Who wins in the game "knight" if both players play optimal? The rules of "knight" : Player 1 puts a knight on some square. Then the players,
 beginning with Player 2, alternately move the knight. The knight cannot be
 moved to a square already visited, including the starting square. The player,
 who cannot move the knight anymore, loses.

Which player has a winning strategy ?

In my answer to the same question over on math.stackexchange, I discussed general m by n boards. Here I will just give a winning strategy for Player 2 on the ordinary 8 by 8 chessboard. It's based on the following pairing of squares:

a1c2, b1d2, c1a2, d1b2, e1g2, f1h2, g1e2, h1f2,
a3c4, b3d4, c3a4, d3b4, e3g4, f3h4, g3e4, h3f4,
a5c6, b5d6, c5a6, d5b6, e5g6, f5h6, g5e6, h5f6,
a7c8, b7d8, c7a8, d7b8, e7g8, f7h8, g7e8, h7f8.

That is, square a1 is paired with square c2, b1 is paired with d2, and so on. Note that the 64 squares are partitioned into nonoverlapping pairs, and each set of paired squares are a knight's move apart. The winning strategy for Player 2 is: WHEREVER PLAYER 1 PUTS THE KNIGHT, MOVE IT TO THE OTHER SQUARE IN THE SAME PAIR. For instance, if Player 1 starts the game by dropping the knight on e8, Player 2 replies by playing Ng7. If Player 1 now plays Ne6, Player 2 plays Ng5, and so on. Here is a sample game, with Player 1 making random moves, and Player 2 following the winning strategy described above:

Ne8 Ng7 2. Ne6 Ng5 3. Nf3 Nh4 4. Nf5 Nh6 5. Nf7 Nh8 6. Ng6 Ne5 7. Nc6 Na5 8. Nb3 Nd4 9. Ne2 Ng1 10. Nh3 Nf4 11. Nh5 Nf6 12. Ng4 Ne3 13. Nc5 Na3 14. Nb1 Nd2 15. Nf1 Nh2 and Player 2 wins.

P.S. Of course the strategy still works if White is allowed to move the knight to any square not already visited, and only Black is limited to making knight moves.

I would assume that the optimal game would follow the knight's tour. The comment be CognisMantis is correct and the game would last 64 half-moves or 32 complete moves.


What's the best approach to adopting 1.d4? As a long time 1.e4 player and short time 1.c4 player, I'd like to add 1.d4 but there are so many defenses.    I am considering the London system against things, while adding mainlines vs. all the various openings one by one.  Or is the Catalan a better start?

If you want to start playing 1.d4 you should as first thing have a look at some theory about the Queen's gambit declined, as it is the most natural (and historical) way to play 1.d4: even if you will not end up adopting it in your repertoire, it will give you a taste of the major ideas behind the queen's pawn opening (minority attack usually against c5-c6, occupation of c-d files) and a sense of where the pieces belong.

After you do so you should start preparing for precise defences to play against (as in every opening although White has the first move, the order strongly depends on what Black plays next): in this respect you might have a look at any online database to find what is played most - but to spare the time, among all the most often played are:

Slav defence
semi-Slav
Indian defences (at least King's Indian and Grünfeld)

  Or is the Catalan a better start?

I myself do play the Catalan (when given the chance to do so) and therefore by all means I suggest you to look into it: it is however a heavy theoretical opening (from both sides) but it does provide White with a slight edge throughout the whole game (at best play).

  I am considering the London system against things

The London system is somehow more "natural" to play and it is lately gaining a lot of respect at high level (Carlsen and Aronian above all play it very often): you may find quite a few GM games to take examples from.

In general, as any other opening in chess, you cannot have your way around without putting some study into a few specific lines; however, there is a lot of free content online that you may surf, especially the Saint Louis Chess Club channel contains a lot of opening videos suitable for any level (according to me very thorough).

d4 is the second best initial move because it frees a Bishop and the Queen while making e5 and c5 harder, but it does not stand on a winning line. Both you and your opponent will have many chances to make losing mistakes. Choice of opening rests with White, but after about 10 moves, both will have to deal with their opponent. You must play well to avoid losing. Your opponent must play poorly before you have any chance of victory. Pick an opening you like, and you may recognize your opponent's mistakes.
  Several following comments recommend following d-side openings in some order or another. Pick an order that is interesting and works for you. You will achieve your maximum playing strength because of who you are and how hard you work, not because you followed someone else's path. World champions accept worthwhile instruction, but they are not limited by it. Follow your path noting what others have accomplished, but keep remembering that your accomplishment must come from inside you.


What are good ways to check blunders after the match? Currently I am using Tarrasch for GUI and Rybka 2.3.2a as the engine. With that, I am able to kibitzing every position in the game and check for any blunder. So basically this is what I always did:

Record all of the moves with Tarrasch and then save it in PGN format.
Kibitzing with Rybka from the 1st move, check the evaluation.
Continue to the next move, kibitzing again, etc.

Is there any faster way than checking every position one by one like this?

Lichess.org has a free browser-based game analysis tool that allows you to copy and paste your PGN file for online analysis.

It's powered by Stockfish, and the analysis automatically:

Annotates the game with inaccuracies, mistakes, and blunders.
Graphs the game with an interactive move-by-move advantage chart (see below).
Suggests improved lines.
Names the opening.

It doesn't beat going through your games with your opponent and a good instructor, but it's a very useful free tool, and you don't need to install any software to run it.

The developer of lichess.org also has a blog post about Stockfish and the analysis tool.

If you have an Android device, you can try a new app called "Analyze your games" that reads every move and compares it with the best moves calculated by Stockfish. It also finds blunders and missed tactics.


Why I can't I play puzzles on Lichess? Lichess is a blind-accessible chess site that I like to play. But for some reason, it doesn't support puzzles in an accessible way.
I've done everything that I need to do to make them accessible. But they still aren't, even though it seems possible.
Why aren't puzzles accessible on Lichess for the vision-impaired?

On the Lichess database site for puzzles I found a link, where someone implemented an interface to solve puzzles "blindfolded" (i.e. without seeing the board):
https://www.tryit.in/blindfoldpuzzles/
However, because of my nonexistent knowledge in that matter, I have no idea if it's usable by blind people. It also seems limited to puzzles with very few pieces.

It might be because your computer can't handle or blocks specific puzzles!


Looking for instructive examples on how to defend against the Giuoco Piano or Giuoco Pianissimo (?) opening from Black's perspective e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 (The Two Knights Defence is my choice) 4. d3 and I am obliged to play the Giuoco Piano 4... Bc5. I am afraid of the middlegame positions that arise after this opening, because to me it seems that white is in the driver's seat being able to play anywhere on the board f.ex c3-d4 or Be3-fxe3 and then doubling rooks on the f-file or pushing a4-b4 and against all of these plans I feel lost. I can't get counterplay. I've attempted the usual operations: developing my pieces, striking in the center with the move d5 and aiming to equalize the game but it's complicated and I often end up losing the game if not in the short run then will have to endure until a blunder happens in the endgame after many moves of torture. Of course there are many other plans that white might execute but that's even worse for me.

