What is the best strategy for simultaneous blindfold chess?

This question involves the human mind's memory, so to start, let's play a quick game. Look at the line below for 1 second, and then look away immediately.

G R T A O H V I L P

Now try to recall as many of the letters as you can.

Now do the same thing for the next line (look for 1 second):

Fish Table Plate Water Mouse Cookie Scroll Piece Fan Ball

Recall as many of the words as you can.

The number of letters you were able to remember is probably close to the number of words you remembered. This is because human minds chunk many small things into bigger things, if given the opportunity. Words are just letters being chunked together. Note though, that if you didn't know what "Cookie" is, chances are you wouldn't have remembered it (since your mind wouldn't have had the opportunity to chunk C,O,O,K,I,E into one word).

This process can be applied to chess positions. You want to give your mind more opportunities to chunk pieces ("letters") into positions you can memorize ("words"). The key to doing this is pattern recognition; training your mind to immediately recognize positions (or immediately chunk certain arrangements of pieces together). Pattern recognition is just like learning new words in a language.

The best way to improve pattern recognition abilities is to look at many chess positions, over and over and over. Solving puzzles is a great way to do this since your mind is actively thinking about positions, allowing them to be stored and accessed easier from long-term memory. This not only helps your chess playing abilities, but also how well you can hold many positions in your head. If you can immediately see arrangements of pieces and know that they're a certain position (like C,O,O,K,I,E means "cookie"), then all you're really doing is holding big words in memory.


Over the years, this question has been asked several times on other forums, but I am not aware of a purely native solution.

According to this discussion on chess.com from 2013, some people have tried Wine, which is "a compatibility layer capable of running Windows applications on several POSIX-compliant operating systems, such as Linux, Mac OSX, & BSD" (quoted from the Wine website). People have reported varying levels of success, depending on the version of Wine and the distro they were using.

In an older discussion (started in 2009), someone suggested using VirtualBox and installing Windows in it. Unlike Wine, this requires Windows installation media and a Windows licence.

Update: Proton, released by Valve (the developers of Steam) in August 2018, should enable Linux users to run Windows games directly through Steam for Linux. Fritz XIV for Steam and FritzChess 15 for Steam have been available since September 2014 and February 2016, respectively. I don't know whether this also solves the issue of using the Fritztrainer DVDs.


It might barely be playable at 1500 FIDE. However, as others pointed out, if someone prepares for you, then you will be in big trouble.
My recommendation to to avoid playing this gambit at all costs.
I'm around ~2170 USCF, and my main repertoire is non traditional(morra gambit, kings gambit, alekhine, dutch....). This is coming from someone who's played many gambits over the years.
I tried earnestly to incorporate the Latvian gambit as some sort of surprise weapon. It is just unplayable. Even when my opponents were significantly weaker than me and obviously didn't know what was going on in the opening, they usually get an edge, and it could be a big one too. If they happen to have studied the latvian, then you are pretty toast. I don't even recommend it for blitz.
This is just my anecdote, but it's clear to me that for strong chess players the latvian is not sound, and it is not hard for white to deal with.


What would be the ELO of modern-day centaurs?

Chess centaurs is not correspondence chess because centaur matches are played under the classical time controls. Unfortunately, centaurs is dead because the best strategy is just follow the engine moves.

In classical time controls, there's generally no advantage for human assistance. Humans are too slow, too clumsy etc ... we need more time.

This is 2018, centaurs matches are absolutely meaningless. They are like computer matches with dumb human intervention. Computer engines play stronger than human+computer unless the human player has sufficient time to digest the positions.

The answer to your question is the same ELO as the engine itself.


Why sacrificing a pawn was more preferable over more materialistic moves in Nakamura vs Ding in Altibox Norway Chess 2018?

Blacks counter play is based on ...b4  If he plays a slow move White  can thwart b4 with Nc2 (which also stops Blacks Queen from entering on the a-file) and then attack on the kingside.  Some ideas are f2-f4-f5-f6, Rf1-f3-h3.  After Nc2 White can also take his time and just play Rf-b1 and Black is passive.


Does SCID have a command for removing preceding moves in a game?

The SCID tool's focus is on collections of positions more than single games.

Accordingly, the best way to do what you're trying to do is to deal with the PGN directly.  PGN is flat text and available in SCID.

If you want part of a game, the typical action is to copy the PGN into a text document from SCID, and edit the part that you wish.  Load your edited game back into SCID if you want ..


Is there a resource that lists many of the different chess set styles?

The Illustrated Guide to World Chess Sets (Chessmen for Collectors) by Dr Victor Keats

A part from the books webpage:

  Country by country each chapter of Chessmen for Collectors
  systematically charts the development of chess sets in chronological
  order, giving the collector an instant means of identification. The
  accompanying mass of illustrations (50 colour and 273 black and white)
  gives details of the diverse materials used - ivory, wood, porcelain,
  bronze - precise heights of pawns and pieces, their provenance and
  date.

Ivory Indian chessmen, chariots and juggernauts, late eighteenth century

  Ivory Indian chessmen, chariots and juggernauts, late eighteenth
  century The text and illustrations together highlight the variation of
  style in English Staunton sets, Indian ivory sets, Spanish 'pulpit'
  chessmen and delicate French eighteenth-century sets, as well as
  highly unusual, 'one-off' sets from Africa and America. The whole
  amounts to a highly authoritative, wide-ranging reference work for any
  kind of chess collector.

Other minor sources

This page lists some modern designs: http://inspirationfeed.com/inspiration/industrial-inspiration/20-aesthetic-chess-set-designs/

This online store has a lot of differently themed chess sets: https://www.chesshouse.com/collections/themed-chess-pieces


Do people still play chess at Washington Square Park?

Less and less people are playing at Washington Square. Most people are moving to the Union Square (for business and money).

Check this article: http://thevillager.com/2013/08/08/chess-moves-most-players-are-now-at-union-square/

And also have a look at this great video. A favorite of mine where GM Maurice Ashley beats a trash talking Washington Square player http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/washington-square-park-chess-hustler-beaten-grandmaster-article-1.2534837


Seeking in-depth coverage of this French defense sideline

There's a 12-page chapter on this position in Cristoph Wisneski's "Play 1...Nc6!: A complete chess opening repertoire for Black."  In that book it's reached via 1.e4 Nc6, 2.d4 d5, 3.Nc3 e6.  More generally you're probably more likely to see this discussed in books on the Nimzowitsch defense (with d5, not e5) rather than French defense books.


The concept of a knight which is so powerfully placed (generally on e6/e3) that the game wins itself dates, according to Winter, from:

  An observation by Zukertort after 26 Ne6 in the simultaneous game
  Steinitz v Maas, London, 5 November 1873:

  ‘The appearance of the knight at K6 [e6 for white, e3 for black] is generally, for the opponent,
  the proper signal to strike his colours.’
  Source: City of London Chess Magazine, May 1874, pages 97-98

Here is the game extract:

[title "Steinitz v Maas, London, 5 November 1873"]
[fen "3q1rk1/1rb3pp/b2p1p2/n2P1N2/1p1NP3/2p1B3/P4PPP/1Bn1Q1RK w - - 0 1"]

1. Ne6 Qe8 2. Bxc1 Rf7 3. g4 Qa4 4. g5 c2 5. gxf6 cxb1=Q 6. Nh6+ Kh8 7. Nxf7+ Kg8 8. Rxg7++

More from Winter:

  When the game Steinitz v von Bardeleben, Hastings, 1895 was shown in a
  ‘Chess Movies’ article on page 336 of the November 1949 Chess Review,
  the following comment referred to 19 Ne6:

  ‘A knight at K6 is like a bone in the throat, says Steinitz.’

  For the same attribution, see I.A. Horowitz’s books How to Win in the
  Chess Openings (New York, 1951), page 44, and How to Win at Chess (New
  York, 1968), page 50, but where did Steinitz make the comment?

  From page 212 of the first volume of Kasparov’s Predecessors series,
  before 16 Ne6 in Lasker v Capablanca, St Petersburg, 1914:

  ‘... the knight at e6 will be like a bone in his throat!’


What is the best way to prepare and optimize my skills for an Open section of a State tournament?

I think this question is a bit too broad to answer, but I'll give it a shot anyway. I think the best thing you can do in 3 months is to play as much as you can. You can play online and pick a semi-serious time control such as G/15. For all the games you lose (or really all of your games), you should analyze it thoroughly until you understand what it is that you could have done better. You can use a chess engine to help you as well as any other resource (Analyze the games with a high rated friend afterwards). If you played a poor move in an opening, you need to make sure you revise your repertoire. If you made a tactical blunder you need to ask yourself why you made that mistake and how you can avoid it next time, if you lost in an endgame maybe research that endgame to see how you can play better next time. I would suggest, at least, 5 games a day if you can manage.

There's not much you can do in 3 months, but the best thing you can do is play as much as you can and learn as much as you can from your losses. It is easy to lose and simply play another game and forget it happened. It is better to figure out why you lost and try to figure out how to avoid it next time.

If you could average 5 games a day, that's 450 games in 3 months. If you've learned anything from each of these games, that's got to be worth something.


Is Chess960 a desirable alternative to classical chess?

I want to put forth a few arguments, why I don't consider it desirable to substitute classical chess with Chess960:

The rumours of a draw death of chess have been greatly exaggerated. The idea that chess will one day be played out, is more than a hundred years old, but the draw rate in top level chess is actually growing very slowly. And the rate of short draws has decreased a lot in the last decade because of Sofia rules and similar measures.
The idea of the draw death and of Chess960 is that opening theory will become the dominating factor in top level games, but in recent years it has been pretty obvious that the opposite is actually happening. Nowadays you cannot really regularly outprepare your opponents anymore. Players like Carlsen don't even try to get opening advantages, they just go for an unknown position and play chess. In the end, when everything is known about openings, preparation will probably play less of a role, not more!
Openings are an integral part of how chess is played. Openings are rather like genres in literature, they have their own character and this adds depth to the games. Many players like "their" openings. I wouldn't be any happier about never playing or replaying a king's gambit game anymore than I would be about never reading an epic fantasy novel again. If you throw opening theory out of the window, you also get rid of a lot of knowledge and history. In the end you have games that are played on a lower level and aren't part of an intricate and well understood history of games in a particular variation.

Conclusion: Chess960 is a fun alternative, but substituting classical chess with Chess960 would probably be more of a loss than a gain.


Looking for an iPhone app for working out chess problems

The only chess app on my iPhone is Stockfish, and it has a menu option Game -> Edit position where you can set up your own board. You'd also have to change the Level/Game mode to 'Two player'.

It's a free app.


Current top engines running for 24hours would change their evaluation and find some improvements but would not be able to find ALL the key moves that A0 did.

"Old style" engines problems are twofold:

their eval functions are worse than A0(because of humans adjusting heuristics). This is somewhat similar to why "blank-state" A0 beats AlphaGo which was "seeded" with human games.
Their search algorithms suffer from horizon effect(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_effect) that A0 was able to exploit in the examples given.

