. Bd5#) 14.
    Bf6 Ke8 15. Be6 Kf8 16. Kd5 Ke8 17. Ke5 Kf8 18. Kf5 Ke8 19. Kg6 Kf8 20. Bd7 Kg8
    21. Be7 Kh8 22. Be8 Kg8 23. Bf7+ Kh8 24. Bf6# *


What chess websites are worth subscribing to?

Not a pay site, but FICS (free internet chess server) is my go-to for online chess.

Chesstempo is where I go for tactics and endgame puzzles (I think they have a subscription option, but I haven't subscribed, and so can't say for sure).

Playchess is associated with ChessBase and although I haven't tried their online service, ChessBase is an amazing program and good company--- they also sell video tutorials.

Utlimately, I'd recommend using the money you'd spend on a subscription on a good chess coach--- nothing beats that.


Is there a refutation of the Muzio gambit?

First of all, I should point out that it's actually simplest to avoid the Muzio altogether with Black; i.e. meeting 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 with 4...Bg7 (the Hanstein Variation) or 4...Nc6! (transposing to a line of the Bishop's Gambit which is probably favourable for Black.

But that doesn't really answer your question, does it? :)

After 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4?! g4!? 5 0-0 gf 6 Qxf3 Qf6! 7 e5!, Black almost always plays 7...Qxe5, which has been analyzed for centuries, and the verdict is still unclear. However, in his recent book, John Shaw puts forth the view (supporting by the strongest engines) that 7...Qf5! leaves White with doubtful compensation for the piece.

Conclusion : 4...Nc6! and 4...Bg7 give Black good prospects to play for an edge in a relatively simple position (which is a good practical choice given the rarity with which Black meets this variation). Speaking about the Muzio proper, things are much less clear, but 7...Qf5 should be better for Black (albeit complicated).


What kind of training should a Class B do for a year, if he or she wants to defeat a 2100 player?

If you want to defeat specifically one opponent the easiest way would be to check his games, try to find his weaknesses, and try to prepare and then reach positions which he doesn't feel comfortable with. Maybe this will be simple positions maybe closed games with manovering, maybe sharp tactical games. See what type of positions he tries to reach, and drag him to completely different ones. Obviously you should invest most of the time to get better in this kind of positions.

If in general you want to have a fighting chance against an expert player, without investing the time and energy to get good enough, than you should do lot's and lot's of combinations, prepare an opening repertoire with gambit openings, and try to catch him in a dobious, but complicated position. You will lose more than win, but every now and then you will nail him.

And then there is the hard but revarding way of generally perfecting your game :).


How to score a certain move in a PGN, for how well opening theory is followed

There can't be a standard here so you can choose your scoring system in the way is makes most sense for your particular case. I'm not sure what its intent really is so it might be different from what I have in mind. We can all agree on what a 100% score would look like, but what does it really mean to have a 50% or a 75% score?
If it's intended as a training tool, I'd include the evaluation of the final position. For me it's not the same to stop following the PGN with a blunder than doing that with an interesting alternative. But maybe for your particular case it is!  It's ultimately up to you to decide. For example, I don't see why the number of branches taken should have anything to do with "how well" you folowed the PGN.
Some possible criteria you can use (I'm thinking of a training tool that helps me memorize an opening line here):

Number of moves played correctly.
Number of non-forced moves played correctly.
Number of moves until the "end" of the line.
Evaluation after deviating (compared to evaluation at the end of the line)
Mainline penalty (being a bit more lenient with errors in weird sidelines than with errors in the mainline).
Critical position bonus (selecting a few specific positions that are considered "critical" in a given line and give extra weight to those in the final score).
Previous success ratio (give extra weight in the final score to positions the user got wrong frequently in the past)


Accelerated Dragon, Modern Bc4 Variation (B35) 10.Ndb5!

The line 8.Bb3 a5 9.0-0 d6 still occasionally occurs in games of IMs and GMs, and the results are actually quite ok for black. For example, Hou Yifan-Yu Yangyi, Kudrin-Diamant, Vishnu-Vazquez Igarza and Saric-Damaso.

However, at the highest level, it indeed seems that black is looking for alternatives. At the latest FIDE Grand Prix, Palma de Mallorca 2017, Gelfand tried 8....d5 against Vachier-Lagrave and 8....d6 against Vallejo Pons, but lost both games.

A remarkable alternative is 8....Re8, first played by Zvjaginsev in 2013. This move has been repeated in several GM games, e.g. Leko-Vitiugov and Sanal-Dubov.
EDIT: In the first round of the Gashimov Memorial 2018, the theoretical discussion on 8....Re8 is continued in the game Navara-Mamedov.

Recently, a new repertoire book has been published: The Hyper Accelerated Dragon by IM Raja Panjwani. According to a book review on Canadian Chess Newsfeed, the author analyzes two variations against 7.Bc4.

  If White avoids the Maroczy (c2-c4), then the only other way to stop the ...d7-d5 equalizer is 7.Bc4, which is the subject of Chapters 2 and 3. Black could allow the game to transpose into a Yugoslav attack (Bc4, f3, Qd2, 000, and a kingside pawn storm) but Raja wants to avoid that, and offers two antidotes: 7...Qa5 (ch.2) and his own system ("My System") which is a hybrid of the Dragon on the kingside (e7, f7, g6, h7/h5) and a Taimanov on the queenside (...a6, ...b5, ...e6). That's the subject of Chapter 3, and the excerpt in the game player below.

      [StartPly "15"]

      [FEN ""]
      1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 O-O 8.Bb3 a5 (8...d5)(8...d6)(8...Re8) 9.O-O d6


Is it forbidden to laugh when playing in a chess tournament?

The FIDE Laws of Chess:

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

Distracting or annoying the opponent in any manner (other than making good moves!) is forbidden, and making noise is forbidden. So laughing in order to give pressure to your opponent is forbidden.


How to play this endgame without consulting the tablebases

In positions where the side with the Rook is trying to hold back the passed pawns it is often critical how quickly the King can scramble back to base, because the Rook will usually be easy. If for example the King must reach g8, then ..Kxa2 leaves the King with one rank less to cross and therefore (other things being equal) will save a tempo. Therefore my instinct would tend toward ..Kxa2 rather than ..Rxa2, even before attempting any analysis. The question whether other things truly are equal is the reason why endings in general need a lot of calculation. In this case they probably are.
However, why did White take the pawn before it promoted? 1.f5 waiting for 1..a1=Q 2. Rxa1 Kxa1. White would then be two tempi up compared to the game. He made Black spend a move on promoting, and also ensured that the Black King would have to cross all eight ranks.


According to 365chess.com's opening explorer, 5. exd5 is the best capture, with an 83.3% win rate.


Why doesn't Promotion restrict choices to Queen and Knight only?

Sometimes, choosing a bishop or a rook is the best move, because of stalemate possibilities. This happens most often with rooks, and very rarely with bishops.

For instance, in this famous position from the Saavedra problem:

[FEN "8/2P5/8/8/3r4/8/2K5/k7 w - - 0 1"]

If white plays 1.c8Q, then black plays 1...Rc4+. White needs to take it or lose his queen but after 2.Qxc4 it is stalemate.

If instead white plays 1.c8R, the stalemate trick doesn't work and 2.Ra8+ with checkmate next move is threatened. So black must play 2...Ra4, but white plays 3.Kb3 attacking the rook and also threatening 4.Rc1 checkmate; black can't deal with both threats.

On Tim Krabbe's page on practical minor promotions I found this example from Kholmov-Ehlvest 1983:

[FEN "2k5/2P5/1K2p3/7r/8/8/7p/R7 b - - 0 1"]
[StartFlipped "0"]

(black to move)

White threatens to play Ra8+ and c8Q+. If black promotes to a queen with 1...h1Q, then that isn't enough for black to win: 2.Ra8+ Qxa8 is stalemate.
Promoting to a rook or knight clearly doesn't help black.

But after 1...h1B, the check doesn't work, black is simply a piece up and has a winning position.


Why taking the bishop with queen is better here?

Your queen then attacks the undefended white d-pawn.
Also, white is threatening Ne4 (attacking the black squared bishop), and after e.g. Bg7, taking on c5. If black took with the bishop, this would fork the white squared bishop on d7 and the undefended pawn on b7. If black took with the queen, black could simply take the d5 pawn and defend the b7 pawn while attacking the knight.


What are the symptoms of a weak back rank?

One of the most famous chess games ever. Both sides have back rank mates!

29...Qb2!! (0-1) wins the game for Black by back-rank mate

  http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1261680

None of the king-side pawns move
Both kings are behind the pawns and have no escape square
There are open-files on the board
Both side has a rook and a queen exploring the open files
No white rook on the back rank defending (the white rook is on the third rank)
The white queen is the only piece guarding the f1 square


Ideas behind the 8.Bd3 line in the 4.Ng5 Two Knights Defense

I think the main reason behind Bd3 is to provide a "safe" retreat for the knight and keeps to e-file open.  Both Nf3 and Nh3 have liabilities. A retreat to e4 also allow a further lose of time from f5, but this may be offset by black's LSB having less mobility.  The other option is Bf1, which while playable, also goes against basic opening principles.

Although this may apply here, paraphrasing Alekhine, to punish unconventional moves (Na5) you may have to play unconventional moves.


Can White engineer a winning breakthrough?

After 10 minutes, Stockfish says:

[FEN "r7/1kp2p2/1p1p3p/p2Pp1nP/P1R1PpP1/1PP2P2/4K3/R7 w - - 0 1"]

1.Rb1 c5 2.dxc6+ Kc7 3.b4 Ra7 4.Rb3 Ne6 5.Rb2 Ng5 6.Rb1 Ne6 7.b5 Ng5 8.Kf2 Ra8 9.Rd1 Ne6 10.Rd2 Nc5 11.Ke2 Ne6 12.Rd1 Rg8 13.Rc1 Ng5 14.Rh1 Ra8

...with the machine clearly not finding a plan. But what happens if we play a 'do nothing' move for Black's first move?