[fen ""]
[Event "Ding Liren - Giri"]
[Site "Wenzhou CHN"]
[Date "2017.08.09"]
[EventDate "2017.08.08"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Ding Liren"]
[Black "Anish Giri"]
[ECO "C50"]
[WhiteElo "2777"]
[BlackElo "2772"]
[PlyCount "90"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. O-O Nf6 5. d3 O-O 6. h3 d6
7. c3 a6 8. a4 Ba7 9. Re1 h6 10. Nbd2 Be6 11. Bxe6 fxe6
12. Nf1 Nh5 13. Be3 a5 14. Bxa7 Rxa7 15. d4 Qf6 16. Re3 Nf4
17. h4 Qg6 18. g3 Raa8 19. dxe5 Nxe5 20. Nxe5 dxe5 21. f3 Rad8
22. Qc2 Nh5 23. Kh2 Rf6 24. Rd1 Rdf8 25. Rdd3 Qf7 26. Qd1 Rg6
27. Qe1 Qe7 28. Kh3 Rxg3+ 29. Nxg3 Nf4+ 30. Kh2 Qxh4+ 31. Kg1
Rf6 32. Rd8+ Kh7 33. Rd2 Rg6 34. Rg2 h5 35. Rh2 Rxg3+ 36. Kh1
Qg5 37. Qf1 h4 38. Re1 h3 39. Rd1 Qh5 40. Rd7 Qxf3+ 41. Qxf3
Rxf3 42. Rhd2 Kh6 43. Rd8 Kh5 44. Rh8+ Kg4 45. Rd1 Ne2 0-1

I think that the way Anish Giri plays the Italian as Black is very instructive.
It is also funny that White faced all the problems you mentioned having as Black in this game, and it shows how Black avoided the headaches you named.
Some ideas (I would not call them rules...) in the Italian...

I like to go ...a6 and ...Ba7 immediately and only then ...d6. It gets the bishop out of harms way so that we are more flexible in how we react to moves in the center, like d4 (because d4 does not hit the bishop anymore). And we can still retreat it with ...Be7 if that is how we want to parry Bg5 (matter of taste if you want to go for ...h6 and ...g5).
If White goes for the pin with Bg5 before Black has castled kingside, we go ...h6, ...g5 kicking the bishop and we may go for a kingside attack (even after we castle kingside outselves!). A useful maneuver to enable a pawnstorm is ...Nf6-h7 supporting the g5 pawn to play ...h6-h5 (once we are ready).
If White does not go for Bg5 early and plays slowly, a good plan is ...h6, ...Re8, ...Be6 and then ...Rxe6 after the bishops are swapped. The rook may stay on the 6th rank or reatreat back to the 8th.
If White goes for Be3, swapping there is usually okay if we have not played ...h6 yet, as ...h6 weakens squares around our king and we might get crushed after a sacrifice. But you never really have to take and while the rook may look bad on a7, it is not as far from the action as it may seem (see the game I posted).

You will still learn some common mistakes by White, like mistiming d4, leaving f2 vulnerable and others. Another thing to look up is how to deal with unsound sacrifices on f7 or g5 (after ...h6, ...g5 White very often plays Nxg5, but it mostly is not sound).
You also need to look for active play. If White's move seems very slow, or his forces do not look fully coordinated, you might have an opportunity to seize the initiative by striking in the center or on the kingside (mostly). If you look at the game I posted, it is not clear where the initiative of Black came from, but it crushed.

https://old.chesstempo.com/game-database.html
Nxe4 has a 100% win score from that position based on players 2200 up to 2400
at 2500 - 2700 BC5 has best results  although about 9% worse than whites result
what level is your opponents at ?
Personally I play BC5 and gladly let the Max Lange happen.  You might want to memorize that one if you let them play that one as it is complicated.
OTOH  The sicilian stops the Giuoco nonsense.  So do many other first moves 1... pd3 is good for black too.


Knight vs bishop endgame in Fabiano Caruana vs Hou Yifan 2018 I am currently studying the classical game of Fabiano Caruana vs Hou Yifan played in 2018. The game ended in a fighting draw, but for the most part of the ending, starting from move 55 onward (see diagram), black was a pawn up, in a knight vs bishop and 4 vs 3 pawn structure.

 [title "Fabiano Caruana vs Hou Yifan 2018"]
 [fen ""]
 [startply "110"]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Nc3 Nxc3 6. dxc3 Be7 7. Be3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nd7 9. O-O-O Nf6 10. h3 c5 11. Bf4 Be6 12. a3 d5 13. Ng5 Bd7 14. g4 Bc6 15. Bg2 Re8 16. Qd3 Bd6 17. Qg3 Bxf4+ 18. Qxf4 h6 19. Nf3 Qb8 20. Qxb8 Raxb8 21. Nd2 Re2 22. Rhf1 b6 23. Rde1 Rbe8 24. Rxe2 Rxe2 25. Kd1 Re6 26. f4 Kf8 27. Re1 Ke7 28. Rxe6+ Kxe6 29. Ke2 g5 30. fxg5 hxg5 31. Nf3 Ne4 32. Ke3 f6 33. Bf1 Nd6 34. Nd2 f5 35. gxf5+ Nxf5+ 36. Kf2 Ke5 37. Nf3+ Kf4 38. Ne1 c4 39. Ng2+ Ke5 40. Be2 Ba4 41. Bd1 Be8 42. Bg4 Bg6 43. Be2 Nd6 44. Ne3 Ne4+ 45. Kf3 Nf6 46. Kf2 Bf7 47. Ng2 Be6 48. h4 Ne4+ 49. Kf3 Bh3 50. hxg5 Nxg5+ 51. Kg3 Bxg2 52. Kxg2 Ne6 53. Kf2 Nc5 54. Bh5 Na4 55. Be8 Nxb2 56. Ke2 a6 57. Kd2 b5 58. Bh5 Na4 59. Bf7 Nc5 60. Kc1 Ne6 61. Kb2 Nf4 62. Be8 Ke4 63. Bc6 Ke3 64. Bb7 a5 65. Kc1 Ne2+ 66. Kb2 Kd2 67. Bxd5 Nxc3 68. Bc6 Nd1+ 69. Kb1 Ne3 70. Be4 c3 71. Bh7 Nc4 72. Ka2 Ne5 73. Be4 Ke3 74. Bh7 Nc6 75. Bg6 Kd2 76. Be4 Nd4 77. Kb1 Kd1 78. Bd5 Nf5 79. Be4 Ne3 80. Bg6 Kd2 81. Bd3 Nc4 82. Ka2 Nb6 83. Kb1 Nc4 84. Ka2 a4 85. Bg6 Kc1 86. Bd3 Nd6 87. Ka1 Nb7 88. Ka2 Nc5 89. Bf5 Na6 90. Bg6 Kd2 91. Bh7 Nb8 92. Bd3 Nc6 93. Bxb5 Nd4 94. Bxa4 Nxc2 95. Kb3 Nd4+ 96. Kc4 Nc2 97. Kb3 Ne3 98. Kb4 c2 1/2-1/2

However, at a first glance, I can see that other than being a pawn up, black is also positionally better, since:

The white king stands defensively throughout the game, the black king is well active and centralised.
the white pawns are two isolated islands, and doubled on the c-file.
there are only pawns on one side of the board (queenside), which makes the bishop's long-ranged scope less effective.
Black has a healthy pawn chain, with remaining flexibility in how they want to fix the pawn structure.
And once the pawn structure fixed, the knight can be a threat to pawns on both colours, while the bishop's limited to light-squares.

With all these in mind, my question is:

Was this endgame really a drawn one, or did Hou Yifan miss a win?