Let's take Game 10 in question:

[fen ""]
[White "AlphaZero"]
[Black "Stockfish"]
[Date "2017.12.05"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. d4 e6 3. c4 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Be7 6. O-O O-O 7. d5 exd5 8. Nh4 c6 9. cxd5 Nxd5 10. Nf5 Nc7 11. e4 d5 12. exd5 Nxd5 13. Nc3 Nxc3 14. Qg4 g6 15. Nh6+ Kg7 16. bxc3 Bc8 17. Qf4 Qd6 18. Qa4 g5 19. Re1 Kxh6 20. h4 f6 21. Be3 Bf5 22. Rad1 Qa3 23. Qc4 b5 24. hxg5+ fxg5 25. Qh4+ Kg6 26. Qh1 Kg7 27. Be4 Bg6 28. Bxg6 hxg6 29. Qh3 Bf6 30. Kg2 Qxa2 31. Rh1 Qg8 32. c4 Re8 33. Bd4 Bxd4 34. Rxd4 Rd8 35. Rxd8 Qxd8 36. Qe6 Nd7 37. Rd1 Nc5 38. Rxd8 Nxe6 39. Rxa8 Kf6 40. cxb5 cxb5 41. Kf3 Nd4+ 42. Ke4 Nc6 43. Rc8 Ne7 44. Rb8 Nf5 45. g4 Nh6 46. f3 Nf7 47. Ra8 Nd6+ 48. Kd5 Nc4 49. Rxa7 Ne3+ 50. Ke4 Nc4 51. Ra6+ Kg7 52. Rc6 Kf7 53. Rc5 Ke6 54. Rxg5 Kf6 55. Rc5 g5 56. Kd4 1-0

This is a game worthy of Tal from Alpha0! White is making a positionally based long term sacrifice of a piece and pawn. Ie nice idea but surely a computer would defend this. However human intuition turns out wrong here.

At move 19. we are at least 30 ply (15 full moves) from Stockfish giving back the piece.

There is no way for regular engines to fully search 30ply deep in the middle game without improvements in their pruning algorithms.

As an experiment I run 30 threads(15 cores) on latest Stockfish 8 at 25kn/s for some time with various hash sizes. So my machine was 1/3 of Google's -> ie I have to run it at least 3 times longer.

Even at move 32. Stockfish was thinking it was better.

What was interesting that within 1 second of me making the move Stockfish was suggesting as good the eval dropped and Stockfish realized the move was bad. This could be the limits on its hash size or just the horizon effect.

A0 will hopefully provide inspiration for regular engines to incorporate new techniques.

My hope is something like Stockfish Zero which would use 1000s of crowdsourced GPUs to train the network then only requiring  a single high end GPU to play.


You can probably benefit greatly by improving your tactical calculation. Doing some exercises on chesstempo.com will help you get used to calculating out those exchanges. What you are describing seems like a tactical issue and generally can't be addressed using strategic ideas.

That said, a good way to avoid those difficulties may be to specialize in some less complicated openings until you get comfortable with the tactics that appear in the opening. Maybe the London System (1. d4 ... 2. Nf3 ... 3. Bf4) for white and the Center Counter Defense for black (1. e4 d5). Both have some traps, but there are less to deal with.

Personally, those are the two openings I liked to use to get "used" to chess without having to really deal with the openings much. Especially if you are a more strategic, positional player, these two openings should feel pretty natural.


Does the Chronos GX have a count up setting?

It appears that the Chronus GX clock does not have a count up mode.

While the normal one does, as you have mentioned, it seems that the GX doesn’t. I found this video on how to set up a count on the normal one. It cites pages 35-36 of the manual on how to do this. As expected, the online PDF of the manual corresponds to the video’s given information.

My conclusion is that if the GX manual does not contain information on how to do it, then it cannot do it. Further evidence of this from this video on how to use GX clock. As far as I can tell, it has no, mention of a count up setting.

So unfortunately the Chronus GX Clock has no count up setting as far as I can tell.


Computer chess engine ratings are not related to the FIDE rating list.

For example, the MicroMax engine has around 1950 rating on CCRL:

  http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/

I distribute an iOS app (ChessMini) for this engine. I wrote on the app description page:

  The engine has a rating of Elo 2000 on the Computer Chess Rating Lists and is stronger than 70% of the human chess players.

This is true only if the CCRL chess rating is a close approximation to the FIDE rating list.

Unfortunately, I've received several users complained that they were able to beat the app convincingly despite their FIDE ratings are much less than 1900. In fact, I have a FIDE rating around 2000 myself but the MicroMax engine has never beaten me. I think it's "real" rating on the FIDE scale is 1300-1400.

Forget about the human rating list, just look at the relative ranking.

Computer chess ratings are extraordinary accurate (but no relationship to FIDE) because the sample size is only bounded by your processing power. You start an engine tournament, leave the computer running and goto bed... It's 24 hours chess like TCEC. You play as many engine matches as your computer can afford.

Computer engines get a rating by playing other engines. No human intervention. No grandmaster. Anybody with a laptop can do that:

Download Arena or Cutechess
Download your favorite engines
Start an engine tournament

That's it, it's so simple! You'll get estimated ratings for your engines.


Beautiful retrograde analysis problem by Alexsey A. Troitsky

Short answer: last move was -1. c7-c5, and before that -1...Rc6-b6, the white bishop returns to c1 and -d2-d3 unlocks the cage, enabling -Kd3-c4 and everything unlocks. -1. c6-c5 doesn't work because the white bishop will definitely end up trapped behind the black bishop in the northern dark squares and can't get out - -c6-c7 will leave the two bishops on d8/e7/f8 and not a7/b8 because of tempo concerns (retro-opposition), and they can't leave.

(Notice the use of minus signs, white moves noted with ..., and I said the white bishop "returns" to c1 - I'm retracting moves from the diagram position, which makes this kind of problem much easier.)

Long answer: Now how to explain this without fluff or skipping too many "obvious" details? From a pedagogical point of view, I will insist on talking about this problem using retractions rather than the usual forward chess moves; it's easier and far clearer to play moves backwards from the diagram than it is to create some arbitrary position, assert that it's legal then play forward moves to reach the diagram. It also ensures we don't miss anything - easier to check every possible retraction from the diagram than to check that every possible chess position leading to the diagram has ends with a certain move.

Those who already understand retraction can probably see the cage themselves, skip the first two bolded points and jump right to the section -1. c7-c5.

Pawn captures, basics of retraction explained

Standard approach is to look at pawn structure. Each side has 14 units and 8 pawns. White's captures were hxg3 and axb, black's were exf6 and axb. So from the diagram, we can't magically retract (take back) an uncapture immediately.

Also, the fact that all bishops are on the board and each side has their full 8 pawns means we can't retract exf6, d7-d6 or ...d2-d3 without the corresponding bishop being at home. (In the forward direction, it means that the pawn move was played while the bishop was at home and hadn't yet moved.)

A side can retract themselves into check but the other side must retract immediately to remove the check (once again this is seen in reverse - in the forward direction, one side checks and the king moves away.) For instance -1. c6-c5 Kb3-c4 would be possible, except that black can't remove the check from Ba4. -1. Kf4-e5 is impossible as white needs to retract -1...hxg3 to answer (pawn structure.) -1. Ne3 is impossible as one cannot deliver check by retracting (in the forward direction, that would be black moving away from check.)

What is a retrocage?

Usually, once all pieces have enough freedom of retraction, the position shouldn't pose any legality problems. We therefore want to retract moves with the goal of freeing as many pieces as possible. By considering all retractions (it's not hard once you're used to it, like seeing legal chess moves), we notice a few things:

The kings can't retract at the moment.
The southeast (bottom-right) corner unlocks with retracting a knight move, impossible for now because of the kings.
The west (left) side, specifically the 8 pieces in a rectangle except bBa7 and wRb6, is a cage that unlocks only with -Bb3-a4, which is again impossible because of the kings.

So to unlock the position, we need to free the kings by giving them a retraction. So a bishop has to go home to c8, f8 or c1 to enable a pawn retraction to (respectively) d7, e7 or d2. The black light bishop is trapped on a4, so that leaves just the two dark bishops.

Position is legal: -1. c7-c5

We retract for example -1. c7-c5 Rc6-b6 -2. Be3-a7 Bb8-a7 -3. Bh6-e3 Be3-a7 -4. Bg5-h6 Bc1-e3 -5. Bh6-g5 d2-d3 (the white dark bishop came home) -6. Bg5-h6 Kd3-c4 and the cage unlocks. The white king moving frees everything, as explained above.

En passant is legal: -1. c6-c5? is impossible

The crux of the matter. If we try to retract this, then the two dark bishops are locked in step on the 6 dark squares in the north. They can't pass each other, nor can they lose a tempo since there are no other legal retractions except -c7-c6, which incidentally commits the bishops to the dark squares to the left or right of c7. There are only 3 cases:

Both bishops on the left (bBa7/wBb8). This is impossible - the bishops can't lose tempo, and with the bishops in such a position (i.e. right now, the only chance) it's white to retract, not black.
Both bishops on the right (bBd8/wBf8). Once -c7-c6 is retracted, the bishops are trapped in these squares. The only way to let them out is to retract e7xf6 (impossible; the black bishop can't find itself on the right of the white one to be at home on f8), or to retract -d7-d6 (also impossible; the black light bishop on a4 can't come home before the cage is unlocked.)
Black bishop on the left, white bishop on the right. The same problem as in (2), we can't get either bishop home as they're each trapped on the wrong side of the pawn wall.

With no other way to unlock the position, we conclude that -1. c6-c5 is impossible.

Conclusion:
Therefore -1. c7-c5 was the last move (no other possibilities), so en passant is provably legal and forward mate is 1. bxc6 e.p.+ Bb5 2. Raxb5#.


Is there a software that analyses games through voice, telling you about moves and what you should have done, like Power Chess 98?

Ubisoft's Chessmaster: Grandmaster edition does that
Using the Mentor > Game Analysis... functionality gives the spoken annotation requirement.
For the example below I went to the Academy section and chose a game from the Database. Then this was sent to the Training mode. Lastly, I used the Mentor menu at the top to analyse the game.
The annotations are narrated by Denny Delk in Chessmaster:

Q: Whose voices are used in Chessmaster?
A: The voice used for Chessmaster (annotation, analysis, and moves) belongs to Denny Delk. The voice for illegal move commentary is Jeanne Reynolds. Their voices have been featured in Chessmaster for several years... since Chessmaster 6000.