[FEN "r7/1kp2p2/1p1p3p/p2Pp1nP/P1R1PpP1/1PP2P2/4K3/R7 w - - 0 1"]

1.Rb1 f6 2.b4 Ra6 3.bxa5 Rxa5 4.Rb3 Ra8 5.Rcb4 Nf7 6.Ra3 Ra5 7.Rb5 Ka6 8.Ra1 Nd8 9.Kd3 Nf7 10.Rxa5+ Kxa5 11.Rb1 Ng5 12.Ke2 Ka6 13.Rb4 Ka7 14.Kf2 Nh7 15.Rb5 Ka6 16.Ke2 Ng5  (663.81)

White removes the Black Rook but then it gets pretty slow. Black's superb Knight and that weak f pawn are keeping Black in the game.

So what about the obvious 1.b4?

[FEN "r7/1kp2p2/1p1p3p/p2Pp1nP/P1R1PpP1/1PP2P2/4K3/R7 w - - 0 1"]

1.b4 f6 2.bxa5 Rxa5 3.Rb4 Rc5 4.Ra3 Ra5 5.Rb5 Ka6 6.Ra1 Nf7 7.c4 Nd8 8.Ra3 Nf7 9.Kd3 Ng5 10.Kd2 Nh3 11.Ra1 Ng5 12.Ke2 Nf7 13.Kf2 Nd8 14.Ke1 Nf7 15.Ra2 Ng5 16.Kf2 Nf7 17.Ra3

No dice.  Black looks solid.

From what I can see, Black holds.

EDIT

ALNS asked about this variation: 1.Rc6 Ne6! 2.g5 Nd8!? so I fired Stockfish back up.

I couldn't get past that hanging g-pawn, so the first variation is 1.Rc6 Ne6 2.g5. Stockfish used 4800 seconds on this (80 minutes).

[Title "1.Rc6 Ne6 2.g5"]
[fen "r7/1kp2p2/1p1p3p/p2Pp1nP/P1R1PpP1/1PP2P2/4K3/R7 w - - 0 1"]

1.Rc6 Ne6 2.g5 Nxg5 3.b4 Ne6 4.Rc4 Ng5 5.bxa5 Rxa5 6.Rb4 Nh7 7.Rbb1 Nf6 8.Kd3 Nxh5 9.Rh1 Nf6 10.Rxh6 Nd7 11.Rh8 Nc5+ 12.Kc4 Na6 13.Rf8 b5+ 14.Kb3 Nc5+ 15.Kb4 Rxa4+ 16.Rxa4 bxa4 17.Rh8 Kb6 18.Rh6 Kb7

So it's kinda sharp, but again it is hard to see how any progress will be made.  The position is rated .59 White's favor - the least favorable score for White for any variation we've discussed.

Now, on to the main variation 1.Rc6 Ne6 2.g5 Nd8

[Title "1.Rc6 Ne6 2.g5 Nd8"]
[fen "r7/1kp2p2/1p1p3p/p2Pp1nP/P1R1PpP1/1PP2P2/4K3/R7 w - - 0 1"]

1.Rc6 Ne6 2.g5 Nd8 3.Rc4 hxg5 4.h6 c5 5.h7 Nc6 6.dxc6+ Kxc6 7.Rh1 Rh8 8.Kf2 Kd7 9.Rh6 Ke7 10.Kg2 f6 11.Kf2 Ke6 12.Rh1 Ke7 13.Rh2 Ke6 14.Kg2 Kf7 15.Kf1 Ke7 16.Rh6 Kf7 17.Kf2

That's after almost 2 hours.  White is rated +3 and seems to be able to engineer a break on the Queenside. This is enough for a win. The Knight seems misplaced on d8.  I'd grab the pawn on g5 instead.

EDIT - ALNS has 2 more variations to look at

[Title "5... Ne6"]
[FEN "r7/1kp2p2/1p1p3p/p2Pp1nP/P1R1PpP1/1PP2P2/4K3/R7 w - - 0 1"]

1. Rc6 Ne6 2. g5 Nd8 3. Rc4 hxg5 4. h6 c5 5. h7 Ne6 6.dxe6 fxe6 7.Rh1 Rh8 8.Kd3 Kc7 9.b4 Kd7 10.bxa5 bxa5 11.Ke2 Kc6 12.Kd2 Kd7 13.Kd3 Ke8 14.Ke2 Kf7 15.Rd1 Rxh7 16.Rxd6 Rh2+ 17.Kf1 g4 18.fxg4 Ke7 19.Rc6 Kf6 20.R4xc5 Kg5 21.Rxe5+ Kxg4 22.Rcxe6 Kf3 23.Kg1 Rg2+ 24.Kh1 Rc2 25.Rxa5 Rxc3 26.Rf5 Rc1+ 27.Kh2

With, after several hours of processing, a healthy score of +7.5 in White's favor. Black is dead lost. I like to add complete variations to these threads, but all these moves are suspect after moves 4 or 5. In this variation, Black captures the pawn on h7 but in doing so allows White to run amok.  I don't care much for the Knight sacrifice; holding when down a full Rook is tough.

edit - 8.Kd3 is a killer move. Black can get the Rook with 8... d5 but after 9.Re4 dxe4 10. Kxe4 Black's king-side pawns all drop.

[Title "5. dxc6"]
[FEN "r7/1kp2p2/1p1p3p/p2Pp1nP/P1R1PpP1/1PP2P2/4K3/R7 w - - 0 1"]

1.Rc6 Ne6 2.g5 Nd8 3.Rc4 hxg5 4.h6 c5 5.dxc6 Nxc6 6.Rd1 Kc7 7.b4 Kd7 8.bxa5 Rxa5 9.h7 Ra8 10.Rb1 Kc7 11.Rh1 Rh8 12.Rh5 Kd7 13.Kd3 f6 14.Rh6 Kc7 15.Ke2 Kd7 16.Rh5 Kc7 17.Rh2 Kd7 18.Kd3 Kc7 19.Rh1 Kd7  (10405.71)

This comes up as +2.2 for White.  I don't like this because it allows the misplaced Knight on d8 to reposition with tempo. The simpler 5. h7 puts the pressure on Black and wins the Knight and then the game per the previous diagram.

EDIT
This is in regards to the "White King Infiltrates" variation mentioned in the OP's post.

[title "Infiltration"]
[FEN "r7/1kp2p2/1p1p3p/p2Pp1nP/P1R1PpP1/1PP2P2/4K3/R7 w - - 0 1"]

1.b4 c5 2.dxc6+ Kc7 3. bxa5?!+= (3.Rc1 Ne6 4.b5 Rg8 5.Rb1 Re8 6.Ra1 Ra8 7.Rd1 Rd8 8.Kf1 Ra8 9.Rd2 Nc5 10.Kf2 Ne6 11.Ke2 Rd8 12.Kf1 Ra8 13.Kf2 Nc5 14.Ke2 Ne6 15.Rb2 Rh8 16.Kf1 Rh7 17.Kf2 Nc5 18.Rd2 Rh8+/-) 3... bxa5 4. Rb1 Ra7 5.Kf2 Ne6 6. Kg2 Ng5 7.Rb5 f6 8. Rb1 Ne6?! ( 8...Nh7 9.Kf1 Ng5 10.Ke2 Ne6 11.Rb5 Ng5 12.Rb2 Ne6 13.Rd2 Ra8 14.Rd5 Ng5 15.Kf2 Nh3+ 16.Ke1 Ng1 17.Rd3 Nh3 18.Rd1 Ng5 19.Rb1 Ra7 20.Ke2+/-) 9. g5 Nxg5?! (9...fxg5 10.Kh3 Nc5 11.Kg4+/-) 10.Rb5 Ne6 11. Kh3 Nc5?? (11...Ng5+ 12.Kg4 Nh7 13.Kf5 Ng5 14.Kxf6 Nxf3 15.Rb2 Ng5 16.Kg7 f3 17.Kxh6 Ne6 18.Rb1 Nf4 19.Kg5+/-)

The variations show a significant deviation from what Stockfish thought was best. All variations except for the last indicate a move that loses perhaps a pawn. Black's 11th move is fatal, however.  The associated variation shows White with a moderate advantage.  Black can make White work for it.

FINAL EDIT

Here's Stockfish playing itself at 15 minutes per move.

[title "Granite is tasty"]
[FEN "r7/1kp2p2/1p1p3p/p2Pp1nP/P1R1PpP1/1PP2P2/4K3/R7 w - - 0 1"]

1.Rc6 Ne6 2.Kf1 f6 3.b4 Nd8 4.Rc4 Kc8 5.Kf2 Kd7 6.Rc1 Nf7 7.Ke2 Ra7 8.Rc2
Ra8 9.Ra2 Ra7 10.Ra1 Ra8 11.Kf1 Nd8 12.Ra2 Nf7 13.Kf2 Ra7 14.Ra1 Ra8 15.
Ke2 Nd8 16.Kd3 Nf7 17.Ra2 Ng5 18.Ke2 Nf7 19.Ra3 Nd8 20.Kf2 Nb7 21.Ra2 Nd8
22.Rc2 Nf7 23.Rc1 Ng5 24.Rc6 Nf7 25.Ke2 Nd8 26.Rc4 Nf7 27.Rc2 Kc8 28.Ke1 *

...with White clearly not finding a break-through. Black holds, thanks to that magnificent Knight... and White's Rook being bottled up.