This was a great game! Hou Yifan brilliantly outplayed her opponent  Fabiano Caruana in a very positional middle game, and mind you using the Petroff's defence in the opening, which is Caruana's specialty by any stretch of the word! The endgame was very tricky, and Caruana proved his resilience and held the game to a draw in a very resourceful way, despite there having been missed chances for black.

The short answer is: yes there was at least one key moment where black had a forced win in the N+4p vs B+3p. Having traded into a better endgame, pawn up and knight vs bishop, one of the critical moments of the game was after white's 64.Bb7 move, harassing black's pawn backbone which all lie on light-squares, at this moment black had in fact the possibility of achieving a pawn breakthrough, and create a passer!

 [title "Position after white's inaccurate 64.Bb7"]
 [fen "8/1B6/p7/1p1p4/2p2n2/P1P1k3/1KP5/8 b - - 13 64"]
 [startflipped "0"]

To see the pawn breakthrough, the idea to spot is: noting that white's bishop is locked out of play by black's pawns on light-squares, once the black king gets to d2, the two kings on b2 and d2 are in opposition, and had there been no white blockaders on c2-c3, black would just advance their own c pawn and promote (diagram):

So the question is: how could we create this desired pawn breakthrough, or in other words,

Can white's c2-c3 pawns be removed after Kd2?

First key move is Nd3+!! The knight sacrifice removes the c2 blockader, and if white were to accept the sacrifice, then d4
removes the 2nd blockader (c3) and black's c pawn advance with check and promotes since the bishop is too slow in reaching the a4-d1 diagonal to eye c2. Summary in diagrams:

But does white have to take the knight on d3?

Well, let's consider the only reasonable king move: Kb1, as anything else just leaves both c pawns hanging to black's king. Then, the same pawn breakthrough on the c-file can be achieved, with the difference now that we first win the c2 pawn with Ne1-Nxc2 and then play d4. Let's see in diagrams:

and black again promotes a pawn on the c-file, as in the rightmost diagram:

if white takes on c4 then dxc3+ Ka2 and Nd4 wins by preventing Bb3 and the c pawn runs.
instead, if white plays Ba4 immediately to cover c2, then dxc3+ Ka2 and Nd4 wins again since now black has two c pawns and white's bishop can only be sacrificed for one of them.

And here's a summary of all the discussed variations:

 [title "Pawn breakthrough for black"]
 [fen "8/1B6/p7/1p1p4/2p2n2/P1P1k3/1KP5/8 b - - 1 1"]
 [startflipped "0"]

 1... Kd2 {key starting move of the winning line, attacking both white pawns and covering the path for a pawn to promote along the c file.} 2. Bxa6 (2. Bc8 {an attempt to immediately re-route towards the defense of c2, but it is too slow and irrelevant as Nd3 still works} Nd3+ 3. Kb1 {cxd3 loses similarly to d4} Ne1 4. Bf5 Nxc2 5. Bxc2 Kxc3 {and black's connected passers win easily.}) Nd3+ 3. cxd3 (3. Kb1 Ne1 4. Bxb5 Nxc2 {Nxa3+ fork threatened} 5. Kb2 d4 6. Bxc4 (6. cxd4 c3+ 7. Ka2 Nb4+ 8. axb4 c2) (6. Ba4 dxc3+ 7. Ka2 Nd4 {and one of the c pawns promotes}) dxc3+ 7. Ka2 Nd4 {preventing Bb3 and c-pawn runs}) d4 4. cxd4 c3+ 5. Ka2 c2 {and black promotes}

So it's safe to say, Kd2 followed by Nd3+ was winning by force. What a beautiful pattern!

Note that, at the stage of the game that we are talking about here (around move 64), the players were playing by rote as they were relatively low on time, so Hou Yifan played the very natural a5 in reply to Bb7 (which in hindsight now we know to have been a blunder) and the winning pawn breakthrough was missed. She might have considered it but maybe couldn't work out all the details, e.g. the lines where white doesn't accept the sacrifice. Therefore, they played pragmatically considering their energy and remaining time on the clocks. Admittedly, even with more time, these strange pawn breakthroughs are never easy to spot, and tend to require a more relaxed mindset (like when one solves studies, and thus knows there's something to be found), and are often times missed/dismissed in practical play.

Reminds me of Kramnik vs Anand (world championship 2008), where Anand found a beautiful breakthrough in this position:

 [title "black to play and win"]
 [fen "8/1R3p1p/4pk2/8/PP3pn1/8/5PPP/2r2BK1 b - - 0 1"]
 [startflipped "0"]

The analysis is left to the reader ;)

It is a draw.
Black can protect the horsie.  And then his pawn chain but then:

There is no viable way to force a pawn through where it wont be captured leaving K+N vs K.  Which is a draw.


How is Alpha Zero "more human"? I have a possibly naive question about AlphaZero. I have seen it described as playing in a "more human" style than other computers, but whatever it does, it gains about 100 ELO points by doing it. Kasparov, and many others, have claimed that a strong human in collaboration with a computer will beat a strong computer (perhaps by about 100 ELO??). So an obvious question is, how would AlphaZero compare with a "centaur" combination?

Having only looked at a few games, what I notice is that most computers play wide open games that maximize their own mobility, but AlphaZero seems very concerned to limit the opponents mobility. In a human player I would describe this as a matter of style, not more or less human.

Page 5 in the paper has your answer:

  ... AlphaZero compensates for the lower number of evaluations by using its deep neural network to costs much more selectively on the most promising variations - arguably a more "human-like" approach to chess ...

"selectively" is the key word. What does that mean? Let's use this following position for our example:

  https://chess24.com/en/read/news/london-classic-5-caruana-shows-how-it-s-done

This is a recent game won by Caruana in 2017 London Chess Classic. The White bishop is under attacked, and you know you have to move it. But where?

Possibilities (not losing a piece):

Bh4
Be3
Bd2
Bc1

What was Caruana thinking?

  I felt like I would lose at some point, but when I saw, 25.Bc1 I suddenly
  started to get a bit more optimistic about my chances. I realised my
  position is bad, but at least I had a plan and that was really all I needed
  for some confidence in this position. When I saw this b3, c4 the position is
  double edged and I have some chances.

This is human thinking, and a "human move". Caruana hadn't considered Bh4, Be3 and Bd2 because they "looked" bad. He had been focusing only and only on the Bc1 move.

Humans play chess very selectively, we discard unreasonable moves because we don't have time to examine all possibilities equally.

We discard Bh4 because it release the tension on the h6 pawn
We discard Be3 because it blocks the two white rooks on the third rank
We discard Bd2 because it blocks the White queen to the king side

That's what AlphaZero trying to claim in the paper. They claim their algorithm, although slower than Stockfish, is able to selectively pick better moves than Stockfish in the search. While Stockfish is faster, it wastes time on bad moves. AlphaZero is slower, but it's more precise (like what Caruana was doing).

For example, AlphaZero might spent 80% resources on Bc1, and 20% on all other bishop moves. Stockfish might give 25% for each move (Bh4, Be3, Bd2, Bc1).

I don't think there is anything 'human' about Alpha.
It just used much stronger hardware and played higher quality chess.
The good opening moves it finds(for example, to fianchetto king side with Bg2) are fully due to its simulated opening book. Concepts that impressed me and that I have formulated in 'The Secret of Chess': http://davidsmerdon.com/?p=1970 , which Alpha uses for the first time among top engines, are advanced longer chains, for example the d4-e5-f6 chain that trumped a whole piece in the Bg6 sacrifice game, and central backward-makers, as seen in the French Defence games between both engines.
Both concepts involve searching to great depths, and probably here Alpha was helped by its tremendous hardware.
Otherwise, I see nothing human about its play. Many of the games were, admittedly, beautiful.