Source: Ubi.com
Would I recommend the functionality?
No, I would not recommend this functionality of the software, because the annotations are not very insightful in my opinion. I've taken sample commentary in the game below:
[FEN ""]
[Event "Hoogovens II"]
[Site "Lone Pine, CA USA"]
[Date "1975.01"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Böhm, H"]
[Black "Timman, Ton"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "c) U"]
[WhiteELO "2300"]
[BlackELO "2385"]
[WhiteCountry "NED"]
[BlackCountry "NED"]

  1. c3 {A00 Saragossa Opening. A rather passive treatment by White, planning a solid strategy of controlling d4.} f5            {A00 Saragossa Opening. There is some game reference in literature to this position, but it is most unconvincing. The players of the Black pieces were universally the better players, and as the positions evolved, the better player won. Objectively you'd have to say that Black was a bit better even here.}
  2. d4  {Out of Opening Book. f4 would have been in the Saragossa Opening opening line.} Nf6
  3. Bg5            g6
  4. Bxf6 {Pins Black's pawn at e7 with a partial pin and attacks Black's rook at h8.} exf6 {Removes the threat on Black's rook at h8. Black wins a bishop for a knight. Material is even.}
  5. e3             d5
  6. h4             h5
  7. Nh3            Bd6           {Enables the short castle.}
  8. g3             c6
  9. Nf4 {Attacks Black's pawn at g6 and blocks Black's pawn at f5.} Kf7           {Removes the threat on Black's pawn at g6.}
 10. Nd2            Nd7
 11. Bd3 {Clears the way for a kingside castle.} Nf8
 12. c4             dxc4          {Threatens White's bishop.}
 13. Bxc4+ {Checks Black's king. White wins a pawn for a pawn. Material is even.} Kg7 {Moves it out of check.}
 14. Qb3 {Clears the way for a queenside castle.} Qe7
 15. a4             a5
 16. d5             Rb8
 17. O-O            b5            {Slightly better is g5.}
 18. axb5 {Removes the threat on White's bishop, threatens Black's pawn at a5, and isolates Black's pawn at c6 and Black's pawn at a5.} cxb5 {Attacks White's bishop. Black wins a pawn for a pawn. Material is even.}
 19. Bd3 {Slightly better is Bxb5.} a4 {Moves it out of immediate jeopardy and attacks White's queen.}
 20. Qd1 {Moves it to safety.} Bxf4
 21. exf4 {White wins a bishop for a knight. Material is even.} Qd6           {Threatens White's pawn at d5 and blocks White's pawn at d5.}
 22. Qf3            {Removes the threat on White's pawn at d5.} Nd7           {Takes the knight away from the edge of the board.}
 23. Rac1           Nc5
 24. Bb1            Bd7           {Slightly better is Bb7.}
 25. Ba2            Rhe8          {Takes control of the open file.}
 26. Rfe1           Rxe1+         {Forks White's king and White's rook at c1. Black wins a rook. Black is ahead by a rook in material. The game ends in a draw.}
 1/2-1/2

I've never found comments such as "Slightly better is g5" to help in my training.
This is partly because computers are better at pointing out variations (the answer to "what should I have played?") as opposed to natural language descriptions (the answer to "why should I play that?").
This sentiment is also shared by Boris Spassky

From computers you need variations. The evaluation you need to forget.

Source: Attributed to Boris Spassky in The Wisest Things Ever Said About Chess, authored by GM Soltis


In an ECF tournament, how are rapid play rules different from standard play?

You should read the rules from this page, sections A and B. Also, I would strongly advise you to ask a referee about this just to be safe from making a mistake or from embarrassing yourself. You can come earlier before the game starts ( 1 hour will be enough for the referee to explain you everything you need to know and for you to have time to relax and psychologically prepare for the game ) and just ask him/her to explain you what you want to know ( it would be wise to write down your questions ).

  I was told you can legally take your opponent's king if he fails to spot a check (and win the game in the process).

I haven't had such a case, but if the opponent plays illegal move you can stop the clock and claim a win-see the rules in the section A in the link I posted.

  Also, the touch-move rule does not apply - apparently you are allowed to touch a piece, take it back and play another piece - only when you press the clock does your decision become permanent.

No, that is not the way I remember. If you touch the piece you must play with it but your opponent can hold it in the air / drag it over the board / continuously put it on the board-pick it up-put it on another square, until he presses the clock. This is very rude behavior but is allowed.

  If I were to enter a rapid play tournament, what other differences from the normal tournament rules could I expect?

Read the rules from the link I posted above, and talk to the referee before the tournament just so you can be sure and safe.

This is all I know, I haven't played blitz for 11 years-that is why I have advised you to talk a little with the referee.

If you have further questions leave a comment and I will try to help.

Good luck on your tournament!

THIS EDIT CORRECTS MISTAKES POINTED OUT IN COMMENTS BELOW:

I will just quote member Remco Gerlich :

About illegal move ( emphasis is mine ):

  In rapidplay, an illegal move does not lose the game. The same penalties as in slow play apply (have to take it back and move with the touched piece, opponent gets 2 minutes extra on the clock, 3rd time in the same game is game loss). The difference with slow chess is that in rapid you must claim before you make your own move, in slow chess the position will always be reinstated no matter how long ago it happened. Illegal move is only a loss in blitz chess (section B).

About making a move according to the rules:

  Also, no you can't keep moving your piece until you press the clock, you can keep moving it until you let go of it.

Best regards.


Does playing bughouse have any benefits on your chess game?

Bughouse really doesn't. What can help you is shogi. Shogi is similar to chess but with complications that start almost immediately and become much more crazy than in chess. The reports that I have had from multiple players who went from chess, to shogi, back to chess is that the chess tactics suddenly seem exceedingly easy when you return.

To speculate for a moment, bughouse is harmful because it is similar enough to chess that it interferes with your thinking about chess. Shogi is sufficiently different to be separable.


This is not a missed win for black, both Kb6 and Kb7 are equally losing for black as you are simply a full rook down without any real compensation. Qe3 move simply stops black's only way to breakthrough as it stops Bxh3. That is not white's only move either, Kh1 and Rc3 (though walks in the way of the knight) are sufficiently good for white too.

So either:

The cloud engine didn't get to run sufficiently long and gave a wrong evaluation, or
you simply mis-read or mis-interpreted the evaluation of the engine, or
you're showing us the wrong position here.


Can you improve a supercomputer evaluation on your own move?

The point of an evaluation is to rate one sides chances of winning and to select the best chance of winning for that side. All the engine can do is calculate up to a certain point and then rate the position.
So yes you can definitely improve your evaluation because the engine may have missed something past its search depth.

If an engine had infinite depth there would be no point of an evaluation.


How much worse would I play if I played blindfolded?

I think it is ridiculous to assume that someone's normal rating would in any way be indicative of their blindfold rating. Your understanding of chess and ability to play with the chess pieces in front of you has little to do with your ability to hold all of the information in your head.

The only assumptions you can make are:

A) a person isn't going to be better at blindfold chess than they are at regular chess

B) someone with a higher rating in regular chess is more likely to be better at blindfold chess than a lower rated player.


How to use crafty chess engine in the gui chess64.exe link provided

I played a quick game as White.

1.e4 Nc6 2.Ke2 d5 3.Ke3 dxe4

xboard
st 1
e2e4
e1e2
e2e3

Logs:

./crafty-25.3-gcc
unable to open book file [./book.bin].
book is disabled
unable to open book file [./books.bin].

Crafty v25.3

machine has 8 processors

White(1): st 1
search time set to 1.00.
White(1): e2e4
              time used:   4.80
        time surplus   0.00  time limit 1.00 (1.00)
        depth     time       score   variation (1)
         18->   1.00/1.00     0.33   1. ... Nc6 2. Nf3 e5 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Nc3 Bc5
                                     5. O-O O-O 6. d3 Na5 7. Nxe5 Bd4 8. Nxf7
                                     Rxf7 9. Bxf7+ Kxf7 10. Bg5 d6
        time=1.00(100%)  nodes=5906541(5.9M)  fh1=92%  pred=0  nps=5.9M
        chk=40.8K  qchk=64.5K  fp=1.7M  mcp=1.4M  50move=1
        LMReductions:  1/236.3K  2/183.8K  3/125.8K  4/33.9K  5/1.3K
        null-move (R):  3/295.8K  4/20.0K  5/377
Black(1): Nc6
              time used:   1.00
White(2): Nf3 [pondering]
        time surplus  29.00  time limit 1.00 (1.00)
        depth     time       score   variation (17)
         19     1.15/1.00     0.22   2. (Nf3) e5 3. Bc4 Be7 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. O-O
                                     O-O 6. d3 d6 7. a3 a6 8. Be3 b5 9. Bd5 Bd7
                                     10. Qe2 Nxd5 11. Nxd5 Kh8
         19->   1.28/1.00     0.22   2. (Nf3) e5 3. Bc4 Be7 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. O-O
                                     O-O 6. d3 d6 7. a3 a6 8. Be3 b5 9. Bd5 Bd7
                                     10. Qe2 Nxd5 11. Nxd5 Kh8
         20     1.94/1.00     0.26   2. (Nf3) e5 3. Bc4 Be7 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. O-O
                                     O-O 6. d3 d6 7. a3 a6 8. h3 b5 9. Ba2 Be6
                                     10. Bxe6 fxe6 11. Be3 Qd7 12. Qe2
         20->   2.22/1.00     0.26   2. (Nf3) e5 3. Bc4 Be7 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. O-O
                                     O-O 6. d3 d6 7. a3 a6 8. h3 b5 9. Ba2 Be6
                                     10. Bxe6 fxe6 11. Be3 Qd7 12. Qe2
         21     4.24/1.00     0.24   2. (Nf3) e5 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Nc3 Be7 5. O-O
                                     d6 6. d4 exd4 7. Nxd4 Nxd4 8. Qxd4 O-O
                                     9. Qd3 Be6 10. Bxe6 fxe6 11. Be3 Ng4
                                     12. f3 Nxe3 13. Qxe3
         21->   4.56/1.00     0.24   2. (Nf3) e5 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Nc3 Be7 5. O-O
                                     d6 6. d4 exd4 7. Nxd4 Nxd4 8. Qxd4 O-O
                                     9. Qd3 Be6 10. Bxe6 fxe6 11. Be3 Ng4
                                     12. f3 Nxe3 13. Qxe3
         22    11.23/1.00     0.13   2. (Nf3) e5 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. O-O Nf6 5. d3 d6
                                     6. Nc3 O-O 7. Bg5 Be6 8. Bxe6 fxe6 9. Qd2
                                     Qe7 10. Kh1 Nd4 11. Nxd4 exd4 12. Bxf6
                                     Rxf6 13. Nb5
         22->  11.51/1.00     0.13   2. (Nf3) e5 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. O-O Nf6 5. d3 d6
                                     6. Nc3 O-O 7. Bg5 Be6 8. Bxe6 fxe6 9. Qd2
                                     Qe7 10. Kh1 Nd4 11. Nxd4 exd4 12. Bxf6
                                     Rxf6 13. Nb5
         23    15.56/1.00     0.18   2. (Nf3) e5 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5
                                     Nxd5 6. O-O f6 7. Nf3 Bg4 8. Re1 Nd4 9. c3
                                     Nxf3+ 10. gxf3 Bh5 11. d4 Nb6 12. Be6 Bd6
                                     13. Nd2 Qe7 14. dxe5 Bxe5
         23->  16.08/1.00     0.18   2. (Nf3) e5 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5
                                     Nxd5 6. O-O f6 7. Nf3 Bg4 8. Re1 Nd4 9. c3
                                     Nxf3+ 10. gxf3 Bh5 11. d4 Nb6 12. Be6 Bd6
                                     13. Nd2 Qe7 14. dxe5 Bxe5
         24    19.01/1.00     0.25   2. (Nf3) e5 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5
                                     Nxd5 6. O-O f6 7. Nf3 Bg4 8. Re1 Nd4 9. c3
                                     Nxf3+ 10. gxf3 Bh5 11. d4 Nb6 12. Bb3 Be7
                                     13. Na3 Bxa3 14. bxa3 Qd6
         24->  20.78/1.00     0.25   2. (Nf3) e5 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5
                                     Nxd5 6. O-O f6 7. Nf3 Bg4 8. Re1 Nd4 9. c3
                                     Nxf3+ 10. gxf3 Bh5 11. d4 Nb6 12. Bb3 Be7
                                     13. Na3 Bxa3 14. bxa3 Qd6
         25    30.02/1.00     1/22?  2. ... e5      (6.4Mnps)
ok.