What chess book or teaching approach is this from my childhood?

You can make it up yourself as you go along. You already know that chess is better learned with as few pieces on the board as possible, which puts you way ahead of the people who want to teach newcomers with all 32 units.
At the first meeting of a 10- or 12-week class, I teach the kids a game with eight white pawns and the black queen. If a pawn reaches the 8th rank (unlike chess, it doesn't have to survive the 'promotion'), the pawns win. If the queen gobbles all the pawns or blocks the last pawn remaining, the queen wins.
Some kids never get past that, but they get to enjoy the play time instead of struggling with chess, and the great thing about it is that it's an equalizer. I lose some of those games, and unlike chess, when I talk about why I'm making this move or that, the kids understand.


I have an unusual chess set and am seeking advice

Amazon, ebay, and top local online shop in your country


What are white's plans in this Scotch Gambit position?

you next moves as white will be 7. Ng5..  and you will activate your Queen - dependig of the Blacks move it may be 8.Qf3 or 8.Qd5

Attack the King and use weakness for f7

Some exmaples:

[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3 6.O-O cxb2 7. Bxb2 Nge7 8. Ng5 O-O 9. Qh5

or:

[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3 6.O-O cxb2 7. Bxb2 Bf8 8. Qd5

7. ... Nf6

[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3 6.O-O cxb2 7. Bxb2 Nf6. 8. e5

or

[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3 6.O-O cxb2 7. Bxb2 Nf6. 8. Ng5

7. ... f6

[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3 6.O-O cxb2 7. Bxb2 f6. 8. Qd5


How to set threads number for Stockfish?

Read http://support.stockfishchess.org/kb/advanced-topics/uci-protocol

setoption name Threads value 4


Are a pair of bishops of the same colour usually worth less than a pair of bishops of different colours?

Two same-colored bishops can, as you note, protect each other. And unlike two knights, they can keep protecting each other indefinitely, even if one has to move. But that doesn't overcome their drawbacks.

The power of the two bishops is often because one can reach the squares the other cannot. With a mostly empty board, one of the two bishops can often control any square on the chessboard in one move. But if the two bishops are the same color, they lose this property. The two same-colored bishops can't do much that one bishop couldn't do, and really can't do much that a bishop plus another minor piece couldn't do.

As you noted, the two same-colored bishops cannot checkmate the opponent's king. There are other situations which also become draws if one side has two bishops of the same color instead of two different bishops. Bare king vs. two same colored-bishops and a rook pawn where the queening square is the wrong color is a draw. Two same-colored bishops and a pawn vs an opposite colored bishop is also an easy draw (there's no way to prevent the bishop from simply exchanging itself for the pawn.)

If you have a situation where you have two bishops vs bishop and knight (with some pawns on the board), then if you can arrange for a particular bishop to exchange itself for the knight, you can control whether or not the endgame will be a drawish opposite-colored bishops endgame. But if the two bishops are the same color, that option is not available; the bishops either are or aren't the same color as the opponent's.


Expanding on RemcoGerlich's comment...

Beginners often overestimate the importance of opening theory. If your rating is below around 2000 or even somewhat above) it is perfectly possible to get by with a very rudimentary knowledge of opnenings. It is unlikely that you lose many games because of the opening. All of your mentioned openings tend to go for closed positions and are not full of tactics or traps that you can fall into. It is much more likely that you lose for other reasons than lack of opening repertoire.

Much more important is being good at tactics and having a good positional understanding, knowing the typical plans in certain pawn structures. The first part tactics is easy to train by repetition solving puzzles. The second aspect (positional understanding( is harder and requires time. I recommend to read through annotated games or (nowadays) watch commented games of which you find plenty on chess24, chess.com, youtube, etc.

Once you have a decent understanding of plans and positional play, learning openings will make much more sense because you will understand why a certain move is  made and also what to do if your opponent makes a non-standard move that is not in your repertoire.

Most definitely you don't want to learn openings by heart without understanding the ideas behind them.


What openings typify 21st century chess?

Here are a few openings that seem to be played more often in the last decade than previously.  This is just based on my recollection, so please correct any errors or add any other openings.

Catalan Opening
The last few major matches have all featured the Catalan: Anand-Topalov, as well as the candidates matches leading up to the World Championship 2012. The Grandmaster Repertoire by Boris Avrukh has also contributed to the recent popularity.
Berlin Wall
Kramnik brought this opening to the forefront when he used it with devastating effect against Kasparov.  The queen-less middlegame has been deeply studied since the match in 2000.  This line is partially responsible for the rise of 1. d4 and the fall of 1. e4 in the last decade.
Grünfeld Defense
While the Grünfeld was played fairly consistently throughout the 20th century, only recently has it become the main weapon for black when playing for a win against 1. d4.  The Grünfeld doesn't surrender the center like the King's Indian Defense, and it has become more popular the more it is studied, as opposed to the Nimzo-Indian which has fallen by the wayside as the Qc2 lines have been examined.

Other openings that have been featured in high level games have been the Slav Defense and, as always, the Sicilian.  I omitted these openings because, while new lines are always being developed, these openings have been popular consistently for a long time.

Additionally, as I mentioned in my comment, some gambits have also seen a revival.  The Morra Gambit, for instance, has come back to high level play and several books about it have been written.  The Evan's Gambit is another opening played at all levels.


No, it does not have a name. For a list of the names of most common patterns, Wikipedia has a good article here.


We can't know the truth. Lasker is dead and he's the only one who knows if he really played like that intentionally. We can create an absolutely perfect analysis of his games and still never know if he intentionally played a bad move that happened to work out in a particular game or whether he just made a mistake and didn't get punished for it.

Good moves will beat psychology every time, but even so there exists ample evidence to support the idea that sometimes moves that are less than perfect will win games because they fit in with the psychological moment.

My own opinion? I think Reti invented that as an excuse to cover the fact Lasker was making moves he (Reti) couldn't fathom. Not that Lasker never played the man instead of the board, but that he didn't do it as often as Reti would like us to think he did.


EDIT:

Few other points raised in http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=32317.

GPU not so good for recursion
GPU not so good for floating
GPU might work better for new machine-learning approach, but not the traditional engine algorithms

Original:

@Maxwell86 has already given excellent links and resources. Pay attention to the zeta-chess engine. It's a GPU chess engine. Unfortunately, GPU has not proven its usefulness in chess programming. In fact, the zeta chess engine project went absolutely nowhere.

GPU works very well on floating calculations and algorithms that can be paralleled. This requires independence. But if we look at a typical min-max (or alpha-beta) tree (used by every chess engine )

The right branch depends on the left branch. In particular, if we can get a cutoff (fail-high), we wouldn't even need to search the remaining nodes. Unfortunately, this is not something that a GPU can do efficiently. It's possible to write a GPU program for alpha-beta, but the GPU threads (known as kernels) will need to be paused to wait. Unlike a CPU, a GPU kennel can't just switch to something else ( a process known as thread-switch or even process-switch).

Our existing algorithm and engine knowledge was derived for the CPU world. The entire algorithm would need to be reinvestigated for the GPU. Unfortunately, there is not much interest and research on it.


Is there a horizontally mirrored London System, and what is it called?

The answer is no since f3 would never be played there by any strong player as it is weakening, but has no compensating advantages.

That is very close to some virtually-impossible-to-get-to lines in the Bishop's Opening/Vienna game since unlike the queen-pawn London, black has many more ways to throw a wrench into the attempt to play moves without thinking. In an idea world where black cooperates, in the Bishops's, white can try to play for that setup, but would  play f4, which has the advantage of attacking the black center, and opening the f-file.

You can see from this contrived variation that black has many better options, and is not likely to just submit to white's desire to play a London on the kingside. In no case would f3 be good.

  [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nc3 Be7 (4... Na5 $1 {Blows up the whole idea. }) (4... Bc5 $1 5. Nge2 d6 6. O-O a6 7. Kh1 $2 Ng4 {So it is impossible to get in f4 here.}) 5. Nge2 d6 6. O-O (6. a3 $1) 6... O-O 7. f4 (7. a3 $1)

.

 [fen "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/2B1P3/2NP1P2/PPP1N1PP/R1BQK2R w KQ - 0 1"]

.


It's actually a less flexible move order. The bishop will go to g7 in either case, but now black can't go ...d5 in one go. Only play this if you want to put the bishop on e7 (the Old Indian Defense)


There was there match in the 2017 chess.com speed chess championship final, but I think that it has to do with Carlsen mainly playing on chess24 and lichess while Hikaru plays on chess.com(mainly). This is not to say that Hikaru tries to avoid playing Carlsen in general as they both had huge fighting games together. An example I can give is their game from the London Chess Classics 2017.


QGD :: should Black fiancheto his King's Bishop?

The main reason why Black tends not to fianchetto in this position is because she has already played ...e6, which in conjunction with playing ...g6 to develop the bishop, unnecessarily weakens the dark squares on the black kingside without gaining anything; instead ...e6 has wasted a tempo that could otherwise be saved, and potentially hindered development of the other bishop. In other words, if Black is about to spend a move playing ...g6 to develop the kingside, it is better to wait on spending a move on the e-pawn.

Now it's true that, having played 1...d5 to start, the move ...e6 serves a purpose of reinforcing the pawn on d5. But this comes at the costs described above. That's why, if Black wants to fianchetto, she instead usually avoids an immediate 1...d5 and opts for things like the Gruenfeld or the King's Indian, moving straight ahead with that scheme of development, and pushing one way or another in the center after other things are clearer.

Consider a mainline King's Indian:

    [FEN ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 e5

Note that Black has here gotten in ...e5 in one fell swoop. And in a Gruenfeld, 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5, Black has played ...d5 but intends to get away without a reinforcing ...e6 move, instead playing for piece play against White's center.