Why are tablebase files so large? What is the reason that table base files are so large?

I can't think of any other way to phrase that question - but the question alone is rejected by stackoverflow's gateway bot, hence this paragraph added to placate it.

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

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

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

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

In addition to the other fine answers, it is worth pointing out that tablebases contain every conceivable collection of pieces, even ones that don't make any sense. For example, I just asked about a position with king and three knights vs king and bishop, and was told that it was a mate in 30. And there are a lot of conceivable collections of six pieces, even if you know what two of those pieces are. (Not to mention that there are really two kinds of bishop.)


How to break through their "Great Wall of China" It's my move as White. I have no idea what to do. I feel like I'm going to get squashed to death.
What would be my best move or strategy in situations like these?
[FEN "r2q1rk1/4b3/p1n1p1b1/1p1pPpPp/2pP1B1P/P1N2N2/1PP1Q3/2KR2R1 w - - 0 1"]

In order to make progress, one or both of you need to break through that wall. Each of you seem to have the best chances on the side near the opponent's King--you have a passer on the kingside; your opponent has a lot of pressure on your queenside.

First, look at his threats. ...b5-b4 seems to force the issue on the queenside by kicking your Knight and threatening your a-pawn. It's likely that the b file would be at least half-opened if Black plays ...b4. That's not great for you. However, it would free a4 for your Knight, so you could maybe reposition it to c5 at some point--that's not a bad thing, if you can survive the coming attack.

[FEN "r2q1rk1/4b3/p1n1p1b1/3pPpPp/1ppP1B1P/P1N2N2/1PP1Q3/2KR2R1 w - - 0 1"]

Position after ...b5-b4.

Now let's think offensively. Where can you break through his wall? If you can't push pawns of your own, Knights are usually the best at this sort of thing, since they can jump to the back lines. The nature of the pawn wall means their only jumping-off spots are the spaces just in front of enemy pawns. A great spot immediately suggests itself, then: f4! From f4, a White Knight would threaten three Black pawns, as well as Black's light-squared Bishop. If you could maneuver a Knight to f4, then, you may be able to break through on the kingside and really put Black's king in some trouble. It's too bad you don't have a light-square Bishop to pressure h5.

[FEN "6k1/8/p3p1b1/1p1pPpPp/2pP1N1P/P7/1PP5/2K5 w - - 0 1"]

The previous point began with "if you can't push pawns of your own". But you do have a pawn or two with moves, so let's look at those. Pushing the b-pawn isn't very appetizing, as it would likely result in a half-open c-file for Black to use to attack you. But what about a3-a4? It doesn't lose any material, and it somewhat mitigates the threats posed by ...b5-b4, since Black would no longer have anything to capture. He could still take ...bxa4, but once you recapture with Nxa4, he only has a half-open b file, and meanwhile your Knight is placed to advance to c5. Your dark-square Bishop and your Queen also have potential to slide around Black's wall via d2. All in all, not ideal, but not too bad either.

[StartFlipped "0"]
[FEN "r2q1rk1/4b3/p1n1p1b1/3pPpPp/N1pP1B1P/5N2/1PP1Q3/2KR2R1 b - - 0 1"]

Position after 1.a4 bxa4 2.Nxa4.

None of the above lines are perfectly satisfactory: they're either too slow, or potentially inadequate in terms of dealing with Black's queenside threats. Thus we have a third possibility: the King is in danger and no one can come to his aid--therefore, we flee to the kingside.

Because the position is so closed, and Black has no immediate threats against your King, you could simply play Kd2 right away, and march your King out of harm's way, simultaneously clearing spaces for your other pieces to maneuver to the queenside if need be. I'm not going to cover this option in any further detail since Wes already gave a good account of it in his answer, so you should go read about it there.

Conclusion

Three basic plans come to mind for me. Hopefully they at least give you some insight into how I would tackle this situation, so you will be able to evaluate them on their own merits and drawbacks, and then either choose among them or come up with something altogether better!

As a medium-term goal, reorganize the kingside to place a Knight on f4 to pressure all of Black's kingside forces and tie his pieces to the defense of his wall.
Soon or immediately, a3-a4 could be played to limit Black's queenside attacking potential and potentially close the position completely, or free your own pieces to end-around Black's wall.
Go for a walk with your King behind your own lines, via d2 and e3, to make room for your other pieces to maneuver and get your monarch out of the danger zone.

Nxd5. allows you to flood in.You should get an easy win.


What is 'Depth' in Lichess game analysis? I have started analyzing my games in Lichess. I'm wondering what does Depth mean in the Stockfish analysis?

It means how many half moves ahead stockfish looked from the current position. It doesn't mean it looked at all the moves possible to that extent thought, it trims what it analises, otherwise it would be unable to reach such depths, this means a mate in 10 for example may only be found when stockfish searches in greater depths. In general, greater depths mean better analysis and moves suggested by stockfish. The only limiting factor is time and processing power.

Wrong answer: "Depth 10 means the algorithm checked all moves in 10 node distance."
Right answer: "It doesn't mean it looked at all the moves possible to that extent thought, it trims what it analises, otherwise it would be unable to reach such depths, this means a mate in 10 for example may only be found when stockfish searches in greater depths."
Stockfish isn't a pure brute force engine. It uses alpha-beta pruning.


Classical Time Control Armageddon? The fate of chess has been discussed for a long time and in recent years it has become more and more common. Examples of this include the 2018 World Chess Championship(12 draws) and the 2016 World Chess Championship(10 draws). It has become a problem to the degree that now major super tournaments such as Altibox Norway have a straight-up Armageddon for breaking ties. I was wondering if the idea of having classical time control Armageddon (say white 90 minutes and black 120 minutes) has been debated. What would be the advantages and disadvantages of having such a game?

I would tend to think that you are the very first person to propose that, mostly because I really do not think it would work for this reason:

Even with the control you proposed, 90 minutes to 120, the guy with 90 minutes still has A LOT of time to think not only on his time, but also on the opponent's time. That makes draw odds a MUCH larger advantage at that control than in blitz.

I tried thinking about alternative controls that might even it up some, but they would have to be so unbalanced, that the players would be playing under radically different time controls like 15 or 30 minutes to two hours. Whatever the control, you would need to create a situation where white with the extra time has some reasonable chance to out-think black and win, and that is hard at that level to begin with, but it is all but impossible with that much extra time that black can think on while white is thinking.

Not debated nor seriously considered.   Just changing time controls will not change the results significantly.  Only at the VERY top levels are draws a problem. Stats show that there are plenty of wins and losses for more normal people.

Far better to stop playing such slow games.  And get rid of all those delays and add ons that confuse people so they can't do proper clock management.

Play more games that are shorter and the results would be more meaningful.  G30SD no delay no add ons is plenty of time for anyone.
Clock management would still be necessary.  G15SD+0+0 would be good for ordinary people.

Play more games not fewer games because they are too bleeping long.

Chess is not a game it is a puzzle, albeit complicated one.  Maybe tippy top GMs have solved it like tittattoe but for the VAST bulk of all people it will still be fun if it did not take so long to play.

For me anything over G30SD is like postal chess and just takes too much time.