ok.
e1e2
White(2): e1e2
              time used:  35.73
        time surplus  29.00  time limit 1.00 (1.00)
        depth     time       score   variation (1)
         17->   1.01/1.00    -0.94   2. ... d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Ke1 Bf5 5. Nc3
                                     Qc5 6. Nge2 O-O-O 7. Ng3 Qe5+ 8. Be2 Be6
                                     9. d3 Nf6 10. Kf1 Nd4 11. Nge4
        time=1.01(100%)  nodes=6286981(6.3M)  fh1=87%  pred=0  nps=6.2M
        chk=177.9K  qchk=408.3K  fp=2.1M  mcp=805.1K  50move=3
        LMReductions:  1/119.7K  2/76.9K  3/51.9K  4/20.2K  5/1.8K  6/1
        null-move (R):  3/160.8K  4/10.7K  5/175
Black(2): d5
              time used:   1.01
White(3): exd5 [pondering]
        time surplus  57.99  time limit 1.00 (1.00)
        depth     time       score   variation (16)
         19     1.25/1.00    -0.83   3. (exd5) Qxd5 4. Ke1 Bf5 5. Nc3 Qc5
                                     6. Bb5 O-O-O 7. Bxc6 Qxc6 8. Nf3 Nf6 9. d3
                                     e6 10. Kf1 Bg4 11. Ne5 Qxc3 12. Nxg4 Qc4
         19->   1.80/1.00    -0.83   3. (exd5) Qxd5 4. Ke1 Bf5 5. Nc3 Qc5
                                     6. Bb5 O-O-O 7. Bxc6 Qxc6 8. Nf3 Nf6 9. d3
                                     e6 10. Kf1 Bg4 11. Ne5 Qxc3 12. Nxg4 Qc4
e2e         20     4.67/1.00    -0.71   3. (exd5) Qxd5 4. Ke1 Nf6 5. Nc3 Qc5 6. d3
                                     e5 7. Nf3 Bd6 8. Be2 O-O 9. Kf1 Re8
                                     10. Ng5 Nd4 11. Bh5 g6 12. Bf3 h6 13. Nge4
3        20     4.67/1.00     2/29?  3. ... Bg4+    (7.0Mnps)
White(3): e2e3
              time used:   4.93
        time surplus  57.99  time limit 1.00 (1.00)
        depth     time       score   variation (1)
         14->   1.01/1.00    -2.57   3. ... dxe4 4. Ke2 Bg4+ 5. f3 exf3+
                                     6. Nxf3 Qd6 7. Nc3 O-O-O 8. Ke1 Nf6 9. d3
                                     Nd4 10. Be2 Qb4 11. Kf1
        time=1.01(100%)  nodes=6260401(6.3M)  fh1=86%  pred=0  nps=6.2M
        chk=169.6K  qchk=373.8K  fp=2.4M  mcp=534.1K  50move=2
        LMReductions:  1/100.5K  2/56.5K  3/38.1K  4/16.5K  5/1.0K
        null-move (R):  3/134.8K  4/6.3K  5/23
Black(3): dxe4
              time used:   1.01
White(4): Ke2 [pondering]
        time surplus   1:26  time limit 1.00 (1.00)
        depth     time       score   variation (13)
         16     1.38/1.00    -2.33   4. (Ke2) Bg4+ 5. f3 exf3+ 6. Nxf3 Bxf3+
                                     7. gxf3 Qd6 8. Bh3 e6 9. Nc3 O-O-O 10. d3
                                     Nf6 11. Kf1 Nd4 12. Be3 Qb4 13. Bxd4 Rxd4
         16->   1.44/1.00    -2.33   4. (Ke2) Bg4+ 5. f3 exf3+ 6. Nxf3 Bxf3+
                                     7. gxf3 Qd6 8. Bh3 e6 9. Nc3 O-O-O 10. d3
                                     Nf6 11. Kf1 Nd4 12. Be3 Qb4 13. Bxd4 Rxd4
         17     5.31/1.00    -2.52   4. (Ke2) Bg4+ 5. f3 exf3+ 6. gxf3 Bf5
                                     7. c3 e6 8. d4 Qh4 9. Be3 O-O-O 10. Qe1
                                     Bd3+ 11. Kd2 Qxe1+ 12. Kxe1 Bxf1 13. Kxf1
                                     Nf6 14. Ne2
         17->   5.34/1.00    -2.52   4. (Ke2) Bg4+ 5. f3 exf3+ 6. gxf3 Bf5
                                     7. c3 e6 8. d4 Qh4 9. Be3 O-O-O 10. Qe1
                                     Bd3+ 11. Kd2 Qxe1+ 12. Kxe1 Bxf1 13. Kxf1
                                     Nf6 14. Ne2
         18     5.34/1.00     1/33?  4. ... Bg4+    (6.3Mnps)
ok.
         18     7.00/1.00    -2.62   4. (Ke2) Bg4+ 5. f3 exf3+ 6. gxf3 Bf5
                                     7. d3 e6 8. Qe1 Qe7 9. Kd1 O-O-O 10. Nc3
                                     Nf6 11. Nge2 Ne5 12. Ng1 Nc4 13. b3 Nd6
                                     14. Be3
         18->   7.06/1.00    -2.62   4. (Ke2) Bg4+ 5. f3 exf3+ 6. gxf3 Bf5
                                     7. d3 e6 8. Qe1 Qe7 9. Kd1 O-O-O 10. Nc3
                                     Nf6 11. Nge2 Ne5 12. Ng1 Nc4 13. b3 Nd6
                                     14. Be3
         19     8.82/1.00    -2.51   4. (Ke2) Bg4+ 5. f3 exf3+ 6. gxf3 Bf5
                                     7. d3 Nf6 8. Nc3 Qd6 9. Ke1 O-O-O 10. Nge2
                                     Qb4 11. Bg2 Qh4+ 12. Kf1 e5 13. Be3 Bh3
                                     14. Qe1 Qh5 15. Rg1
         19->   8.98/1.00    -2.51   4. (Ke2) Bg4+ 5. f3 exf3+ 6. gxf3 Bf5
                                     7. d3 Nf6 8. Nc3 Qd6 9. Ke1 O-O-O 10. Nge2
                                     Qb4 11. Bg2 Qh4+ 12. Kf1 e5 13. Be3 Bh3
                                     14. Qe1 Qh5 15. Rg1
         20    10.28/1.00    -2.56   4. (Ke2) Bg4+ 5. f3 exf3+ 6. gxf3 Bf5
                                     7. d3 Nf6 8. Nc3 Qd6 9. Ke1 O-O-O 10. Bg2
                                     Qd4 11. Ne4 Qa4 12. Ne2 Nb4 13. b3 Qc6
                                     14. N4c3 Bg4 15. Rf1
         20->  10.42/1.00    -2.56   4. (Ke2) Bg4+ 5. f3 exf3+ 6. gxf3 Bf5
                                     7. d3 Nf6 8. Nc3 Qd6 9. Ke1 O-O-O 10. Bg2
                                     Qd4 11. Ne4 Qa4 12. Ne2 Nb4 13. b3 Qc6
                                     14. N4c3 Bg4 15. Rf1
         21    15.82/1.00    -2.50   4. (Ke2) Bg4+ 5. f3 exf3+ 6. gxf3 Bf5
                                     7. d3 Nf6 8. Nc3 Nd5 9. Ne4 e6 10. Bg2
                                     Nd4+ 11. Kf1 Bxe4 12. fxe4 Nb4 13. c3 Ndc2
                                     14. cxb4 Nxa1 15. a3 c5 16. Bf4
         21->  16.34/1.00    -2.50   4. (Ke2) Bg4+ 5. f3 exf3+ 6. gxf3 Bf5
                                     7. d3 Nf6 8. Nc3 Nd5 9. Ne4 e6 10. Bg2
                                     Nd4+ 11. Kf1 Bxe4 12. fxe4 Nb4 13. c3 Ndc2
                                     14. cxb4 Nxa1 15. a3 c5 16. Bf4
         22    23.04/1.00     1/33?  4. ... Bg4+    (6.5Mnps)Nc6


How much stronger is a team of GMs compared to a single GM?

I think a team of GMs are not significantly stronger than a single GM.

My reasoning is: Thinking is fast while communicating is slow and error-prone. It takes dramatically more time to explain an assessment to another GM and while trying to explain some things will be omitted/forgetted. In the end a team of GMs will spend considerably more time to produce a quality move and that move may not be significantly better to justify spending extra time.

Plus, more teammates the team have, there will be more communication channels (grows quadratically respect to number of teammates) and this will make communication less and less efficient.

An alternative approach to overcome inefficiencies:  Let the team to be formed as 1 player (the best player) and N advisors advising player when they believe they can significantly improve players move, otherwise they don't interrupt. Ideally advisors should excel the best player in a particular area of chess. For example Adviser 1 is the best endgame player and advisor 2 is Sicilian expert and so on.

Also the team can switch player in the middle of the game to avoid player to get tired and play weaker especially in long games.


The question of whether chess is a sport depends entirely on the context of the question. In certain situations, it may be useful to classify chess as a sport. For example, as you mention, in some schools chess is considered a sport because it matches the requirements of a sport in that context - an activity that pupils can engage in outside of academic learning that essentially keeps them out of trouble. Yet in other contexts, as when sport means to exercise some muscle group or improve fitness or some physical ability, chess would not typically be considered a sport.

On a deeper, philosophical level, the question is meaningless. "Sport" has no objective, unambiguous definition, it is a cultural concept that changes in meaning depending on time, culture, fashion and many other factors.


Why don't masters prevent the pin after Bg4 in the modern Italian game?

You're referring to ...Bc8-g4 as a threat. The only threat it makes is ...Bg4xf3, losing time and the bishop pair.
While White has d4 under wraps with a pawn at c3, theere's no ...Nc6-d4 coming to pressure the pinned knight. The f6-knight has to move to a lesser square to prepare ...Qd8-f6, which is nothing because Nb1-d2 is right at hand to prevent a fracture of White's king position.
A bishop at g4 is a target for this maneuver: Nb1-d2-f1-e3 or Nb1-d2-f1-g3 plus h2-h3 when the bishop can't maintain the pin by ...Bg4-h5. White also has the option of h2-h3 plus g2-g4 (if ...Bh5) then one of those knight maneuvers aims for f5 at the end. See, you're talking about h3 plus g4 like it's a bad thing but while the center control and development are equal, it's not so risky to create those holes in the king position, and if there's nothing going on the center, then that expansion (or a4, b4, a5, etc. on the other wing) is one of the only ways to generate heat.
This is not a position for inexpert players to be concerned with. It's very quiet, which is OK for masters, because they know how to fend off an opponent who stirs it up too soon, and because they know how to open the quiet position when it's the right time. Average players and students should be studying games in which the tactics arise early, because it's recognizing those tactics that eventually gets them to where they're genuinely able to play these humdrum Giuoco Pianos.


How is average centipawn loss calculated when a mate is missed?

I cannot vouch for every engine available, but the general approach is, the mate is evaluated to something close to 15-bit integer, 32765 centipawns, and you get minus 1000 centipawns for every move-to-mate (to make it reasonable for the engine to sacrifice the queen (~900 cp) to delay the mate).

In your particular case, the original evaluation was 327.65 pawns, the mate-in-6 became something like 327.65 - 10.00 * 6 = 267.65 -- the numbers are not exact, and different engines may use slightly different approaches, but this one is the most common, I believe.


That's descriptive notation. Click that to go to the wiki page.