From the computer list of the Crazyhouse Chess Variant Association:

Sjeng
KKFchess
Pulsar
Nebiyu Alien
Imortal
Sjaak
TJchess
TSCP zh
Sunsetter
CrazyWa

And aside from that there is the multi-variant Stockfish that plays Crazyhouse.

And Crazyhouse by nathanlo99


For example 3|2 means each player starts with 3 minutes and gets 2 seconds added to the clock for making a move (this is called an "increment").
When there is no "|", you do not get any time for making a move, and each player gets the displayed time in minutes at the start of the game.
Another notation you might see uses a "+", for example 3+2.


Why is this gambit also known as the Maltese Falcon Gambit?

Humphrey Bogart was known to play this opening on a regular basis. Here is one of the recorded games with him playing the opening. One of Bogart's most famous movies is The Maltese Falcon, thus the Maltese Falcon Gambit or Attack.


Why are USCF quick ratings lower than USCF regular ratings?

This may be partially due to ratings floors.

When a player hits his rating floor, his rating cannot go lower if he loses, but his opponent's rating can still go higher.  This adds ratings points into the system.

There is an absolute rating floor of 100 which nobody can go below. (For every event you play in and quarter-point you win over the board, this is raised by 1, to a maximum of 150.) Rating floors exist at every 100 points from 1200 to 2100, and these can be achieved by getting a rating at least 200 points above the floor. There's a rating floor at 2200 which can be earned by getting the Original Life Master title. And finally, if a player earns $4000 or more in an under-2000 section, their rating floor is set high enough so they become ineligible to win the prize again.

Regular and quick ratings both have ratings floors, but they are independent from each other. Most events with very large prizes are probably not quick-rated. And I don't think the Original Life Master title can be earned with a quick rating. This probably means that fewer people are at a floor with their quick rating, and that if they are, the floor is lower than it might otherwise be.

To add rating points to the system, it is insufficient for a player to simply be at the floor - he must actually play games.  I would hypothesize that more regular-rated games are played than quick-rated games, especially at the 1200+ level where floors come into play.  I would also hypothesize that older players are more likely to be at a floor (because they won a large prize sometime on their life, because they once managed to raise their rating beyond its ordinary level, or because their skills are not what they once were) and that older players in particular play more regular games than quick games.

And if younger people play relatively more quick games, that may be another reason why quick ratings are lower.  Younger players are more likely to start with a very low rating but be rapidly improving.  When a player's ability improves, his rating lags behind, and his opponents will tend to lose rating points.  This tends to have a deflationary effect on ratings.


The first thing is that you should have a general idea where your play is, whether on the queenside, center, or kingside. Your plan as to where your place your pieces, and how you open that part of the board is going to be based on the opening pawn structure.

If it is later in the game, you want to try to figure out where the opponent is weakest. From there, you want to figure out which of your pieces you can aim at that weakness. This is called "planning".

From there, you have to analyze the best order of moves to move your pieces to attack that weakness, while taking into account your own weaknesses, knowing that your opponent will be trying to do the same to you. Sometimes, you have to just wait and defend if you are much worse.

A lot of this is intuitive based on your level of play, but from there, you just have to calculate variations.

Lastly, as I have gotten older, and tend to miss obvious things more, I like to look at every possible move for both sides, no matter how absurd a move seems. I am not analyzing them, but sometimes, it is just that simple consideration of a move that makes me see a tactic I might have missed, or a mistake I am about to make. I am only talking about spending seconds total looking at all the moves.

Mark Dvoretsky and Artur Yusupov, and I think I have seen other strong GMs say it, say that most calculation errors happen in the first couple of moves.


Recommended mobile app or website to memorize openings?

Chess PGN Master and pgnmentor.com are how I study openings. Download one of the large PGN files on the opening you want to learn, open it up with the viewer and autoplay through games during your downtime. I tend to stick to the games of only the players I recognize so that I am not learning from 1300s (there are a ton of high-level games in each file). This is great for learning the common themes of an opening. You don't have to understand every move but sometimes I will pause it and try to work out a particular tactic.

To memorize specific lines, I make openings files in Chessbase built from the games of today's top players (I consider anything that a 2600+ FIDE has played and my computer doesn't immediately hate to be playable for me). I then play through them, forcing myself to remember the options available for each side in the position before I make the next move.

As others have mentioned, focusing on openings is not going to help you improve very much below maybe 2000 FIDE. However, the first method I described can be used to improve at any level-you can retrieve all of the games of a great player (I started with Capablanca) and watch their moves zip past. This in my opinion is the best way to learn pawn structures. Jeremy Silman has recommended this method (though not this specific configuration) many times in his chess.com articles.


I was in London two weeks ago, and attended a causal chess club in the central London.

http://casualchess.org/

It was a quiet pub, and the environment was good. What made it special was that it had a number of woman chess players. I tested my skills against those females.

As a FIDE 1800-1900 player, you will find yourself beating everybody there.


Outsmarting an intelligent copycat in the Ultrasymmetrical English

In general, the best way to prevent Black from copying you is to go for the d4 push.  If you play the e3 system, it is indeed very easy for Black to equalize with no problems at all.

It's best to go for the main line with 1. c4, 2. Nc3, 3. g3, 4. Bg2, 5. Nf3, 6. 0-0.  If Black copies you up to castling, then you immediately go for 7. d4! with a slight edge.  If Black plays 6...d5 instead of castling on the 6th move, then you just take on d5.  Black's now playing the position you would have had with 7. d4, just a tempo down.  This tends to allow you to pressure Black with Qb3 / Qa4 ideas, combined with pressure on the g2 - a8 diagonal from your Bishop.

In any case, in this line both options for Black (copying you up until castling and playing d5 first) lead to asymmetrical positions that should be marginally better for you.  But most importantly, they are not dead equal like the line you demonstrated above.


Can engines use the current pawn structure to refine its search/eval?

Something very similar is doubtless encoded into AlphaZero and Leela's neural network evaluators, which are very positional.  Most conventional Minimax engines, by contrast, are stronger at tactics and can therefore search very deeply.

Pawn structure is indeed a factor in most of the top engines' evaluation.  This might take the relatively simple form of rewarding connected pawns and penalising isolated and doubled pawns.  The pawn bitboards are mainly a means of recognising when the pawn structure changes (which happens relatively infrequently once established) and recalculating that factor of the evaluation, thereby saving some calculation time.

However, the pawn structure does not directly lead to the bishop mobility analysis you note in your first example.  This would be deferred to threat and control maps, which would put any of the bishop's legal moves low on the priority list for further analysis, since they leave the bishop on a threatened square with no support.


Why does chess.com's tactics player avoid taking the queen in this problem?


First known computer-found error in expert chess analysis

In the early eighties, the evaluation of the two bishops vs knight endgame was changed thanks to computer-assisted analysis.

Previously, that endgame was thought to be a draw, but now we know the bishops can force a win.

I don't know if this is the earliest instance, but it's definiely a quite old one


The answers to your two questions are related.

Fianchettoing a bishop allows the bishop to attack the center from the sidelines, from the second rank. Normally the bishops would have to go to the fourth rank (c4, f4 for white) or the fifth rank (b5 or g5 for white) pinning an enemy knight to have an influence on the center.

If you are going to play a classical opening with d4 or e4 (as white) then you probably want to develop your bishops classically as well to the 4th or 5th ranks, although you can still fianchetto them if you want.

If you are going to play a hyper-modern opening (Reti, Kings Indian, Pirc, etc.) where you cede the center to your opponent (don't challenge your opponent's central pawn moves with your own central pawn moves) then fianchettoing becomes much more important in the fight for control of the center. Not only will the bishop help you fight for the center but the pawn on b3 or g3 (for white) will help you with a further pawn break like c4 or f4 to undermine the opponent's center.

As a defensive move, fianchettoing the bishop on the side where you castle is not so straightforward. It creates weaknesses as well as strengths. If your opponent can force an exchange of the bishop you will be left with weak holes on f3 and h3 (for white kingside castling and fianchetto) and your pawn on g3 can be a target for an aggressive opponent to rapidly push his h pawn to try and embarrass you.


LEAP PQ9912 Chess Timer - count up option

I honestly don't know either, but as far as I can tell (and if someone else can verify this for me that would be great), this is essentially the same clock as the Wholesale Chess Advanced Digital Timer, except in blue.  If you google that clock and look at pictures, they seem identical, including having the same description of the various modes on the bottom of the clock, laid out in an identical format.  The on/off switch is located in the same place, both clocks have the same shape and the same buttons, and the same modes as far as I can tell (I did not do a mode-by-mode comparison, but they both have 38 pre-defined modes, one user-defined mode numbered 00, and they both allow you to save changes to a single pre-defined mode, labeled F).  Anyway, the Wholesale clock does not seem to have a count-up timer, so I strongly suspect this one does not either.


How computers have changed the way humans play chess

Computers allowed the creation of endgame tables, which allow the user to know with 100% certainty if a position can be won, and how to do it. Currently all positions containing 7 or fewer pieces are 100% known.  I am unaware of any opening line busted by computers.
Not that I know of, but computers do find answers to some hard questions. So while computers don't change the principles, they can surely change the evaluation of specific positions. For example, it is common for computers to find flaws in pre-computer chess books, even books held in high regard.
No. Grandmasters use computers as a training aid, however.


Why don't we see more Kings Indian Defenses in top level chess?

It is simply not as solid as other openings, mostly because it cedes too much space, and especially with the advent of computers: White has simply found more ways to press black.

In a 2017 interview, Magnus Carlsen did not think too highly of it.
"If he had wanted a worse position, he would have played the King’s Indian," Carlsen said.