Confusion about Touch and move rule I accidentally touched my bishop and opponent's "Knight", while reaching for my queen during a game, almost simultaneously. Am I forced to take the opponent's piece?

FIDE Article 4.3:

  Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move
  touches on the chessboard, with the intention of moving or capturing:

  a. one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched
  that can be moved

  b. one or more of his opponent’s pieces, he must capture the first
  piece touched that can be captured

  c. one piece of each colour, he must capture the opponent’s piece with
  his piece or, if this is illegal, move or capture the first piece
  touched that can be moved or captured. If it is unclear whether the
  player’s own piece or his opponent’s was touched first, the player’s
  own piece shall be considered to have been touched before his
  opponent’s.

If a player touches a piece without the intention of moving or capturing (e.g. fingerslip), there is no touch move restriction.

No, as long as you say adjust your fine. It has to be deliberate movement in order for touch move to be called upon


What is the technique to win and endgame R vs B + B? [title "R vs B+B"]
[fen "8/4rpkp/6p1/8/8/4BBP1/5PKP/8 w - - 0 1"]

The engine says that this endgame is winning for white(+2.5). Is there a technique that could be used to win this for white. I understand that the ideal position for black to draw this game would be to have 0 pawns on the board which would then with the best play be a draw. If there was a passed pawn in this for white the escorting of the pawn to the final rank would be achieved with the bishop maneuvers. However, in this case, the pawns are on the same side of the board. Are the engines missing some sort of fortress position or is there a winning technique?

As a complement to previous answers, notice that although this endgame should be a theoretical win for the bishops, it is not as straightforward a technical task as one might think.

Even at the highest level, in a World Championship Match, Black has been able to save his skin. The stakes were very high, since this rapid game was played during the tiebreak when the players were still tied.

 [FEN ""]
 [Event "Carlsen - Karjakin World Championship Match"]
 [Site "New York, NY USA"]
 [Date "2016.11.30"]
 [EventDate "2016.11.11"]
 [Round "13.2"]
 [Result "1/2-1/2"]
 [White "Magnus Carlsen"]
 [Black "Sergey Karjakin"]
 [ECO "C50"]
 [WhiteElo "?"]
 [BlackElo "?"]
 [PlyCount "167"]

 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.O-O Nf6 5.d3 O-O 6.a4 a6 7.c3 d6
 8.Re1 Ba7 9.h3 Ne7 10.d4 Ng6 11.Nbd2 c6 12.Bf1 a5 13.dxe5 dxe5
 14.Qc2 Be6 15.Nc4 Qc7 16.b4 axb4 17.cxb4 b5 18.Ne3 bxa4
 19.Rxa4 Bxe3 20.Bxe3 Rxa4 21.Qxa4 Nxe4 22.Rc1 Bd5 23.b5 cxb5
 24.Qxe4 Qxc1 25.Qxd5 Qc7 26.Qxb5 Rb8 27.Qd5 Rd8 28.Qb3 Rb8
 29.Qa2 h6 30.Qd5 Qe7 31.Qe4 Qf6 32.g3 Rc8 33.Bd3 Qc6 34.Qf5
 Re8 35.Be4 Qe6 36.Qh5 Ne7 37.Qxe5 Qxe5 38.Nxe5 Ng6 39.Bxg6
 Rxe5 40.Bd3 f6 41.Kg2 Kh8 42.Kf3 Rd5 43.Bg6 Ra5 44.Ke4 Rb5
 45.h4 Re5+ 46.Kd4 Ra5 47.Kc4 Re5 48.Bd4 Ra5 49.Bc5 Kg8 50.Kd5
 Rb5 51.Kd6 Ra5 52.Be3 Re5 53.Bf4 Ra5 54.Bd3 Ra7 55.Ke6 Rb7
 56.Kf5 Rd7 57.Bc2 Rb7 58.Kg6 Rb2 59.Bf5 Rxf2 60.Be6+ Kh8
 61.Bd6 Re2 62.Bg4 Re8 63.Bf5 Kg8 64.Bc2 Re3 65.Bb1 Kh8 66.Kf7
 Rb3 67.Be4 Re3 68.Bf5 Rc3 69.g4 Rc6 70.Bf8 Rc7+ 71.Kg6 Kg8
 72.Bb4 Rb7 73.Bd6 Kh8 74.Bf8 Kg8 75.Ba3 Kh8 76.Be6 Rb6 77.Kf7
 Rb7+ 78.Be7 h5 79.gxh5 f5 80.Bxf5 Rxe7+ 81.Kxe7 Kg8 82.Bd3 Kh8
 83.Kf8 g5 84.hxg6 1/2-1/2

White pieces were played by a grandmaster who is considered as one of the very best endgame players in History.

I would say the engine is just an engine not perfection.  White is up one 'point' for material.  Maybe two if you count the two bishops versus rook as another one.  Not sure why the engine would say 2.5.

And I see no way to force a win.

With zero pawns black sacs the rook for a bishop == 1/2  1/2

No way for white to force a passed pawn.

Black puts the king on N1 or g8.
Black can keep the white king from being a threat.
The bishops can not do anything by themselves.

I will defer to @Phishmaster if he has a plan but I do not see any and was fairly good at end games back when I played tournaments.


Is the Smith-Morra gambit still worth playing at a ~1600 level? I've been playing the Smith-Morra Gambit (e4 c5 d4 cxd4 c3) against the Sicilian defense for about 2 years. I have a tournament coming up in 3 days and I am beginning to doubt if the Smith-Morra would suffice. I like attacks and do not enjoy slow maneuvering play (which is why I do not play queen's pawn). Is there any reason I should change my response to the Sicilian? It seems like 3 days is not enough time to learn the thousands of variations in the Sicilian. And even I understand good play by black means that I am down a pawn for good.

FYI, I have an FIDE rating of 1398 and it seems to me that my opponents will be rated average of 1600.

The gambit is perfect for amateurs, the gambit is tricky and could be deadly if Black underestimate White's attacking potential.

I've personally used it to beat players around FIDE 2000, so it's fine for you to try.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1814884

I think it's safe to say that the Smith-Morra is playable at the 1600 level.


Why is the rook worth 5 points while the bishop is only worth 3? Why is the rook worth 5 points while the bishop is only worth 3? Rooks only move straight, but bishops only move diagonally. Is there something that makes moving straight more to moving diagonally?

You need to understand that the point system is only a rough guideline meant to assist you in evaluating positions or in deciding on potential exchanges. Many factors, particularly the pawn structure, influences how valuable pieces are. Rooks tend to be better in open positions with fewer pieces/pawns on the board, bishops can get hindered in closed positions by pawns of the same color ("bad bishop"), etc.

Despite of all this, the 5/3 values for rook/bishop (or the piece valuation system in general) is surprisingly reliable.

A rook is generally more valuable than a bishop because:

it can reach all squares of the board, while a bishop can stay only on squares of the same color
it can mate in KR vs K, while you cannot win KB vs K.
it covers more squares (can always move to 14 squares on an empty board independent on where it is placed, while with a bishop it can vary between 7 (corner) and 13 (center) squares)

The exact values "5" and "3" are basically found from experience and since there is a bit of a drawing margin in chess, the exact values don't really matter.

One notable and very common exception to the rule is found in many (beginner's) opening play where a bishop and knight can be exchanged for a rook + pawn on f2 or f7. In these cases almost always having two light pieces is better even though you exchange 6 pawn units for 6 pawn units.