It is an obsolete notation, having been replaced by algebraic or figurine algebraic notation.

B x KP means, Bishop (B) takes (x) Kings (K) Pawn (P).

Q-R5 - Queen (Q) Moves To (-) Rook's (R) Fifth square (5)

Then there are ways to show castling, etc.

EDIT - doubled pawns.  Descriptive Notation doesn't care how pieces got on the squares where they sit. Just name the piece and where it is going. If you were white and had a pawn on e4 and another on e6 (or K4 and K6, in descriptive) and you moved the pawn on e6, your move would be P-K7.

One thing about descriptive, is that the squares are numbered with respect to the side that is moving.  Say you wanted to move your Queen from her initial square to the opposite edge of the board. Your move, as white, would be Q-Q8 (Queen moves to the Queen's eighth square).  Now suppose you wanted to make the exact same move, but as black. This move would also be Q-Q8. Both moves are notated with respect to the side making the move.


While the king knight remains on the board with options to move to c5 or f6,  ....Nb8-d7 is an overlap.


Ideas and tactics behind the 4.h4 (or 5.h4) attack vs. the Gruenfeld?

First, I think that a lot of it is simply to get away from the heavier theory of other lines. Stockfish does not think highly of this move, and it does not make sense that such a move would be best from a purely theoretical standpoint. From a practical standpoint, that is another ball of wax since some of the positions get very messy. After all, who does not get a little queasy when the opponent starts throwing the h-pawn at you?

White's idea is pretty straight forward: It is obviously to prepare a direct attack against the black king, and there are actually lines that black voluntarily castles into to it. I do not believe that theory has come up with a definitive evaluation just yet. Can black play a line that will render h4 semi-useless, or not? I am skeptical that this is good for any advantage, or worse.

Despite the aggressive intentions, the lines below show that black has a lot of counter-punching available in the position.

Here is a couple of lines with my comments on the early 4.h4.

 [FEN ""]

 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. h4 c5 {This has to be best just striking back in the center will full force. This seems to render h4 pointless for now since there is clearly not going to be any king of direct attack with the center so open.} (4... dxc4 {This would be the most principled move, meeting a flank attack with action in the center, but it is not well-prepared, and white gets too much center.} 5. e4 c5 6. d5) (4... c6 {This is a line, but it seems passive, and seems to fall right into white's plans as far as I am concerned.}) 5. dxc5 d4 {Leading to a very complex game.} 6. Nb5 e5 $1 7. b4 Nc6 8. Bg5 Nxb4 9. Bxf6 Qxf6 10. Nc7+ Kd8 11. Nxa8 Bf5 12. Rc1 Bxc5 {And black is probably better.}

Here are some lines and comments on 5.h4.

 [FEN ""]

  1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. h4 {Unlike the last line, c5 does not work so well here so white seems justified in throwing in Nf3 also before 5.h4.} dxc4 $1 (5... c5 $2 6. dxc5 {And because there is no d4, black will struggle to regain the pawn.}) 6. e4 {And black has several ideas here.} c5 $1 {Striking back at the center is the main line.} (6... O-O {In this line, black says, "I am ahead in development, so I do not see how your attack will work.} 7. h5 Nxh5 8. Bxc4 Bg4 9. Be3 e5 (9... Nc6 $5) 10. dxe5 Nc6 {Was Morozevich-Popov Moscow blitz 2013.}) 7. d5 {And there are three moves from here, 0-0, Qa5, and b5!? The last two are very complex.} b5 $5 {For example.} 8. Nxb5 $2 Qa5+ 9. Nc3 Nxe4 10. Bd2 (10. Qa4+ $4 Qxa4 11. Nxa4 Bd7 $19) 10... Nxc3 11. Qc1 Nd7 $17 (11... Nxa2 $5)


How to objectively explain a positional advantage is worth a sacrifice (re: a specific example)

White has a lot of compensation for the sacrificed exchange, specifically:

more space: the white central pawns are perfectly placed to limit the movement of the black knight and bishop
play on the dark squares: black has considerably weakened the dark squares on the king side and does not have a dark-squared bishop anymore; White can easily take advantage of that by operating on these squares with bishop, knight and queen.
lead in development: Basically white only needs to activate the rook, while black really struggles to free himself. Also black will be forced to move the rook on h8 (castling seems too dangerous), losing another move for development and leaving the king in the center for some more time where it will be under attack.

This suggests that white can make use of these elements, before black can recover.

Somewhat concrete lines:

Black's rook h8 is under attack and has to move. Three options:

1...0-0 looks very dangerous for black. White could just play something like Qd2, Qh6, Ng5 and if necessary h4, h5. I don't see what black could do to avoid getting mated soon. Note that black cannot play something like f6 soon because of the discovered check from the b3 bishop.
1..Rg8 or 1..Rf8. Here white has basically two ideas, which can be combined in various ways. a) play d6 which prevents black from playing d6 himself (freeing the bishop on c8) and allows white to activate the queen (via d6-f6). Also, with the white queen on d6 and the white bishop on f6, white would basically bind four black pieces (Qd8, Ne7, Ke8, Rf8) to very passive positions. b) play Ng5, which hints at an attack on f7 and also on re-routing the knight via h7 to f6.

So overall, yes the position is pretty hopeless for black.

Regarding your general quesion (Why are these things worth three pawn points? And how do I know when they are worth that much?):

You should realize that material is only one of many factors relevant for judging  a position. Admittedly, in many games, players have somewhat symmetric positions, are developed equally well, etc and in this case, material becomes a major factor. So yes, in quiet normal positions material is often very important.

However in highly unbalanced positions like the one in your example, material count becomes less important and is easily trumped by activity. There is no strict rule to know when this is the case. In fact this is among the more difficult aspects of chess and can basically only gained by experience. I would strongly discourage you from trying to assess such unbalanced positions by summing points for "piece activity", "weak king"... Chess just does not work this way.

Computers do something like this in their evaluation function, but they do this for many (lots) positions many moves down the line (not only the current position) and then it does make sense. Furthermore computers have a more fine-grained number for "space", "piece activity", etc.

Anyway, humans lack the power to do all this and basically need to rely on experience, intuition and (occasionally) calculating some more or less forced concrete lines.

As a very rough guideline (don't follow this strictly) you can sacrifice:

a pawn: to gain a lead in development/piece activity or central control, for at least a short amount of time, often with a potential to regain the pawn easily if needed (see e.g. Queen's gambit). Sacrificing a pawn is not a major deal as many positions are still a draw +- a pawn.
up to three pawns or an exchange: if you get a major long term positional advantage through it; often you end up with a very strong minor piece vs. a not-so strong rook (e.g. in somewhat closed positions). Here you really need to have something concrete.
more than three pawns or an exchange: rarely, typically in direct mating attacks only


What levels should theoretical endings be learned at?

The more I look at Silman's Complete Endgame Course, the more I agree with how he has organised it.

Overkill mates where the stronger side is up by at least two rooks worth of material. KQQk, KQRk and KRRk. Especially KRRk is good because it emphasises the importance of having a plan. With queen(s) on the board, mindlessly checking might let the student accidentally fall into a mate, but checking over and over again in KRRk is unlikely to produce progress.
KQk and KRk. The two basic mates. Further hammering in the importance of having a plan.
KQkb and KQkn.  Easy enough to win, but especially the latter one takes surprisingly many moves against a stubborn defender.
KPk, opposition and the square of a passed pawn. Nothing much needs to be said. This is obviously required knowledge.

These four represent what I'd call the bare minimum needed. And the third is really more of a case of "head fake learning". When one is better at chess, one can obviously figure out how to win KQk{b|n} over the board, so from the viewpoint of teaching theory this is at best marginally useful. The student is actually learning about what the pieces can and cannot do which is always going to be useful.

Beyond this, I think the most practically useful are KQkp, Lucena, Philidor (the KRPkr draw, not the KRBkr win) and a small selection of minor piece theoretical draws (wrong-coloured bishop + rook pawn, KNPk with pawn on h7, etc.).

You want to minimise memorisation while maximising useful knowledge gained for practical play. Not just in the endgame but also the ability to formulate and execute plans (try KRRkr for this) and gaining familiarity with the capabilities of the pieces.


What are any USCF tournament rule changes since 1990?

The biggest thing that caught me was the new clock "delay" style. I had to buy a new clock to be able to use mine in a tournament, after taking a break from 2000 to 2010. My old, somewhat expensive digital clock only had "Bronstein", where you add time each move. The newer digital clocks all support the "delay" setting, where you can delay starting the timer each move until a certain number of seconds in. In standard USCF tournaments, they now require a 5 second delay. (I'm not sure when it was implemented, but I assume sometime between 2000 and 2010).

Aside from that, there was something about allowing the new electronic pocket devices for taking down moves. This has caused some controversy, because some of the devices can run chess engines, and can be used for cheating, so TDs and players alike should be careful to note how they are being used. I personally prefer paper.

There is also an entirely new method of calculating ratings, so forget what you knew from back then. (This isn't really a rule.)

Sorry if this isn't comprehensive, but hopefully it is useful.


Is this endgame a draw (hacked - TestViking)?

Yes, it was drawn all along. 1...Ke6! was the only move for black to draw since he cannot allow white to force ...gxf6, nor allow the white king up to support the d-pawn. After 4.Ke5 Kxd7 5.Kd5 there's no way for either side to make progress as the kings will just be shuffled between d5/e5 and d7/e7. There is one practical chance/trap that might be worth trying before agreeing to a draw; black can play 5...Kc7 and see if white goes for 6.Ke6, in which case black wins with 6...b5!, forcing the creation of a passed pawn and queening first. As long as white spots this and plays 6.Ke5 instead there's nothing more to do, though.

Edit: I realized black cannot play Ke7 at the end as it loses to Kc6. However, Kc7 still draws as before due to white being unable to play Ke6.


The Ponziani move order is that shown on the board below:

[Fen ""]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3

With 3. c3, White aims to:

Prepare the pawn push d4
Avoid the Ruy Lopez & Italian game lines, though transpositions can occur
The down side of this non-developing move is that the queen-side knight is deprived of its best square. White often sacrifices material or structure (by accepting an isolated Queen's pawn) to develop.

In response to this, Black has 3 main moves.

3...Nf6

r1bqkbnr/pppp1ppp/2n5/4p3/4P3/2P2N2/PP1P1PPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 3

3...Nf6 4. d4

Now, Black can accept the gambit with 4...Nxe4. Play goes 5. d5 Ne7. 5...Nb8 is also played, but less often than 5...Ne7. White's plan here is as with an gambit - build a development lead, keep the initiative & attack.

Or, he can accept the pawn with 4...exd4. Play goes 5. e5 Ne4 6. Qe2 d(f)5 7. exd(f)5 e.p., opening the position. White often gets an isolated Queen's paw position in these lines, which should be played like a gambit (keep the initiative, avoid trades & attack).

Lastly, Black can play 4...d5, leading to a complex game with lots of central tension. Play goes 5. Bb5 aims to develop & prepare tactics based on the theme of removing the defender.

3...d5

r1bqkbnr/pppp1ppp/2n5/4p3/4P3/2P2N2/PP1P1PPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 3

3...d5 4. Qa4

Play can go 4... Qd6 5. Na3 (preparing to attack the Queen) Nf6 6. Nb5 Qe7 7. d3, and White has better development, a space advantage & a solid structure.