Nevertheless, it still gets played at the highest level from time to time, probably mostly as a surprise weapon. Here is a recent search of Mega 2020 (I previously searched incorrectly, and have edited this). This is from 2015-2020, sorted by rating first, and then date. You can see that despite the quote above, even Carlsen has played it.


Has anyone other than GM Axel Smith and GM Hans Tikkanen had success improving their chess through the "Woodpecker Method"?

In the chapter Woodpecker History from the book The Woodpecker Method, Hans Tikkanen says this:

  I was obviously asked by many people about what I had done to finally
  take the step from IM to GM. I described the method and my rationale
  for adopting it, and several others decided to give it a go. One
  Swedish trainer has apparently invited his students in the north of
  our country to work dedicatedly on the method for a while.

But, tantalisingly, he does not name names.


Is this continuation of D85, Gruenfeld Defence, Exchange Variation, tenable?

I have little idea about the Gruenfeld (hopefully someone who is more familiar or a better player than I am can give a more complete answer), but a few points you may have overlooked:

After 1...Bg4 2.f3, as you say the pawn structure is marginally weaker, but there's also a bigger problem of how white will develop the g1-knight. Nf3 is now impossible, Nh3 looks bad and if black's bishop stays on the c8-h3 diagonal he can then give white doubled h-pawns. Ne2 might look plausible,  but there's then a problem of how to move the knight from there. c3 and d4 can't be reached without a move vacating that square first, which will probably require other preparations as well, Nf4 too soon is dangerous as it could force white to make even more concessions in pawn structure if Bh6 is allowed, pinning the knight to the queen. Finally, g3 is a poor spot for the knight as the g6-pawn takes away two future squares and e4 is already being taken up by a pawn.
In grandmaster praxis, a draw with black is a respectable result, and trading off the bishops after 1...Bg4 2.Be2 gets black somewhat closer to this result.
1...Bg4 2.Nf3 gives white doubled pawns after the exchange, and the half-open file that results isn't that useful as it faces onto a reinforced pawn. It also leaves the knight on e2 (assuming white does not want to lose castling rights or lose the d4 pawn) with the same problems as mentioned above.


The Knight is stronger in Rapid/Blitz than it is in classical time controls. How many centipawns does the Knight gain in Rapid and in Blitz?

The Knight is not stronger in blitz, such a statement is nonsense.

It is you that are weaker at calculating at blitz, and the Knight is simply more difficult to handle with less time to calculate due to the kind of moves you can make with it.

So it's matter of how your brain handles Knights nothing intrinsic in the Knight.


What motivates you to play chess and continuously get better at it?

There are 4 motivations to playing the game, which will vary by person:

Aesthetic appeal: Some players are motivated by compositions where paradoxical moves are required. Others are motivated by sweeping combinations or profound ideas. Recall the feeling that you had the first time you saw a smothered mate. This is the aesthetic motivation
Competitive struggle: Some people are motivated to win, to show their supremacy at the board. Or they are motivated to show their fighting spirit or tenacious defensive abilities against strong opposition. They might be motivated to win a trophy or prize money. These are the kinds of people who see chess as a sport primarily
Personal improvement: For myself, I was drawn to chess because I wanted to improve my concentration. Others are drawn because they want to develop a way to think logically that they can apply elsewhere in their lives. Others do it to develop their memory
Fun: Contrary to your post, many people just play for the fun of it! For example, when I held a chess club in my workplace during lunch, people sacrificed liberally, took big risks and (heaven forbid) had a chat whilst playing!

Each person is likely to have a combination of these motivations.


As I have understood it on Spanish yes, there is a difference. Strategy is a top level term for almost everything in chess that is not tactics.
Take in consider the definition you provide for strategy also creates a separated field for endgames:

Chess strategy can be defined as the creation of long term plans that will dictate your next several moves. In order to achieve these plans, you can argue that the chess player will resort to either positional, tactical or endgame devices.
Blog post about Chess Strategy.

Endgames are also strategy, but usually they are not positional.
Conversely, positional chess use to take place when pieces are on the board, either at opening either at middlegame.


FIDE Online Arena: what specifically determines bullet, blitz, rapid, and unmonitored time controls?

According to FIDE:

Blitz: <= 10 minutes

Rapid: > 10 minutes and <= 60 minutes

Source: http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=171&view=article (See appendices)

According to Wikipedia and many online chess platforms:

Bullet: < 3 minutes

Blitz: >= 3 minutes and < 10 minutes

Rapid: > 10 minutes and <= 60 minutes

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_chess


I recommend to play Stonewall Dutch, quite closed, yet quite active.

[Event "Stonewall Dutch"]
[Site ""]
[Date ""]
[Round ""]
[White ""]
[Black ""]
[Result ""]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. d4 f5 2. c4 Nf6 3. g3 e6 4. Bg2 Be7 5. Nf3 O-O 6. O-O d5 7. Nc3 c6


I can recommend The Attacking Manual.

From the Quality Chess homepage: "British Champion Jacob Aagaard explains the rules of attack (the exploitation of a dynamic advantage) in an accessible and entertaining style. This groundbreaking work is well balanced between easily understandable examples, exercises and deep analysis."

To benefit from this book you should be an advanced player, maybe 1900 Elo or above.

The Attacking Manual contains explicit exercises. An alternative is to just play through dynamic games from a book and try to guess the next move. For example you could search the game on chessgames.com or on chessbase, make sure you can't see the moves and then go through it until you find an interesting position. Then you calculate and write down all your variations. Afterwards you go back to the book and find out how accurate your reasoning was.

Books with great dynamic chess are Life and Games of Mikhael Tal, Storming the barricades or Fire on Board.


When it comes to maneuvering pieces to an enemy's king in a position, the following famous game with a king walk comes to my mind. The position isn't quite closed, but it does illustrate an attacking theme of walking the king across the board to a castled king. It has been nicknamed "A Long Walk Off a Short Peer" by chessgames.com.
[Title "Nigel Short-Jan Timman, Interpolis 15th, Tiligribg Netherlands, 1991"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. Nf3 g6 5. Bc4 Nb6 6. Bb3 Bg7 7. Qe2 Nc6 8. O-O O-O 9. h3 a5 10. a4 dxe5 11. dxe5 Nd4 12. Nxd4 Qxd4 13. Re1 e6 14. Nd2 Nd5 15. Nf3 Qc5 16. Qe4 Qb4 17. Bc4 Nb6 18. b3 Nxc4 19. bxc4 Re8 20. Rd1 Qc5 21. Qh4 b6 22. Be3 Qc6 23. Bh6 Bh8 24. Rd8 Bb7 25. Rad1 Bg7 26. R8d7 Rf8 27. Bxg7 Kxg7 28. R1d4 Rae8 29. Qf6+ Kg8 30. h4 h5 31. Kh2 Rc8 32. Kg3 Rce8 33. Kf4 Bc8 34. Kg5


Early line in english opening not in the chessbase powerbook 2019 but seen by stockfish 10 64bits under latest fritz

I also have PowerBook 2019, and Stockfish 10, and I can confirm what you found, but there is an explanation.

The moves suggested in the PowerBook are from actual human games. They are intended, specifically, to give the computer a human opening book, rather than it just playing on its own. You will find these games in the database Powergames2019 that came with the product.

This goes back to the old days, when computers were not as strong as they are today. It was then beneficial to have a human opening book. Today, one could make the argument that it is not so necessary.

P.S. For the record, Masters have a natural proclivity not to block the c-pawn, either as white or black in closed openings since you need to play c5 so often to try and free your game. That is the reason the Chigorin is not so popular.


Is there a name for the a position where King is on the first/last row and an enemy pawn is directly in front?

There is no explicit name for this position, but it is known that the pawn can act as a line of defense for the king. Its presence can obstruct the other side from creating a path towards the king as the pawn cannot be easily targeted.


Disallow opponent from offering draw on lichess

You can't. You can disable takebacks though. If you don't play games long enough with enough time to read what is being asked, perhaps you should accept mouseslips as part of the game.


No, black could not have taken the queen. Taking the queen would put black's king into check, which is not legal. Black cannot take the knight either because black's king would still be in check.


What's the best chess tactics trainer on the web?

chesstempo.com.
free
tactics gets harder as your tactics rating increases
can play standard or blitz tactics (rating adjustment dependent on time took or independent)


A variant in the French defence advance variation

Actually, the GM who taught me (Vladimir Kosyrev) plays c4! closing the structure then Na5 then Bd7 then Nb3, after Nxb3, you pin the N on b3 with Ba4! and you can leave the pin until the queen moves, of course castle long and f5 to break through on the king side

[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. a3 c4 7. Nbd2 Na5! 8. g3 Bd7 9. Bg2 Nb3 10. Nxb3 Ba4!

Feel free to look up Vladimir Kosyrevs french games in this position after 6... c4!


Assuming you mean Scid vs Pc what I do is click on the "flip board" icon - second from right - and then choose the engine from the "Play" menu. It automatically starts playing for white.


Is it legal to record moves that have not yet been played?

Well, it isn't legal for two reasons,

One, lets say that the opponent gave you an handshake. That would mean that the recorded moves are null, and it may cause some troubles with the arbiters.

Two, Article 8.1:

  In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves
  and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as
  clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix
  C), on the score sheet prescribed for the competition. It is forbidden
  to write the moves in advance, unless the player is claiming a draw
  according to Article 9.2 or 9.3 or adjourning a game according to the
  Guidelines of Adjourned Games point 1.a.. A player may reply to his
  opponent’s move before recording it, if he so wishes. He must record
  his previous move before making another. Both players must record the
  offer of a draw on the score sheet. (Appendix C.13) If a player is
  unable to keep score, an assistant, who must be acceptable to the
  arbiter, may be provided by the player to write the moves. His clock
  shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way

Note especially the:

  It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless the player is
  claiming a draw according to Article 9.2 or 9.3 or adjourning a game
  according to the Guidelines of Adjourned Games point 1.a..