Rook is a higher piece value due to the Checkmate factor . A Rook & a King can Checkmate the Opponent's King but a Bishop cannot . The Rook occupies more Squares on a Chess Board than a Bishop does . Lets take an empty board & put the Rook on a1 Square and then the Bishop. The Rook has 14 Squares under its dominance and the Bishop occupies 7 . If it is put on a Central Square the Rook has still 14 and the Bishop has max 13 .

So you see that Rook is much more worthy than the Bishop . I am not comparing any position where the relative value may be higher or lower .


Do longer games better your chances of honing chess skills? What do you say about it?

I find that if you're in a sequence that you're realizing is a trap, and the pressure on you is building. Or you've blundered, or worse, you deservedly are about to get crushed—its a traumatic experience where the ideational nature or principles of the position are more readily gleaned.

Yes, more longer the game you can play, it can test your concentration, visualization and memory power.

When I initially started playing Chess, I was always excited to play blitz Chess. I kept playing and finally I couldn't improve my Chess as I didn't improve what was needed.

Recently I played with a time control of 1 hour in my debut FIDE tournament, I took the most time for my moves against my opponent. All 9 players I met in the field were having Class C rating but then they had the basics right. I could win against 6 and drew with one while losing the remaining two because of minor blunders. Luckily, I could open my FIDE rating in my very first tournament, though the rating is not much to be proud of. It set a platform for me to concentrate more on longer games and less on blitz.

No. It's the opposite. The QUICKER games improve your chess skills. It's somewhat like the principle "if you are going for a 300 meter race, train like you are going for three times 100 meters sprints".

In quick games you will initially make a lot of mistakes. You will get frustrated, commit blunders, miss tactics etc. The quick realization that you made a mistake will be ingrained in your  memory and next time you will immediately recall what you did last time in similar position.

I play on chess.com and the titled players the longest games titled players play there are 3 mins matches. It enhances your thinking and decision making potential so that you can assess the situation more deeply when you get longer time controls.


Systematic approach to learning opening/endgame theory? Some relevant information: I've been playing chess for 4 years, and for 3 in tournaments, although I've only played in about 10 tournaments so far (3 big ones, like the Pan Ams and Chicago Open). My current rating is 1650 UCSF, and my chesstempo rating is 2100, if that is relevant. I'm fairly strong at tactics (and getting away with unsound sacrifices), and decent at positional play (I can recognize the value of controlling dark/light squares, using/creating outposts, securing open files, removing defenders, playing with a space advantage etc).

The Problem: Theory. Although I play the King's Gambit as white, and the Alekhine's Defence/Grunfeld as black, all highly theoretical openings, I don't actually know theory beyond, say 5-8 moves at best. I'm a highly tactical player, so I just seek to create complications from the opening, and end up having a decisive game in the middlegame due to the ensuing fireworks. I've reached the endgame exactly twice so far (out of ~70 games, in tournaments), and hence have very little experience in them. But recently, I've been getting outplayed in the openings, and have decided that its time to man up and learn opening/endgame theory. Since its an arduous task, I request to you, wiser, more experienced players to give me advice on how to fight this monster. Where should I start? Is learning theory just rote memorization? How much is enough (certainly, 8 moves of theory won't do in the King's Gambit or Grunfeld, but may suffice in the Alekhine)?

I've tried to read two books on chess so far: Silman's "Reassess Your Chess", and Taylor's "Alekhine Alert!". While both are highly interesting, I lose patience when they spit out a 50-move continuation after showing an interesting position, and due to not having a board around, I slam the book shut. Do you guys know of any books that don't do that/other resources to help learn theory in an entertaining way?

P.S. I'm very scared of the French and the English because they are highly theoretical, and score very badly against them because I keep trying odd responses (I play the KIA against the French to avoid having my d4 pawn targeted, but get crushed on the queenside anyway, and try the Dutch defence against the English to not lose due to boredom, but lose due to inferior pawn structure (mainly) anyway).

I will preface this by saying that I'm a 2150 USCF player who has had the same issues that you are struggling with in the past. What I'm about to tell you comes straight from my own experiences playing chess all these years.

Don't study or memorize any theory straight up. I find it difficult to retain information like that and the potential for it to be used is minimal. The best way to learn theory is to first forget about it, and instead play games with that opening. Then after the game, when you are at home look up the theory for whatever variation you are playing and learn the theory AFTER you've played a tournament game with it. This usually consists of finding books related to the opening you've played, poring quickly through some GM games in the same line, and annotating the game you just played.

The amount of theory you need to know is enough that you
1) won't fall into any opening traps and
2) that you have a general sense of how to play your position once you are out of book.

There isn't a set number of moves you need to memorize, but these two criteria are questions you should ask yourself if you think the amount of theory you know in the opening is insufficient.

You might say that you are scared that if you don't know the theory, you might lose straight out of the opening. From my experience, you will win if you are the better player no matter what opening you play, and you will lose if you are the worse player even if you are armed with loads of theory. You say yourself that you feel that these other players outplay you out of the opening, but honestly, I have a feeling that they would've outplayed you no matter what the opening choice. Upping your entire game, and analyzing what you could have done better in the resultant opening and middlegame positions is far more important than a few temporary setbacks in tournament play.

Openings
Play through lots of uncommented games of Super GMs quickly. Aka, get a chess database. I am not talking of online opening explorer xyz, no, get a real chess database on your local computer. E.g Scid. As input you can take the database from one of my GitHub repos, that's enough, and it has old games.
Try out what the Masters play in your own games. Experiment. Check your errors against their games.
Edit: YouTube tutorials are also underrated.
Endgames
There is no way around reading one or two endgame books. But if you don't enjoy analyzing endgames, why do you play chess at all? Endgames contain all the chess beauty in its pure form.
I myself read some Averbakh books and Smyslov/Cheron, but today I would suggest Rosens "Chess endgame training", it's the shortest of them all, and good quality. Work through it from start to end.
And then just enjoy some games from "Endgame strategy" by Sherevsky. At this point you should already have gotten used to reading chess books like prose, and you will find your own way.


Game ended with a handshake In a amateur game, black offered a handshake and white shook hands with him and neither spoke any word and the game ended. Later they had a dispute whether the game is a draw or a win for white. Black claimed that his offering of a handshake was a draw offer and when white shook hands, white accepted his draw offer. White claimed that black's offering of a handshake was a resignation.

It is an amateur game and there is no game record. So what should the arbiter do in this situation? Here are a few possibilities:

Claim this game as a draw.
Claim this game as win for white.
Try recovering the position when the game ended and ask them to keep playing from there. (This option may not be feasible as without a game record, they may not agree with the position)
Order a rematch.

Edit: I do not remember for sure but it may be a position that is obviously a draw but it appears one side is losing to an inexperienced player. For example, King at the corner vs rook pawn + bishop of "wrong colour".

From my experience (small to medium central European Opens), offering a handshake without words is a commonly accepted form of resignation.

The handshake is not part of any official rules. However, there is some reasoning behind it:

You shake hands after the game ended (just as you do before it starts). So you only start extending your hand once that end is "set in stone".

If you extend your hand without a concrete reason on the board for an end of the game (checkmate, stalemate, 3-fold repetition etc.), you silently imply the other possible reason: That you just resigned, which is possible unilaterally. The "silently" part is the reason why this is done this way: It's less disturbing for neighbouring boards than saying "I resign" or laying down your king (in many piece sets, you can't make sure that it doesn't start rolling around).