Play can also become very complicated with 4... Bd7 exd5 5. Nd4, where Black is trying to develop with tactics against the Queen.

3...f5!?

r1bqkbnr/pppp1ppp/2n5/4p3/4P3/2P2N2/PP1P1PPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 3

3...f5 4. exf5 Qf6

This is a gambit with play similar to the Latvian gambit.


Which countries have the most GMs per capita?

Here are the results of queries on the latest (April 2021) FIDE rating list.
Interesting to note that Iceland is actually only in 2nd. I guess in the map in the question Monaco is too small to see. The first big country (population > 1 million) is Armenia in 5th. Russia, the country with the most GMs - 240, is only in 31st place. No sign in this list of China or India.
Country - GMs - GMsPerMillion

Monaco - 3 - 79.4
Iceland - 13 - 39.1
Andorra - 2 - 27.9
Faroe Islands - 1 - 20.3
Armenia - 40 - 13.3
Montenegro - 6 - 9.6
Georgia - 30 - 8.0
Croatia - 30 - 7.1
Serbia - 50 - 7.0
Latvia - 11 - 5.6
Hungary - 53 - 5.4
Slovenia - 11 - 5.3
Israel - 44 - 5.2
Macedonia - 10 - 4.8
Bulgaria - 33 - 4.58
Estonia - 6 - 4.57
Czech Republic - 34 - 3.2
Norway - 16 - 3.1
Lithuania - 8 - 2.8
Azerbaijan - 26 - 2.7
Mongolia - 8 - 2.6
Denmark - 14 - 2.5
Cuba - 27 - 2.4
Slovakia - 13 - 2.4
Netherlands - 38 - 2.24
Sweden - 22 - 2.23
Bosnia Herzegovina - 8 - 2.1
Ukraine - 87 - 2.0
Belarus - 17 - 1.78
Moldova - 6 - 1.68
Russia - 240 - 1.64
Scotland - 7 - 1.31
Greece - 14 - 1.29
Poland - 49 - 1.27
Qatar - 3 - 1.24
Spain - 57 - 1.23
Germany - 95 - 1.17
Switzerland - 9 - 1.08
Romania - 21 - 1.06
Turkmenistan - 5 - 1.05
Austria - 9 - 1.03
Kazakhstan - 15 - 0.85
Belgium - 9 - 0.796
France - 51 - 0.791
Finland - 4 - 0.727
Singapore - 4 - 0.723
England - 36 - 0.679
Paraguay - 4 - 0.584
Uruguay - 2 - 0.575
Uzbekistan - 17 - 0.548

When you look at GMs per thousand FIDE registered players the picture changes. Armenia moves to the top and China appears in the list at no. 5.
FullName - Players - GMs - GMSPerThousandPlayers

Armenia - 1789 - 40 - 22.4
Monaco - 136 - 3 - 22.1
Qatar - 147 - 3 - 20.4
Andorra - 151 - 2 - 13.2
China - 3783 - 48 - 12.7
Macedonia - 1048 - 10 - 9.54
Georgia - 3377 - 30 - 8.88
Cuba - 3080 - 27 - 8.77
Israel - 5316 - 44 - 8.23
Turkmenistan - 606 - 5 - 8.25
Bulgaria - 4512 - 33 - 7.31
Scotland - 994 - 7 - 7.04
Uzbekistan - 2417 - 17 - 7.03
Belarus - 2648 - 17 - 6.42
Montenegro - 1031 - 6 - 5.82
Iceland - 2244 - 13 - 5.79
Ukraine - 15318 - 87 - 5.68
United States - 18067 - 96 - 5.31
Moldova - 1139 - 6 - 5.27
Azerbaijan - 5223 - 26 - 4.98
Serbia - 10151 - 50 - 4.93
Hungary - 11116 - 53 - 4.77
Netherlands - 8152 - 38 - 4.66
Tajikistan - 232 - 1 - 4.31
Vietnam - 2996 - 12 - 4.01
England - 9464 - 36 - 3.80
Canada - 4059 - 14 - 3.45
Mongolia - 2331 - 8 - 3.43
Latvia - 3284 - 11 - 3.35
Paraguay - 1210 - 4 - 3.31
Sweden - 6694 - 22 - 3.29
Estonia - 1853 - 6 - 3.24
Croatia - 9292 - 30 - 3.23
Bosnia Herzegovina - 2794 - 8 - 2.86
Russia - 96262 - 240 - 2.49
Faroe Islands - 404 - 1 - 2.48
Czech Republic - 14000 - 34 - 2.43
Norway - 6671 - 16 - 2.4
Germany - 39740 - 95 - 2.39
Argentina - 10001 - 23 - 2.3
Finland - 1781 - 4 - 2.245
Slovenia - 5201 - 11 - 2.11
Philippines - 6200 - 13 - 2.1
Australia - 4824 - 10 - 2.07
Romania - 10165 - 21 - 2.066
Switzerland - 4528 - 9 - 1.99
Denmark - 7074 - 14 - 1.98
Kazakhstan - 8056 - 15 - 1.86
Lithuania - 4575 - 8 - 1.75
Poland - 28878 - 49 - 1.7


The Wikipedia page on Joke chess problems has a section on self-solving chess problems, and it links to Tim Krabbé's Open Chess Diary, where a few more examples are in item 267. He calls them "no-brainers".


What are the benefits of learning to play chess as an adult (30s) if any?

The benefit I like the most (I'm almost 60) is that it prevents, or slows down the onset of,  Alzheimer's disease.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/24/opinion/checkmating-alzheimer-s.html

http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/can-playing-chess-prevent-alzheimers/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0


There is an article by Geurt Gijssen on Chess Cafe (4th question asked) that touches on the event that the clock's initial time control being incorrectly configured, but only noticed much later in the game.

He quotes the FIDE rules:

  The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they
  regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the
  Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations, which are
  discussed in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement
  and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and
  thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors.

Geurt responds:

  I especially like the last part of the last sentence: a solution should be “dictated by fairness, logic and special
  factors.” With this in mind, I think it is quite unfair to change the time modus at the moment a player only has
  one second on his clock in such a way that he only has this one second left. Therefore, I see two possible
  solutions: Change the time mode after the first period; Change the time mode at the moment of the claim, but the player should be given a reasonable amount
  of time (at least one minute) for the remaining moves.  I prefer the second option.

In your situation, it sounds like a reasonable action to stop the clock and set the delay correctly.  As for other cases, it looks like it lies to the TD to determine a fair trade-off.


Oscillating Stockfish Evaluation on Laptop

If I understand correctly your x axis is the moves. Your script implied Anand and Prag were blundering every time they make a move,

Clearly you have a bug in your script. Stockfish engine always give you a score relative to the player making the move, NOT white. You need to multiply the score by minus one if it’s Black to move.

Please do this and you will be fine.


Learn chess geometries and patterns. For example,
if two of your pieces stand on squares of opposite colors (or along a diagonal with one square between), then the pieces cannot be forked by a knight; and if the pieces will remain there for several turns, then they will remain mostly immune to that threat.
Learn more chess geometries and patterns. For example, a bishop is often an eventual threat to attack any foe that stands on its diagonal, even if, say, two pawns standing on the diagonal currently block the attack. If the bishop remains on the diagonal for several turns, then a player can see the potential, eventual threat, all along the diagonal.
Learn further chess geometries and patterns. For example, if your opponent has only one bishop, if you have chosen a square of the opposite color on which to place your rook, then the problem that the bishop might eventually capture the rook is less worrisome.
Observe that items 1, 2 and 3 are all positional in nature. An opponent of intermediate ability—say, ELO 1500—may see less of the board than you think; but if he or she has positioned his or her men on squares on which it is hard for you to develop threats against them, it can seem as though the player sees the board in a way you do not.
Know where your hanging (unguarded) pieces are—knights, bishops, rooks and queen. Pay special attention. Whenever you have an unguarded piece, the opponent might develop a tactic against it. That's okay. No chess player can guard all pieces at all times, but if you cannot hold the entire position in mind at once (I cannot, either), then you can at least hold certain features of it in mind. Hanging pieces are often an important feature.
Avoid wasting tempos. When you make a pointless move, this usually affords your opponent valuable time to exploit weaknesses in your position. When all your moves are purposeful, by contrast, your position might still suffer weaknesses—even weaknesses of which you are unaware—but your purposeful moves may deny the opponent the opportunity to exploit the weaknesses insofar as that your moves have forced the opponent to defend rather than attack.

Much of my answer is indirect, but you can see the board better when you have arranged the board such that there are fewer things on the board that are necessary for you to see. This is what positional play is about.


Which is the smallest chess engine with ELO at least 2000?

I'm not aware of any "small" chess engine written in JavaScript, but there's a "small" engine written in C. Micro-max has about 1900 to 2000 rating, depends on the rating list and testing condition.

http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/cgi/engine_details.cgi?print=Details+%28text%29&eng=Micro-Max%204.8

Note that it's not the smallest engine, but the engine that is even smaller than Micro-max plays awful chess (dropping pieces) and even walk into check (illegal move).


Do any openings result in a lost game for black?

Your question is somewhat hard to answer, because it depends on what you consider "an opening" to be.

Obviously, there are openings where black loses -- consider the typical Scholar's Mate, 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Qh5 Nf6 4.Qxf7#.

But, you will probably think, nobody with any knowledge of the game will play like that! And that's reasonable. But it is an opening, isn't it?

And if you mean "are there any commonly played, theoretical openings where Black loses?" then there are very few indeed -- after all, why would black play such an opening? Once some line is refuted, almost everybody stops playing it.

Katerina said:

  Ultimately, a lot of openings in chess will result in black losing, if both players play perfectly. It might not be your fault, just that black starts off one tempo behind.

I don't agree with that at all. Chess is considered by most people to be a draw at best play, and commonly played openings aren't losing. They may be slightly worse, but that's not the same as losing, not even with perfect play -- it just means that black will have to defend most of the game without much chance of winning himself.


Identify this chess set with heavy painted metal pieces

Some of the colors are a bit different, but that could be age or the nature of being hand painted. Also, you don't say how tall it is. That said, it looks very similar to a Crusaders vs. Saracens set, which has 5 inch tall kings. It is made of "polystone", a material made from crushed stone and polyurethane which is supposed to be durable and provide a heavy feel.


How do you write "castles" in algebraic?

In either algebraic or descriptive notation, castling is notated 0-0 or O-O on the Kingside (when the King goes to g1 or g8) and 0-0-0 or O-O-O on the Queenside (when the King goes to c1 to c8).  See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_notation_(chess)#Castling


Iterative deepening: what should I do with previous results?

In alpha/beta pruning, the order that moves are searched in matters a great deal. You always want the best move(s) to be searched first--this creates more beta cutoffs. The basic idea is that before searching each level of the tree, we will sort the moves based on how good they are, then search the moves in that order.
Of course, this is quasi-paradoxical ("how to find the best move: step 1, find the best move...") and one of the ways we get around that is using iterative deepening. Search the position at a smaller depth, then put that move at the very top of the list for the next iteration. This is the point of iterative deepening.

Because you are just starting out, (and are searching depth 2 in 15 sec), I'd really recommend

making sure your alpha/beta is bug free (for the love of god, use negamax)
implementing other move ordering techniques before iterative deepening.
implementing null move pruning

These last two are (relatively) easy to do, and give essentially free speedups.


Threefold repetition: Am I getting it right?