You can find the rulebook here.


Even after mugging up infinite opening lines and countless endgame positions, we can still be mediocre chess players, if we don't understand the underlying principles and strategies. Human memory is limited. You are bound to forget opening lines. Trying to play by memory alone beyond move 5-10 can lead to disastrous consequences.

Chess has so many combinations that even if you know 100 variations of a particular opening, the opponent will play the 101st one. Now, the best line of defence is to think something like - "I haven't seen this variation before. But I have seen similar ones. In those, the motivation was to gain a powerful pawn center. Here, my opponent is trying to dismantle my pawn centre. What should I do? He is doing so by compromising his own pawn structure. So should I go for the pawn exchange? By the way, his last pawn move leaves his knight unguarded. Shall I attack it?"


King's Indian defense: When is Nh5 the better option to prepare f5

The reason for playing ...Nh5 is to have the option of playing ...Nf4, where ...exf4 would unleash his usually bad KID bishop. Case in point is the Bayonet Attack:

[FEN ""]
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "?"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
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

The main move is 9...Nh5, where in some lines black plays for ...Nf4, where a move like Bxf4 would be made worse by the fact that the absence of the b2 pawn gives even more potential to black's dark-squared bishop.

Your suspicion that the Nh5 can be loose is correct; note that in the line you describe, black needs to play ...Qe8 before going for ...f5, but on the other hand, 7...Nh5 disturbs white's position, as immediately developing the f1 bishop runs into 8...Nf4.

Generally, black would prefer ...Nh5 because it's more active; when it's not possible (say in the main line after 9.Ne1), ...Nd7 works to slow down white's c5, and ...Ne8 allows it, but can defend d6 and c7 (which can be important as white often goes for c5, cxd6, Nb5, Nc4 and Rc1).

Anyway, the differences between each choice of knight move are theoretically rather subtle, as you often find the knight moving back into f6; that said, picking the 'wrong' square gives white the option of changing his plan. In other words, one could probably argue, in some sense, that you don't pick the option that is favorable, but rather eliminate those that are not.

For example, back to the Bayonet Attack, after the main move 9...Nh5, white plays 10.Re1 to meet 10...Nf4 with 11.Bf1, and now 11...f5 runs into 12.Bxf4 and 13.e5. So the main line runs 10...f5 11.Ng5, and black can go for 11...Nf4 here, but it's not clearly favorable to 11...Nf6 (which is in fact the main move; ...Nf4 is considered a serious alternative). That said, 9...Nd7 is considered inaccurate, and white can attempt to highlight this with 10.a4, and simply carry on with his queenside attack (10.Nd2, which transposes to positions reached through 9.Nd2, sort of lets black off the hook, as white had no immediate motivation to move his king's knight, as black is not 'threatening' 10...Nh5)

A theoretical note: the immediate 9.Ne1 and 9.Nd2 were the old main lines as white wanted to stop 9...Nh5; the modern Bayonet Attack argues that white can allow it.


Capture towards the center vs. undoubling

In this particular position both ...ab6 and ...cb6 are reasonable.

Generally speaking I would prefer to take toward the center because the doubled pawns are not weak at all when they have neighbours and the enhanced control of the center might prove useful.

Here however ab6 has the minus that it allows White counterplay thanks to the outside passed pawn after a4-a5.

The evaluation of this position will depend on Black breaking through or not on the kingside, with ...Rf3 or ...g4. My intuition is that White should be able to hold. If that's correct, the best choice might very well be to limit counterplay with 1...cb6. But once again, this is merely due to the specifics of this particular position, and not because undoubling would be better than taking toward the center in general.


1...Qb2 is not a legal move because black is in check; 1...Rc6 blocks the check. Another alternative to block the check is 1...Qc6, but that would drop the knight on d3.

[FEN "k1r4r/p6p/5p2/3Q4/1R5P/PPqn4/3N1P2/1K1R4 b - - 1 1"]

1... Rc6 (1... Qc6 2. Qxd3)


Is there a binary of Scid vs Mac which works on macOS Mojave?

Your question is pretty old. Did you succeeded to resolve your problem? I am running scidvsmac 4.19 on Mojave without any problem. You may download it here:

http://scidvspc.sourceforge.net/#toc3

Best greetings

marek


What is important in the endgame besides centralization and activity?

Your question meanders a lot, but I think what you are asking is, “What factors other than king centralization and piece activity are crucial to the endgame?”

I have highlighted three areas below in bold that not more important than the other areas discussed, but just that they are not often discussed, so you can take note of them.

You hit on a lot of them in your question, so I may reiterate some of them here. The first thing is that endgames, despite their simplicity, require an incredible amount of calculation. They tend to be very specific in nature, and often we see that moving a piece to a specific but seemingly equal square, often a rook, is the difference between winning, drawing, or even losing. There are A LOT of mistakes made in endgames, even by the greatest of players. So, in essence, your comment about there not being much strategy is both true, and not true. You must keep the strategic things below in mind, but ultimately, as in much of chess, it comes down to brute-force calculation.

Ultimately, you are not going to get a set of catch-all rules for the endgame, but I will compile a list of things that you need to think about, but only endgame study and experience will allow you to prioritize them for any specific position you may end up having so you can, hopefully, calculate the proper course you should take. I will say that focusing on this area of the game, and taking many opponents into the endgame by trading, you will win a lot of points. I have only recently started to go to local clubs again after many years, and I have been playing a lot of 1800-2000 players in blitz, and while I often beat them like a drum in the middlegame, occasionally, they manage to stay equal until the endgame, but only then, they make mistakes and lose equal endgames. Being a bit older now, I can say that while I overlook things in the middlegame, and even hang material from time to time, I do not recall any of them ever outplaying me in an endgame and actually winning.

One thing that you touched upon that is SO important, that I feel compelled to discuss, is how much of higher-level chess is about trading off your bad pieces for your opponent’s good pieces. This is in the opening, middlegame, and endgame. Entire plans are often based on this key point, and games are frequently decided by this one factor. Listening to GM Peter Svider’s broadcasts on chess24.com, he often discusses this specific to a position in passing. It is like a masterclass listening to him, in general, so I cannot recommend it enough.

So, here is as complete a list of endgame factors to consider as I can compile.