If you instead wanted to only offer a draw, the game would not have ended (yet), as your opponent still has to accept. Thus, extending your hand makes no sense yet. But conversely, if you (properly by words) offer a draw, now your opponent may offer a silent handshake! Because once they (silently) agree to your draw offer, the game is over, and they can indicate this by stretching out their hand.

Of course, this "implied" way of ending games, even if it is more polite to other ongoing games, has the drawback that lead to the question here: It requires that both players are on the same page of what is actually implied. Even more problematic than the question are for example cases where one side saw a 3-fold repetition and implied "draw", but the other didn't see the repetition and assumed "resignation". Probably not the case here, it sounded like neither mentioned anything else but resignation or free draw offer.

Edit: Because the question came up why the players would act this way, there are some thinkable scenarios:

Black was dishonest. He deliberately acted ambiguously to trick White (in the hope that the arbiter would be convinced of his story that he only wanted to offer a draw). (correct result: 1-0)
Black was very inexperienced. Sometimes, weaker and especially younger players have the habit of always offering a draw before they resign (sometimes no matter how lost their position is), in the vague hope that the opponent is nice or doesn't see how winning they are. The handshake genuinely was intended to be a draw offer that White misinterpreted. (correct result: 1-0 with a degree of uncertainty. In my opinion, White should not be punished for acting in good faith, while Black with certainty did not offer a draw the correct way and thus has the weaker case).
It was actually White who was dishonest. We don't know the position. Maybe it wasn't actually all that winning and White exploited Black's naivete of not explicitly offering a draw by words. (correct result: 1/2-1/2)

All these cases are mostly applicable to amateur tournaments. Top (and even advanced) players know that they just look like fools if they offer draws in lost positions or try to cheat that way.

To know which of these cases applies, we need more information (for example, what was each player's rough evaluation of the final position, how reasonable can we expect both players treat handshakes as resignations/draw offers? etc.).

There is an argument to be made that the players simply abandoned the game. As far as the rules go, handshakes don't mean anything. Nothing was said. The players just stopped playing and put away the pieces.

Handing out a 0 - 0 result where both sides lose might be appropriate, at least it won't happen again then.

Often, players resign without saying anything, by just offering to shake hands. This shouldn't happen as it might lead to problems like this question, but it does happen. It also happens that players offer a draw in the exact same way, especially in endgames where only they could win. It can equally lead to problems if a malicious opponent decides to interpret the offer as resignation.

We don't know which of the situations is applicable, so we have to look at the rules. Seen from that viewpoint, the players just stopped playing their game and got rid of the evidence. If there is more knowledge of which scenario is more likely, then we can use that. But with only the question, we can't.


Why is this king and two passed pawns vs. king and rook endgame not drawable? I aways thought that the king and passed pawn vs. king and rook endgame was always drawn. But I had two passed pawns in the below game,with Black to move, I was unable to draw the game. Why is that?

[FEN "8/1R6/8/5pp1/3K1k2/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

There is no absolute result for this type of endgame-it all depends on the position of the pieces. In fact, any result is possible.

Objectively, this particular position with black to move is a loss-you didn't make a mistake.I suggest you consult endgame tablebase, which announce a loss in 24 moves with best play by Black. Here is an example line.

[FEN "8/1R6/8/5pp1/3K1k2/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]

1... g4 2. Kd3 Kf3 3. Kd2 g3 4. Ke1 Ke3 5. Rb3+ Kf4 6. Kf1 Kg4 7. Kg2 f4 8. Rb4 Kf5 9. Kf3 Ke5 10. Rxf4 Kd5 11. Kxg3 Ke5 12. Kf3 Kd5 13. Re4 Kc5 14. Re5+ Kd4 15. Rf5 Kc3 16. Rf4 Kd2 17. Rd4+ Kc2 18. Ke2 Kc3 19. Re4 Kb2 20. Kd2 Kb3 21. Rd4 Kb2 22. Rd3 Ka1 23. Rb3 Ka2 24. Kc2 Ka1 25. Ra3#

In the game, the White king is able to get and front of the Black pawns after Black tries to push them for promotion. White is then able to scoop them up as Black attempts to defend them with their king. Once Black is down to their king, it is a simple king and rook endgame for White. Win.

Some nice online resources about this endgame type:

General ideas and examples

More general ideas, examples and statistics

Real games collection

Yes, the game is won by white if it's white to move, otherwise black finds safety in a stalemate, but only if the b-file pawn is pushed first.


How can the french opening be avoided? I'm really not good at the french when I'm with white, is there a good way to avoid it and get my opponent outside of their preparation?

I'm assuming that you are trying to avoid French-like positions, rather than avoiding the named opening - the latter is latter impossible after 1.e4 as most texts consider the French beginning as soon as black plays 1.e6.

In short, if you want to play 1.e4 regularly there is no way of avoiding the French Defence with a 'standard' opening. After 1.e4 e6, all sensible moves from White can be made to resemble some features of the French if Black wants to press the game in that direction.

To give some general advice: avoiding an opening by playing really unusual moves almost always results in objectively worse positions if your opponent plays correctly. Because of this, I'd recommend putting time into finding a response to the French that gives you a position that you feel more comfortable with. The Exchange variation is very different from the Advance, which is different again from the Classical and Winawer. With the number of different lines you should eventually be able to find something you at least don't feel too uncomfortable playing. Alternatively, a system-like approach with the King's Indian Attack (KIA) or similar could work if you don't want to learn lines that your opponent may be more familiar with.

This is the most monotonous and annoying play you can imagine - it rarely gives rise to combinations of some interest.  -  Serafino Dubois

That's one of that really say about french opening.
As you said you're playing as white,
I'd like to Recommend you to go for 1. d4 (in french opening it starts with 1. e4 e6)
and go for  King's Indian Defence, It's really useful and I personally won 60% Matches with it.
Otherwise if you for 1. e4 you have a less chance for French Opening, as there is High for King's Gambit [Source : My personal games]

Let's say that you get French Opening, then go for French Defense:Frankfurt Variation
that is 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Ng8 6.Be3 b6
It's really belived to be Advantage for white.

Anyways, It's Chess and Completely Depends upon How you play it.


Knowing that AlphaZero beat Stockfish 8 (28 wins, 0 losses, and 72 draws), what would AlphaZero's rating be? I found three different questions here on SEC that asked what Stockfish 8's rating was for the match against AlphaZero, but none that asked what AlphaZero's rating should have been after (if it had been in a rated event, and assuming that it previously had an established, not provisional, rating).

Stockfish 8 was rated 3378 at the time per the official rating list. There was some dispute that it was handicapped, but since we cannot really factor that in accurately, it is better to ignore that for now.

Here's an online calculator for this. 28 wins, 0 losses, and 72 draws is an elo difference of exactly 100.

Do remember that this score +28 =72 -0 score was against a handicapped version of Stockfish. In the full paper, AlphaZero scored +155 =839 -6, which is an elo difference of 52.

Statistically it should be about  3450 +/- 200  but it depends on the fine print of the rating system.

SEE edit where another site estimates 3750!!

Does game order matter?
Are they all rated as a group at the end?
Are their special rules for rating matches like USCF used to have?

And it depends on how accurate the statistical assumptions the rating system is based on were to begin with.

I love when non statisticians weigh in with nonsense reasons why that number is wrong.  Perhaps I should have put a +/- error band on it initially.