The confusion regarding the right to claim a draw when the position occurs 3 times results from the common misnomer for the situation: "Three-Fold Repetition".  A correct term could be Three-Fold Occurrence.

As a result, in your diagram, after there have been 2 repetitions (which shows in the animation as "Repitition (sic) 2", there have been 3 occurrences of the position, and a draw may be claimed.  The game is not actually "drawn" until a claim is made and the Arbiter or Tournament Director approves the claim. This also has the result that if the player creating the 3rd occurrence of the position neglects to make the claim and proceeds to make a move, the right to claim a draw for this situation expires instantly, with his move.

Note that the protocol for making such a claim must be (to avoid causing his right to claim to expire) the following: The player announces his intention to make the move and cause the 3-fold occurrence, makes the claim to the TD before moving, and the claim is adjudicated. The rules do not describe whether the TD will require the player to make the move, but it would seem that he must, for the claim to be completed, or he will not have fulfilled his claim by causing the position to appear.  If it is determined (after the move has been made, presumably) that the position is not in fact a third occurrence, presumably his move must stand, and a penalty for incorrect claim would be levied.

Note that all of the legal moves in all of the 3 occurrences must be identical, including rights to castle as well as any possibility of en passant capture.  It is not sufficient that the same pieces merely appear on the same squares.


How to improve blitz chess rating?(Time management)

Blitz is a bit of a different chess "animal". In order to play blitz well, you need a few things, and that is great tactical vision, good time management, and some positional skill so you can make decent moves quickly in quieter positions. It also helps to be young because you think faster when you are young.

The first part to getting better is obvious, and that is work diligently on your tactics. Do a lot of them in a short period of time for the best results. I also recommend reading games, especially fun tactical ones, without a board. This will also help your vision.

As far as time goes, personally, I hate falling behind on the clock at any time control, but it is more crucial in blitz. If you do fall behind, it cannot be by too much...ever. You simply have to play fast, and keep an eye on the clocks at all times to stay ahead on time, or at least, close. Only every now an then, can you afford a longer think.

The positional skill comes with time, and reading a lot of books about pawn structures, and other positional elements will help with this. I strongly recommend the Yusupov series of books as they cover all areas of the game. This may not be good for your regular play and long-term chess development, but also if you play openings that have very standard places for the pieces, like the Stonewall, or London System, you can save time in the opening.

Lastly, you just need to play a lot, although this may not be conducive to your classical rating as you can become shallow. Personally, while it is fun, for a serious player, blitz is not the best think for your game (Botvinnik agreed), but it can be especially useful for testing out your openings.

P.S. I know that 3-0 is a common control, but you can also play 3-2, or 5-3, which is still fast, but gives you a little more time to think. Conversely, you could also play some bullet, and when you go back to regular blitz, it will feel like you have a lot of time.

There is actually a whole book on the subject here. For the record, although I have a lot of books, I do not have this one, so it may, or may not, be any good.

Again, be aware that this may not be good for your tournament chess, if you play tournaments.


The game Lasker - Thomas, Lasker could have ended with a castling checkmate, but instead he played “18.Kd2#.” Some versions of that game I've seen may have ended with “18.O-O-O#.”

[Title "Edward Lasker-George Alan Thomas, London, Casual Game, 10/29/19"]
[FEN ""]

1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Bxf6 Bxf6 6. e4 fxe4 7. Nxe4 b6 8. Ne5 O-O 9. Bd3 Bb7 10. Qh5 Qe7 11. Qxh7+ Kxh7 12. Nxf6+ Kh6 13. Neg4+ Kg5 14. h4+ Kf4 15. g3+ Kf3 16. Be2+ Kg2 17. Rh2+ Kg1 18. Kd2#

Was this an endgame? White did not have his queen on the board, and it was definitely the end of that game.


It's not possible to castle, because the f1 square is attacked.

See the Laws of Chess; article 3.8 (King moves), b(2):

  Castling is prevented temporarily:

  if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, or
  if there is any piece between the king and the rook with which castling is to be effected.


Why I did not see the first-mover advantage in my game history?

The advantage White gets in a game is so small that it becomes completely irrelevant at low levels.
What is the point of having such edge on your opponent if you at least are going to make an inaccuracy in the opening or middlegame?
Furthermore, in blitz games that small advantage is probably negligible since a greater deal of mistakes are made.

My online rating in lichess is today close to 1700 and I see this in my games all the time. I do OK until a certain move (or later on) but due to something I cannot understand, I lose that +1 advantage I had accomplished before.

All in all, I do not think you should expect to have a greater percentage of wins as White unless you are above 2000 because below that, mistakes make the players constantly lose the upper hand they managed to acquire.
At higher levels, masters are more likely to capitalize on small advantages and turn the game into a win.


A dead draw is  a position in which no player has any chance of winning.
Sometimes erroneously used in a position where theoretically someone could win but both players believe it is so basic and simple that neither will make a fatal mistake so the other player would win.


Term for sacrifice that causes opponent to block an escape square?

What you are looking for is called "attraction". That is, you attract a piece to a specific square. One of the most famous types of attraction is seen in this example:

 [FEN "r1b2rk1/pp2pp1p/1qp3p1/4Q3/1n1N4/1P6/PBP2PPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1"]

 1. Qg7+ Kxg7 2. Nf5+ Kg8 3. Nh6#

Here is a nice link with another example.

This is also exactly a deflection since you deflected the queen away from f2. By the way, 1...Bf2 2. Qxf2 Rd1 also the same.

Here are two examples of what Rewan Demontay described as "self-blocking" below. In the first, a study by Nimzovich, it is what I believe the OP is asking for. The other is another type of self-blocking move, but it is not the opponent that forces it. This is more common in some endgame tactics to draw where one side walls the king in so it will be a stalemate.

 [FEN "5rn1/2N1npk1/R7/4P3/8/4P3/Q7/K6R w - - 0 1"]

 1. Rg6+ $3 fxg6 (1... Nxg6 2. Qxf7+ Rxf7 (2... Kxf7 3. Rh7#) 3. Ne6#) 2. Qf7+ $3 Rxf7 (2... Kxf7 3. Rh7#) 3. Ne6#

Here is the other self-block, but for another reason.

 [FEN "8/r6k/3r3p/5p1K/5P2/p6P/Q7/8 w - - 0 0"]

 1. h4 Rd1 2. Qf7+ Rxf7 {Stalemate}


Hi thanks for the question!

Yes this is what FIDE are saying. If you are about to play the 50.0th move of the sequence, or to cause a position to occur for the third time, then you need to claim before you move.

I think this is because after you have moved the piece, your opponent is allowed to respond, without waiting for you to punch the clock. If you then say "hey wait a minute" then this could be disruptive when one or both players are in time trouble. Best make the draw claim when it's clearly your turn to take the next action, i.e. before the piece is moved.

I am sure that people sometimes forget in the excitement though, which must be very frustrating!


When is a queen better than 3 minor pieces (or vice versa)?

The queen does a good job when there are a lot of weaknesses to attack, especially if the opponent's king is out in the open, so there are a lot of options for double  attacks.
The pieces are generally stronger if they can coordinate and the king is still relatively safe. Earlier in the game that's usually the case.


In chess engines (A.I) how are the values for Piece-Square Tables for simplified evlaution function determined?

They're mostly based on mobility, and have been modified by repeated test cases.  Knights have more squares available when on the center 16 squares(8) than in the corner(2), therefore the central square have a higher value.  After the computer plays many games, these values are adjusted based upon how well the pieces actually preformed on the various squares.  Beginners are taught that the more centralized piece is better placed, and the computer is taught this basic rules via these tables.

Extra table talk:  King Tropism is a table, usually written dynamically, that indicates king safety.  It adds up the score of the squares around the king based upon how many times their attacked and defended.

Chess based table:  The table being static is a poor valuation tool.  The b5 square is normally a good place for the bishop.  However, when there's no knight on c6, the bishop is useless on b5.  In the French defense, where there's pawns on d5 and e6, the bishop is less than useless as it gives black both a target and the opportunity to exchange his bad bishop.


This is a bit trivial as an answer, but too long as a comment. You claim that you can develop "as good as White" but that is simply not true. White begins by interposing the Bishop 4.Be2. You play 4..Bg4. It is now a mistake to play 5.Nf3 because 5..Bxf3 spoils whites Pawns and makes his King insecure. But 5.d4! also gains a development tempo, and forces Black to choose one of the two moves that does not lose a piece.

If 5..Qe6, then I would choose 6.Bf4 from among many good moves. Then 6..c6 7.Qd3
and the contrast between positions is huge.

If 5. Bxe2, then Nxe2, with a similar outcome.

Perhaps you were only concerned about losing a tempo to Nf3 and forgot about d4? I think that White is close to winning. Even if not, you have a long and perilous defence to look forward to.


Where can I play Quantum Chess online for free?

Try truly quantum chess. It is an implementation of quantum chess by yours truly, the rules are sligtly different from the rules of the steam version though, for example, pawns can quantum move.


If a tournament advertises G/30, can either player demand G/25 d5?

You don't have grounds to demand the time control you like. In practice I suppose that if your opponent agrees, you could get away with using whatever time control you both want as long as the game finishes on time, which is the main point the organizers care about.

One thing that the USCF rules do cover is what to do if the stipulated time control has a delay or increment and the only available clock doesn't support it. In that case the "base time" should be used instead.

However: did the advertisement say just say "G/30", or was it "G/30 d0"? Because according to the USCF, "If the organizer fails to specify an increment or delay time in the time control (which may be zero to indicate no increment or delay), the minimum recommended delay specified in rule 5E shall apply." The minimum recommended delay for 30 minutes is 5 seconds, so the way I read that, if it was advertised only as "G/30", you'd have grounds to demand G/30 d5.


Also keep in mind that the rook isn't necessarily being sacrificed free and clear, because taking back on f1 is a possibility (if not playing Ne6+ right away), meaning white is only sacrificing the exchange, while trading queens and leaving the black king exposed and vulnerable and unable to castle, so it's not as costly.


"Chess is art" who was the first one to use this quote?

I don't think anybody has made such a claim. "Chess is an art" is another matter.

Vaclav Havel (former Czech prime minister) is supposed to have said that when he visited the Carlsbad tournament.

Karpov is supposed to have said "Chess is everything - art, science, and sport."

If anyone should know it would be Marcel Duchamp the artist who gave up art for chess. Although since he put forward a urinal as a work of art I would hope that he would put chess on a more elevated plane.

Perhaps the most quoted saying about the nature of chess is Tarrasch's

  Chess, like love, like music, has the power to make men happy

which does it for me.


Can someone explain why should white lose his queen in the following tactics?

At this position you pretty much lost already - except if you can save yourself into a stalemate. That is exactly what is happening in your example. Qf5 forces black to make a decision between one of the following choices: He can either move his king or his pawn, or he can take your queen.

If he chooses to move the king out of check or block the check with his pawn, white is free to take the black queen. While it is not an easy victory, playing with a queen against two bishops and a pawn can still be won.

If however black chooses to take white's queen, then white will be trapped in a stalemate, resulting in a draw. Getting half a point is better for white than losing (and getting no points). Given the imbalance of the material, there is also no way that white can win this endgame (against a reasonable well playing black player).

Explanation for the stalemate: After the white queen is taken, white only has his king left. But the king can't move anymore. The square d4 and d2 are controlled by black's (black) bishop. d3 and e2 are controlled by the black bishop on b5 and e4, d3 (again), f4, f3, f2 are all under the control of black's queen.