You must know basic theoretical endgames. The book “100 Endgames You Must Know: Vital Lessons for Every Chess Player” by GM Jesus de la Villa, and its companion workbook, are highly recommended for this aspect. Since we are all looking for positions that are familiar to us, you will be aiming for positions in this book most of the time, whether as the player, who is trying to win, or the player, who is trying to hold the game and draw. Knowing some of the famous drawing positions like your opponent having a bishop and rook-pawn, but the bishop does not control the queening square (obviously with your king able to get to the queening square) are critical to good endgame play. Or, knowing that you can still draw in some queen versus lone pawn positions if the pawn is a bishop- or rook-pawn on the 7th with your king nearby is another example.
Planning: Be prepared to plan strategically based on the factors that follow below. If the position is quiet, you will simply have to decide where you want your pieces, and how to get them there in the best manner. This planning starts in the middlegame, and thinking about active transitions into the endgame.
Extra material, whether an extra pawn, or trying to convert an exchange (for example, knowing that rook and pawns versus knight and pawn endings are often some of the easiest to win).
You have probably heard this a million times, but when up in material, trade pieces, not pawns as the pawn’s value increases when there is less material on the board.
Conversely, if you are behind, you want to trade pawns in the hope that it will leave your opponent with a single pawn that will be impossible to promote, or maybe that you can sacrifice a lone remaining minor piece for it, leaving an immediate drawn ending.
Strange material imbalances. Sometimes, and this is always scary, is a piece for three connected passers. This is a VERY general rule, but knowing that if the three passers are at 3rd, 4th, and 5th rank is usually a draw, but further back, they are a loss (assuming other material still on the board for the side with the piece), and on the 4th, 5th and 6th, often a win.
King Position, often centralization, but also the ability to shoulder the other king out (that means to keep the king from approaching, or forcing him to take a longer route so you gain a tempo or two), or is the king cut off (often in rook endings), or even the ability to go where the other king cannot follow because he would be going outside the square. For example, just yesterday, Smirnov resigned to Anton Guijarro because he could go wide, and Smirnov could not stop him by following since h5 would win.
The opposition in pawn endings.
Piece activity, and as you said, often rooks (on the 7th), but a bad bishop is another common example of a piece that can have limited activity, especially when tied down to defending its own pawns. This can often lead to the closely-related zugzwang, a frequent visitor in bad-bishop endings.
Weak squares: Just because the middlegame has passed, that does not mean that you cannot still think about weak squares. The famous Cohn-Rubenstein, St. Petersburg 1909, endgame comes to mind. Rubinstein made a beeline to the weak square h3, and then advanced his kingside pawns, leaving him with the better, and winning, king position.
Pawn structure: This includes protected passed pawns, damaged structures, the ability to create a passed pawn, especially an outside passed pawn, and pawn islands. Are all the pawns on one side of the board, making it more likely the game will be draw? Corollary to my last sentence: Knowing that the structure f2-g3-h4 makes it hard for the opponent to make a passed pawn, even when down 4-3 pawns all on that same side, thus this is often desirable.
Advanced pawns and the threat of promotion (or actual promotion), both for queening directly, but also for just tying down the opposing side, and keeping them busy. Having an advanced pawn when down a pawn, or even more material, can also be an equalizing factor since it forces the opponent to be tied down to prevent the pawn from queening.
The ability, even at the cost of a pawn sacrifice, to create two passed pawns that are far separated, often in opposite colored bishop endings. In Topalov-Shirov, Linares 1998, Shirov uncorked one of the greatest moves in chess history, 47…Bh3!!, with the sole goal of creating passed pawns so far apart that Topalov’s bishop could not deal with them.
Unbalanced pawns when up a pawn: This is a very crucial topic, and one that is not often discussed. If you have an extra pawn, such as 2 to one for your opponent to 3 to one for you, you have the opportunity to create two passed pawns to your opponent’s one passed pawn. This strength is amplified if they are connected. This factor, which happens in rook endgames frequently, can make an endgame a lot worse than it otherwise might appear material-wise.
Tactics: There are more tactics in endgames than most people realize, but they mostly do not make it into most tactics books since they are more bare-bones tactics. When an endgame position is very complex, you cannot use basic principles, and you must calculate the same way you would a complex middlegame position. Coincidentally, right now, I am reading the only book I know of that is dedicated to endgame tactics, “Van Perlo's Endgame Tactics: A Comprehensive Guide to the Sunny Side of Chess Endgames”.  This book, in its fourth edition, is a labor of love, and covers tactical areas including pawn breakthroughs, zugzwang motifs, bare-bones mating attacks, and stalemate tricks among others. I highly recommend it.
The drawing tendencies of rook endgames. There is an old Savielly Tartakower (sometimes attributed to Tarrasch) saying that “all rook endgames are drawn”. Obviously, that is not true, but it is just an exaggeration about their drawing tendencies, and you need to keep that in mind when trying to win or draw.
Opposite-colored bishops, and their drawing tendencies. In opposite-colored bishop endings, the stronger side still wants to put their pawns on the opposite color of their bishop, but the weaker side may actually want to put their pawns on the same color as their bishop since it can be defended so easily now.
Bad bishops (opposing either a good bishop or a good knight). Try to avoid placing pawns on the same color as your bishop at all costs if your opponent has a same-colored bishop as you, or a knight.
Good knights in blocked positions (often opposing a bad bishop).
Bad knights (they do not defend well against rook pawns).
Having two bishops in the endgame is often a decisive factor.
Fortresses. We often see this in opposite-colored bishop endings, but there are many in other endgames too.
Another thing that I see a lot: Players, who are winning a close ending, but they take the time to hunt an extra pawn, when they could be taking that time to push their own pawns that much further. I mostly see this in rook endings. Sure, take the extra pawn if it is a direct part of your plan, or it is getting in the way of a direct part of your plan, or because it is actually dangerous to you; but otherwise think first about pushing your pawn(s). Imagine how many pawns you will be able to take later if you are up a piece. You may not get the chance if you went pawn hunting for the sake of pawn hunting.
The famous Shereshevsky quote: “Do not hurry”. Often an endgame is drawn, but you can lull your opponent into making a mistake by entering a position that looks similar to one that you have previous had during the game, but there is a small difference. Your opponent loses their sense of danger, and you pounce. Of course, there are times where time is of the essence, and you must act immediately, but if the position is semi-locked, this strategy can be useful.
Aim for endgames that you are familiar with, and know how to win. This goes back to my very first point: Know basic theoretical endgames.


Can you identify this game with a mate in 12?

I can't find the actual game neither in my database nor at, say, chessgames.com. However, the position appears as puzzle 210 -- with the apt description "Running around like a squirrel in a cage" -- in the book 1000 Checkmate Combinations by Victor Henkin, and there it is attributed to a game Aleksandrov-Zaitsev 1974.


What are books about the French Defence which feature a Black repertoire that tends to lead to solid/positional/closed/slow/quiet/strategic positions?

There are several excellent books covering the French Defense.

Unfortunately, you cannot avoid complications, despite how much you want to, there are going to be complications, just because you play this line, doesn't mean the game can't somehow explode into a tactical mess.

Also how can you be a French player if you don't want to play the critical f7-f6 pawn break? That "break" defines so much of the French!

Probably the definitive French Defense repertoire book is Play the French by John Watson (4th Edition) (3rd also fine), which I highly recommend
http://www.amazon.com/Play-French-4th-Everyman-Chess/dp/1857446801/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1403968578&sr=8-1&keywords=play+the+french

Also good is Chess Explained: The French by Viacheslav Eingorn and Valentin Bogdanov, this covers the Rubinstein variations of the French and more
http://www.amazon.com/Chess-Explained-French-Viacheslav-Eingorn-ebook/dp/B00H8ZDATS/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1403968623&sr=8-15&keywords=french+defense

There is also the Grandmaster Repertoire Series on it, with two volumes by Emmanuel Berg
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/products/1/207/grandmaster_repertoire_14_-_the_french_defence_volume_one_by_emanuel_berg/

And lastly, The Flexible French by Viktor Moskalenko (French Defense expert) should not be ignored http://www.amazon.com/The-Flexible-French-Strategic-Explanations/dp/9056912453/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1403968623&sr=8-8&keywords=french+defense

Hope this helps


Top chess books and online software that would help me increase my rating

I would recommend continuing doing tactics everyday, although at your rating doing tactics that aren't time sensitive would be better. I'd recommend doing the standard tactics on the free site chesstempo.com for unlimited tactics that won't dock you points for taking too long. Also 303 tricky tactics is a nice puzzle book collection of problems that should be right around your level.

As for the best books to increase your rating I'd say The Amateurs Mind and Silman's Complete Endgame Course are both books perfect for helping a club level player like yourself improve quite a bit.

I'd also advise finding a favorite youtube IM/GM to follow. Chess 24, the st Louis chess club, and chess.com all have youtube accounts and put out videos that will benefit you and aren't pure book study. There are also masters who put up videos for their blitz games like cubematter, kingscrusher, chessnetwork, among others that are good to follow. You can get a sense of the kind of moves they play and look for just through seeing enough of their blitz games.

Lastly if you want to talk to a community of chess players give twitch.TV's chess section a look through. You can watch chess streamers and live chat with a decent number of viewers.


Good question. This nested notation (also called: recursive annotation variation, RAV for short) is uncommon but valid[*]. In the example you provide, most online PGN readers have no problem parsing and accounting for all the variations and subvariations. So the way to read it is as follows: the nested structure is composed of independent variations, only if there's a closing parenthesis then it is an actual subvariation (so a specific branch out of a previous variation). An example from your PGN: 8... Qc7 is a variation, (9.Qe1...) is a subvariation and (10.Bf3...) is a subsubvariation. So the nesting is: (8... Qc7 (subvariation (subsubvar...) )).

Various libraries/modules may not have a built-in parsing system to tackle such PGN structure[**], so you may have to extend this on your own. For further reading, Tim Harding also explains the nested notation and its lack of implementation rather more succinctly here, I briefly quote:

  An RAV (Recursive Annotation Variation) is a sequence of movetext
  containing one or more moves enclosed in parentheses. An RAV is used
  to represent an alternative variation. The alternate move sequence
  given by an RAV is one that may be legally played by first unplaying
  the move that appears immediately prior to the RAV. Because the RAV is
  a recursive construct, it may be nested. ...

  Some software may find it
  hard to handle nested variations too. Palview3 was the first
  freely-available PGN software, that I am aware of, that could create
  with variations in HTML pages, and it is restricted to two levels of
  notes (three levels counting the actual moves of the game). For most
  purposes, this is sufficient. Most Java Viewers can only show the
  actually played moves, except as text notes, but playing through a
  Palview3 web page is close to the experience of playing it through in
  a program like ChessBase: a major advance for chess webmasters.

That said, nowadays, there are various online pgn-readers that already do this, some examples (so if you paste your PGN onto either of these, it can be fully read and displayed).

https://www.chess.com/analysis-board-editor
https://chesstempo.com/pgn-viewer.html
http://www.apronus.com/chess/wbeditor.php

You may find additional information on the standards of PGN here. I will get back to you if I find other potentially useful elements.

[*]: just to make sure, I also quickly parsed the text to make sure all parentheses are properly closed.

[**]: for example, the chess.pgn.read_game method from python-chess fails to fully read this PGN, it only sees the main variation upto move 8... e5.


What is the best way to interface with Stockfish in a C++ program?

The code required for this is platform dependent, so it may be pragmatic to use a third party API to handle inter-process communication for you. Boost provides Boost.Process and Qt provides QtProcess, both of which allow for communication via stdin and stdout.

Otherwise, you will have to directly interact with platform specific APIs, such as CreateProcess on Windows and fork, pipe, etc. on Linux.

Once you are able to communicate with the engine, you just need to follow the UCI Protocol (which is used by Stockfish) to communicate with the engine.


You definitely had an advantage, but it's a bit of a challenge to turn that into victory. If you don't use all of your advantages and his disadvantages, it can quickly turn into a draw.

In this position, your main advantage is your Knight - it can jump very easily between very useful squares d7-f6-e4-d6.
Your King can be activated very easily in the next few moves, while black King is quite passive and has limited movement due to your Knight and Pawns (both yours and his) blocking him.
Moreover, your Knight can't be threatened at d7, so it's your decision when to move it (and give his King some breath).

His ...Na5 is a logical choice from his side, but you have nothing to fear, your aim is to get your King closer to the center (Kf2-Ke3) and also put Pawn on b3 (not if he pulls back with his Knight, of course) to disable any chances of his Knight getting through (preferably he plays Nc4 before you play b3, so you play that move with gaining a tempo).

However, the problem you have is that you can't go too far away with your King. Ideally you would come to the Queen side and take his Pawns, while his King watches helpessly; but you can't do that as he threatens Ne7-Nf5, which leaves your g3 Pawn at his mercy if your King isn't there to defend it. Now, you can try to exchange your g3 Pawn (Kf3 or Nf6 followed by g4), but that leaves you with weak h-Pawn which he can attack easily with his King (Kh6-Kh5) or/and his Knight (Nf5).

The best thing to try (after b3 and after your King is a bit activated on e3-d3) is to get your Knight back to e4 (Nf6-Ne4) to defend g3-Pawn so you can proceed with your King to the Queen side:

[StartFlipped "0"]
[FEN "8/p2N1pk1/1pn1p1p1/2p1P2p/5P1P/2P3P1/PP6/6K1 b - - 0 1"]

1...Na5 2. Kf2 Nc4 3. b3 Na5 4. Ke3 Nc6 5. Kd3 Ne7 6. Nf6 Nf5 (6...Nd5 7. Ne8+ Kf8 8. Nd6 Ne7 {Otherwise, you win a Pawn with Nc8} 9. a4 a6 {Black is lost otherwise, he either lets your Knight to c8 or your King inside} 10. a5 bxa5 11. Ne4 Nd5 12. Nxc5 Nc7 13. c4 Ke7 14. Nb7 {And you are a Pawn ahead}) (6...Nc6 7. Kc4 a6 8. Nd7 Ne7 9. Nxb6 Nf5 10. a4 Nxg3 11. Kxc5 f6 12. Nd7 {And now you don't have any trouble promoting on the Queen side on time}) 7. Ne4 Ne7 8. Kc4 a6  9. Nd6 Nc6 10. Nc8 Na5+ 11. Kd3 b5 12. Nb6 Nb7 13. Nd7 a5 14. a3 {Now black has no good moves} Kg8 15. a4 c4+ 16. bxc4 bxa4 17. c5 Nd8 18. Kc2 {You can pick up his a-Pawns and push c-Pawns afterwards} 1-0

But note that I didn't perhaps show the best black defense here. Although, to be honest, with his King that limited, he didn't have many options. If he tries to get his Knight to f5 before he provoked your b3, you can play a4-a5 and his defense on the Queen side is ruined. He can only perhaps try to push his Queen side Pawns and pray that he can somehow block you in time, although it's a very hard fight for him:

[StartFlipped "0"]
[FEN "8/p2N1pk1/1pn1p1p1/2p1P2p/5P1P/2P3P1/PP6/6K1 b - - 0 1"]

1...Na5 2. Kf2 Nc4 3. b3 Na5 4. Ke3 c4 5. b4 Nc6 6. Nf6 Kf8 7. Ne4 b5 8. Nd6 a6 9. Ne4 Ke7 10. Nc5 a5 11. bxa5 Nxa5 12. Ne4 Nc6 13. a3 Kd7 14. Nd6 f6 15. Nxb5 fxe5 16. fxe5 Nxe5 17. Kd4 {And now you win a Pawn and have an easy way to victory} 1-0

All in all, your advantage was a bit more substantial than just "prettier" position, at least in my opinion.


The board and pieces

Quantum chess is played on a regular 8x8 chess board with standard pieces.
Pieces have rings around them, filled in with colour. These rings show the probability that the piece is in that square.

Modifications to existing chess rules

A player is not required to move their king out of check and the game concludes when there is a 100% probability that one of the kings has been taken. As a result there is no checkmate.
All promotions result in a queen as of 10/8/17, since underpromoting has not been implemented into the game.

Movement

All pieces move as usual in normal circumstances.
On any given turn, the player can make one quantum move instead of a normal move.

Quantum moves

Quantum moves are notated with the ^ symbol. (e.g: N^d4)
When quantum moving a piece, it can make up to two normal moves.
The probability of the piece moving is equal to the probability that the piece has not moved, resulting in a superposition of multiple board states.
A quantum move cannot be used to take a piece.
Pawns cannot make quantum moves.

Superposition

When any quantum move is made, that piece exists in multiple places simultaneously. This is represented by multiple copies of the piece displayed, with appropriate meters to show the probability of finding the piece in that square. There is only one piece, but it can exist in one of multiple places.
If a piece "takes" one of the copies of another piece in superposition and has  100% probability of being available to take it, the piece is taken if it was in that square. Since there is a probability of the piece being in other squares, those copies of the piece remain, however there is now a chance that the piece has already been taken and is no longer on the board.

If a piece "takes" one of the copies of another piece in superposition and it is not certain that the piece was available to take it, a measurement occurs. A measured piece will collapse onto one square using a random selection. The probability of it collapsing onto a particular square is the same as the probability that is was moved there. All pieces that are entangled with the measured piece will also be measured and may have their outcome influenced by the measurement of the piece(s) that they are entangled with.

A pawn can be put into superposition if it takes a piece which is in superposition. If the piece was there, the pawn could take it. If not, moving diagonally was an illegal move. The probability of the pawn being on the new square is the same as the probability that a piece was there to be taken.

A pawn can also be superimposed by moving two spaces forward, through a square which may contain a piece. This results in entanglement.

Entanglement

Entanglement occurs when a piece attempts to move through an instance of a piece in superposition. The probability of the moved piece existing in its new square is the same as the probability that the obstruction was not there to block it.
If a piece is entangled with another piece and is measured, both pieces are affected by the results of the measurement accordingly.

Special circumstances

The following "rules" are combinations of rules from above, however they are worth mentioning as useful tactics:

Quantum Trading

It is possible to trade probabilities of pieces, leading to complex trading. For example, it is possible to trade knights in a way which leaves one player with a 2/3 chance of having a knight, and the other with a 1/3 chance of having a knight. The first player is more likely to have benefited from this trade, however it is uncertain until measured.

Schrödinger's King

If the king is in superposition and one of the instances is taken, the probability that that player has lost is equal to the probability that the king was in that square. Since it is not certain that they have lost, play continues.
This means that it is possible for a player to win a game with a probability that they have already lost by fully capturing the opposing king.

Ghost capture

This is a result of a pawn taking a piece in superposition. If there is one other state of the taken piece still on the board and a piece attacking it, ghost capture can take place. If the attacking piece must move through the square where the pawn would be if it hadn't moved in order to attack the superimposed piece, two outcomes can occur:

The measurement confirms that the piece had not moved, so an attack is impossible and the opposing player gains "half a piece".
The measurement shows that the piece has moved and has already been taken, so the opposing player loses "half a piece".

Quantum Castling

If there is a probability that a piece is between the king and rook, the probability of castling is equal to the probability that the piece was not there. A measurement may take place if two pieces end up on the same square.
If there is a probability that the rook may have moved, castling can occur with the probability that the rook is available to castle. The king and rook are now entangled since the castling move depends on whether the rook was on the correct square.

Double Castling

After a quantum castle, the king can castle the other way if the rook is available, with the probability of castling being the probability that the king is there.

In this example, both sides have castled both ways:


What is the difference between an opening and a defence?

"The opening", in general, is the first phase of a game of chess, in which both sides develop their pieces. It is followed by "the middlegame" and, if the game gets that far, "the endgame".

When people talk about "an opening", they are referring to a particular series of opening moves that has a name. For example, 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 is the Queen's Gambit Declined, and 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 is the Queen's Gambit Accepted.

Openings that are defined by the moves that Black makes are often called "defenses", since White is generally considered the attacker and Black the defender by default. For example, 1.e4 c5 is the Sicilian Defense and 1.e4 e6 is the French Defense.


Tips for converting my advantage in the middlegame and the endgame

Is this a stamina issue? (as in I start to lose concentration as the
game goes on?)

No. If you are consistently reaching the endgame then it is a "lack of endgame knowledge" problem.
Do you know when KP v K is a win and when it is a draw? Do you know how to win the Capablanca pawn endgame as white? Do you know what you have to do as black to draw (if white goes wrong)?
[title "Capablanca Pawn Endgame"]
[fen "6k1/7p/8/8/8/8/6PP/6K1 w - - 0 1"]

In short, do you actually know how to win a won endgame when it isn't just trivial?
If you are not consistently reaching the endgame then you need to work on tactics.
Actually, you probably need to work on both endgames and tactics.


What to play if someone ignores your King's Gambit?

Well, it is funny that 4.Nc3 is then the most popular move, with 4.d4 a distant second. In practice though, 4.d4 scores a very high 73.3% for white, compared to only a typical 56.7% for 4.Nc3. In addition, Stockfish much prefers 4.d4, and it is not even close (-.54 to +.92).

I will take that big center, and get my pawn back with an open f-file any day. The reality is that you do not have to do much there other than to develop your pieces as black has no space. I will give a suggested setup below. Black really should fight back earlier, try to hold the pawn, or maybe not take on f4 to begin with.

For the record, as soon as they play exf4, they have accepted the gambit, but they may not try to hold it with g5.

 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. d4 d6 5. Bxf4 Bg4 6. Nc3 Nf6 7. Be2 Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. Qd2 {With a fantastic position.}

Here is a suggestion based on your supplemental question. Keep in mind that there are a virtually infinite number of ways that black can deviate from the path, but just develop your pieces, and you will get a decent game.

 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. f4 Nc6 3. Nf3 d6 (3... f5 {The most popular move here.} 4. d3 {This is the main line, but does not really try to punish black.} (4. exf5 {Might be a better try, but there are many lines here.}) 4... d6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. g3 g6 7. Bg2 Bg7 8. O-O) 4. Nc3 Nd4 {And this strange moving of a piece twice is the computer's first choice, and the most commonly played in practice.} 5. d3 {And just finish developing with Be3, Be2 and Qd2.} Bg4 6. Be2 Bxf3 7. Bxf3 Nf6 8. O-O Be7 9. Be3 $16 {With a very comfortable game.}