KN vs. KN: can I force my opponent to take my knight?

If you can fork your opponent's king and knight with your knight, then your opponent must either take your knight or allow you to take theirs on the next turn.  Since that gets you down the KN vs K one way or the other, this forces the draw.

However, the answer to the literal question is no: there is no situation in KN vs KN where the only legal move is to take a knight.  Here is a case analysis, assuming White to move.

White is checkmated. Then, by definition, White can't take anything.
White is in check, but not mated.  The check must be from the knight, so White can't take it with their king.  If white's king is not in the corner, they can simply move their king out of check (there are at least five adjacent squares; the black king might block three of those, and the white knight one more, but that still leaves an escape square). If the king is in the corner, the black king covers at most two of the three adjacent squares, and the third one can't be occupied by the white knight because that would be checkmate; so there's still an escape square.
White is not in check.

If the white knight is not in a corner, it can move to at least three squares.  The white king could be on one of these squares, the black knight could be on another, but the black king can't be on any of them (it's White's move, so Black can't be in check). Therefore, white has at least one possible knight move that isn't taking the black knight.
If the white knight is in a corner, there are two squares it can potentially move to. If either of these is empty, White has a non-capturing knight move. If they're both occupied, we're in a position such as the one below.  Wherever the black king is, White has at least one king move that doesn't capture the knight. But note that this position is another one where the white knight can be captured on the following move.

[FEN "8/8/8/8/8/6n1/5K2/7N b - - 0 1"]

So perhaps the more interesting question is whether we can force the transition to KN vs K, rather than specifically forcing the opponent to take our knight. Again, the answer is no: as long as you keep your knight out of the corners and avoid having your king and knight forked, you can force the game to continue for 50 moves. The only way this could go wrong is if your knight starts in the corner and the opponent can force it off the board before you can get it out, as in the following position

[FEN "K7/8/2k6/8/4n3/8/8/7N b - - 0 1"]


What is the best continuation for White?

Best is 2.Qh8+ Ke7, after which White has a choice:

Go for 3.Qh7+ Kf6 4.Qxb7 Kxg5, when White has won a queen for a knight with a completely winning position.
Go for 3.Re1+, which is slightly more complicated but leads to a forced mate according to Stockfish:

 [FEN "4r2Q/pq2k3/1p4p1/2p2nNp/2Pp4/3P4/PP3PPP/R5K1 w - - 0 3"]

3.Re1+ Ne3 4.Qg7+ Kd6 5.Qxb7 Re7 6.Qb8+ Kc6 7.fxe3 Rb7 8.Qa8 a5 9.exd4 cxd4 10.Qc8+ Rc7 11.Re6+ Kc5 12.Qf8+ Re7 13.Qxe7#.


It's not about avoiding the border. It's about avoiding the last bit of the ray.

Given this:

10000000
10000000
10000000
10000000
10000000
10000000
10000000
01111111

(Note that A1 should be zero as the rook is unimportant)

You will note that along the first rank, if there is no piece on G1, then a rook can attack H1, regardless of what is on that square. This also applies along the A-file, where if there is no piece on A7, then A8 can always be attacked.

Because of this, we mask out the last bit of the ray, as we do not need to know what's at the end of the ray, producing this mask:

00000000
10000000
10000000
10000000
10000000
10000000
10000000
01111110

This produces a significant table reduction, as you need only 12 bits of occupancy to index the table, not 14.


Is there research on how successfully chess can discipline children?

There's a lot, but it's probably hogowash


How to win a rook endgame with two extra pawns-4 vs 2 general plan

My plan was to keep the Black rook on the 5th or 4th rank to cutoff
the White king and advance the h and g pawns. But then what?

Your plan is a bad one.
The general rule in rook and pawn endgames is:

Your king protects your pawns
Your rook attacks your opponent's pawns

You can add another one:

Push your passed pawns

As you can see your passed pawns are not your g and h pawns. Therefore you should not be pushing those pawns as a first priority. You may want to push them to help the e and f pawns to advance.
Regarding "Cutting-off the opponent's king", in rook and pawn endgames it is usually much more important to cut off the opponent's king vertically not horizontally. You want to cut off the king from where the pawn or pawns are going to be. The White king on the 3rd rank is not cut off. If you are going to make a queen then sooner or later one of your pawns is going to have to try and reach the 3rd rank when the White king would be ideally placed. The white king on the a or b file would be cut off.
Your king is already protecting your pawns but your rook is not attacking your opponent's pawns. In the changed position with White's king now protecting the g pawn the best way to attack the pawns is not the immediate Rb2 because there is a more efficient way to do that.
First Rb3+ either forces the king to the fourth rank or to the second rank. In either case the move Rb2 then comes with tempo. The White king has to move.
Then you want to try and push f6 or f5 to get your e and f pawns rolling. Your king will need to be out of the way on g6 and you will want to move the h and g pawns up so they aren't vulnerable to attack by the rook. So g5 creates space on g6 for your king. You can follow up with h5 and then get ready to push the f and e pawns. Your opponent can try and stop this by g4 or just sit and wait passively.
One line might be:
[fen "8/R4ppp/4pk2/1r6/8/5K2/6PP/8 b - - 4 38"]

1... Rb3+ 2. Kg4 Rb2 3. Kf3 g5 4. h3 h5 5. g4 (5. Rc7 g4 6. hxg4 hxg4 7. Kxg4 Rxg2) Rb3+ 6. Kg2 h4 7. Ra6 Rg3+ 8. Kh2 Kg6 9. Rb6 Re3 10. Ra6 f6 11. Rb6 e5 12. Ra6 Rf3 13. Kg2 Rd3 14. Rb6 Kf7 15. Ra6 Ke7 16. Rb6 Rd6 17. Rb2 Ke6 18. Rf2 (18. Re2 Rd4 19. Rf2 e4 20. Rf5 Rd2 21. Kg1 Rd3 22. Kg2 Rg3+ 23. Kh2 e3 24. Rf1 e2 25. Re1 Re3)  e4 19. Re2 Ke5


How to map file and rank to a square number in TSCP?

The conversions from square to row and column are defined in defs.h as:

#define ROW(x) (x >> 3)
#define COL(x) (x & 7)

so you can apply the inverse to generate the square number:

(row << 3) | col


What plan should I have followed in this particular position?

Black is very weak on the black squares, on the e file, his e pawn is very weak and his knight and bishop are short of good squares because of his cramped position.

You should try and get your knight to f4 and double your rooks on the e file. I would start with Nc3. This also helps against Black's obvious plan to undermine your center and give himself more space with b5. You may need to play a4 at some stage to control b5 but your immediate priority should be to double on the e file. Once you control the e file you want to either win his e pawn or invade on the e file.

At the same time your queen can exert more control over black squares in his position, either from h6 or maybe along the long diagonal from b2 or c3.


The MCO series is styled like an encyclopedia. Just how encyclopedia's tended not to change all that much from one year to the next, the MCO series hasn't changed all that much.

I would balance price with target audience rating. If the target audience rating is high, then spend more on the latest MCO. If the target audience rating is low, save money on a second hand, older MCO.

This advice is based on the fact that at lower levels, opening theory isn't all that important, so paying a lot of money for an opening encyclopedia doesn't make much sense.

One final note is that openings come in-and-out of fashion. You may find that differences in MCO editions over time reflect more the level of popularity of an opening rather than any substantial changes to chess theory.


Novice Kid Play and Declaring Winners when Recess is Over

Point count is a fair way to start evaluating a chess position; even the strongest computer engines do so. I see two potential problems:

One player might have less material but an initiative, e.g. a strong kingside attack. On this level, it is not usual to sacrifice material for an initiative, so this might not be a big problem for you.
What constitutes a decisive advantage? One pawn is -usually- not enough to win an endgame, but it might be, when combined with other advantages.


Sharp pawn endgame - can it be calculated to the end? With Computer engine?

It's clear that Black has the following advantages:

1) His king is better centralized.

2) He has two connected passed pawns.

3) White has no passed pawns because one Black pawn holds up two White ones on both the queen and king sides.

White's main advantage is that he has two rook pawns, which could lead to "outside" passed pawns. Even so, it might take the sacrifice of a pawn for White to get a passed pawn.

So I would give Black the advantage overall, and say that he should win with proper play. White should draw with great difficulty if at all.

I'm basing this judgment on "pattern recognition," because I am a only a 1500 player.


Why not 6.Ng3 against the French Rubinstein?

Usually when a move in a relatively positional setup such as this is omitted, it doesn't mean that it's a clear mistake. It only means that the author doesn't view the move as a critical move that challenges the opponent's setup as much as other moves. Therefore, it may not be the move to prioritize, as other moves can be more challenging.

It could also be that the author doesn't know really what the plans are, and tries to make him/herself look more certain about their topic than they are.

One question though, which needs to be answered by you: Does this move give you many difficulties in your games? If that is the case, you will be forced to look up some statistics and see if the move is a legitimately challenging line, or if you just don't know how to play against it. In this case, you will need to study games played in the variation and learn important ideas by yourself if you want to be more successful. It may be a difficult thing to do, but sometimes chess isn't very easy.

I've taken the liberty to consult my personal database, which for the moment lacks some games due to my negligence with database maintenance using TWIC these last weeks, and I found this:

6.Ng3 is likely not a bad move. It has a 55% score, with roughly 600 games played in the line. The highest rated player who played this had a rating of 2535. The move is not to be scoffed at, if you face it a lot.

HOWEVER

There are better moves in the position:

The main line, 6.Nxf6+, has a 63% score in roughly 4400 games, with the  highest rated player having a rating of 2838;
The second most popular alternative, 6.Bd3, has a 62.5% score in roughly 1800 games, with the highest rated player having a rating of 2851;
The third most common alternative, 6.Bg5, has a 57% score in roughly 1600 games, with the highest rated player having a rating of 2851.

The top rating is due to Kasparov in all the lines, but all the top players in the world have used at least one of these three main moves when faced with this position.


So I'm not sure if you're asking where you went wrong analyzing this line for Black (because of the large advantage the engine gives to White) or for White (because you think Black being up a pawn is important).
If you mean analyzing for Black, 4...g5 is a poor move (3...h6 is also not great, although Black still seems alright). There are a few better moves, such as 4...d5. The point is to meet 5.Bxd5 with 5...Nf6, and 5.exd5 with 5...Bd6. Probably a more challenging try for White would have been 4.Nc3, aiming to prevent ...d5. Coming back to Black's point of view, by the time 6.hxg5 is played White already has a clear edge. But still a better response would have been 6...Nc6 or 6...d5; 6...hxg5 gives White a winning position.
If you mean analyzing for White, the only arguable improvement in your analysis is 4.Nc3 instead of 4.d4. By the final position after 8...Qf6, the engine gives White a huge advantage - the lost pawn is irrelevant. White could follow up with Nc3, Nf3, e5, etc, enjoying an overwhelming initiative. Reaching this position is a disaster for Black, and definitely not for White.


Is it common for super grandmasters to have the ability to play simultaneous blindfold chess?

This is more a comment than an answer.

The attached fragment is Mikhail Tal commenting  his blindfold simul against 10 first category (approximately 1800-2000 Elo) players - as the match goes, board by board. The fragment is a part of 1968 documentary on limits of human mental abilities.

The movie is in Russian; if there is an interest, I may try to translate.