From another site I found this estimate
I estimate AlphaZero's playing strength at around 3750. Computer ratings are pretty compatible with FIDE, since we know Stockfish can beta Carlsen 3,000 times out of 100, making its 3441 or whatever accurate.
...
It was also incorrectly thought that the positional sacrifice had been refuted by correct evaluations, but AlphaZero blew that out of the water. It plays more like Alekhine. Now when I train with Stockfish I don't treat the evaluations as gospel the way I might have before.
...
What AlphaZero really shows is the value of othinking for yourself unless you want to be like th ecarbon-copy players who get to 2700 at age 14 and barely 2750 a decade later.


Accidental moves in online chess If your opponent makes an accidental move, e.g. by slipping the mouse, and it is obvious that is was accidental, how should you continue? Should you just play the best move as if your opponent's last move was intentional? Some of my opponents have suggested that I should accept a draw in such situations. Others have asked me to make a dummy move, so that they could undo their last move by moving the piece back to the square where it was before.

FICS has a "takeback" option; other sites may have something similar.

The link gives full details but the idea is that you type takeback n to request undoing n half-moves. Either player can do this so, if you make a mouse-slip, you can just type takeback to ask your opponent to undo that move (n=1 is assumed if you don't specify); if your opponent makes a mouseslip, you can still type takeback to allow them the chance to undo. In the second case, you don't have to wait for your opponent to reply while your clock ticks away: if you make your move, the takeback is modified to takeback 2 so your opponent has the offer of undoing both his mistake and your reply to it. When offered a takeback, you can either accept or decline; making a move automatically declines. Accepting a takeback also resets the clocks to what they were at the moment when the mouse-slip was made.

On sites where this is not available, I'd recommend not making a dummy move, unless you were already in a losing position. You don't know that your opponent will behave honourably. They might exploit your generosity. I also wouldn't offer a draw unless, perhaps, a draw would have been a reasonable outcome before the mouse-slip. If your opponent was already losing, why should they gain half a point just by making a mouse-slip?

I think there should be takeback because it was not my fault the computer messsed up. I am currently outraged. Be a good sport person and offer a takeback.


What is the point of time increments? I am having difficulty understanding the purpose of increments in time control. What is the point? If it just adds more time to the game, why not simply make the game that much longer? I am aware that I am missing something fundamental here. Apologies for this complete newbie question!

It depends on what you mean by "increments". If you are referring to something like "playing a game in 10m + 4s", then the main reason is preventing that a player with a huge material advantage (v.g. king plus rook versus king) doesn't lose on time. With the increment of 4 seconds after each move is made, the player with the advantage will have no problem winning the position. Without increment, if the advantageous player has something like 1 or 2 seconds on their clock (and provided the other player has plenty of time, or just much more than a couple seconds) they'd probably lose on time -which usually is called "getting (dirty) flagged" in games without increment.
This is a somehow famous example of an online game in which Gata Kamsky was (dirty) flagged in a 3 minutes game without increment, with just one rook and king per side.

It was done to make Fischer happy.   He thought that if he was in time trouble that he should still have xx seconds to move.
Others of us say that chess is a timed game and if you get into time trouble then you deserve to blunder or see your flag fall.
Increments make the game much longer and for speed chess totally distorts the time control.  My friend likes to play 15min game with ten seconds added per move.  I say that is like postal chess as I prefer to play at ten minutes dropdead game over after you used that much time.


What's the oldest age at which a grandmaster played their first rated game? Of all grandmasters past and present, what is the oldest age at which any of them started playing chess?
Define started playing chess:

The day that person played their first (FIDE, or equivalent) rated game

This isn't an answer to the exact question posed, but it may nonetheless help.
Lajos Portisch learnt to play aged 12.
Akiba Rubinstein learnt at 14 or 16. (Sources vary.)
Harry Pillsbury learnt at 16.

Arthur Dake (1910-2000) was the oldest competitive chess grandmaster.  He was still playing in rated chess tournaments at the age of 89
Vassily Smyslov won the Staunton memorial at Groningen at the age of 75. Jaanis Klovans was 60 when he finally earned his grandmaster title.


Why do chess engines sometimes miss good moves (or take forever to spot)? It is not the first time that I found a greatly superior move than the chess engine did, it even takes them a while to understand these moves after you make them.

For example, the move 15 ... Bf2 in the game below:

[fen ""]
[StartFlipped "1"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Ng4 5. h3 h5 6. hxg4 hxg4 7. Bxc6
gxf3 8. Qxf3 Qh4 9. Qh3 Qxh3 10. gxh3 dxc6 11. Re1 Bxh3 12. f3 Bc5+ 13. Kh2
Bf1+ 14. Kg3 Rh3+ 15. Kg4 Bf2 16. Rxf1 Rg3+ 17. Kf5 Rxf3+ 18. Kg4 Rg3+ 19.
Kf5 f6 20. d3 Kf7 0-1

The move remains unnoticed by the engine for a while, it is not until I move that it starts to see the rest of the iceberg.

I know it all depends on how much time you give them to analyze though, but it is unacceptable that sometimes humans manage to find these moves in less time than computers.

Why do chess engines fail to spot good moves in some positions? (I once read something about a 'horizon effect', maybe this is related?)
Are there other notable examples? (e.g this famous puzzle, it takes a while for computers to solve)

These questions contain useful information to partially explain some factors that might be causing this anomaly: What algorithms and heuristics are popular in computer chess?, When playing a Computer opponent what situations should I create to give myself a better chance of winning?, Computer evaluations: How trustworthy are they?

Notes: The trap is known as the Fishing Pole, I am aware I missed a mate in 3 (and a mate in 7) :(, the time limit per move was days (correspondence chess) but it took me like 5-10 minutes to finish calculating everything.

Why do chess engines fail to spot good moves in some positions?

The reason are called forward pruning techniques (see http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Pruning)
with ProbCut in first line.

The move 15...Bf2 is pruned on shallow deeps because it includes the sacrifice 16.Rxf1 without regaining something concrete with evidence immediately after.
The matenet is also hard to see, because it includes some further 'silent' move
as for example 17...Ke7, and yes also engines, not only humans have difficulties to see distant silent moves as they are often pruned.

In this concrete case you even cannot say, that engines fail to spot good moves,
because also the continuation 15...Rh3h1 is a very good move and leads to an absolutely won position.

Last but not least you have to remember, that an engine's strength is always measured in terms of elo-strengh and not in the ability to find the absolute shortest way to win.
It does not matter, if a engine wins in 8 moves or in 25 moves.
Seeking to much for the shortest win, would mean a waste time, because most time there does not exist such a secret good move at all. And waste of time would hurt the engines ELO-Rating.

I think everyone is missing a much quicker mate.  When checking the position with Houdini 3, black actually has mate in 3 on move 13.  Instead of Bf1+, black should've played Bf2, and it contines with 14. d3  bf1+ 15. Bh6  Rxh6#.  So, in a unusual answer to your question, maybe certain engines didn't see your move right away, but, in the case of Houdini 3, it found a much quicker mate.


How to counter white's attempt to get a massive center in the Giucco Piano? [FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3

When white plays 4. c3 and prepares to push d4 to get a massive center, how is it possible to prevent them from doing so, or at least put a lot of pressure on the center with it? I don't have trouble dealing with this in longer time controls because I can find ways attack the center, but how do I deal with this in blitz? When with the black's side I feel like playing against the Evan's gambit without being up a pawn.

c3 by white is called the Moller Attack. The reason you do not see it at high levels is that the sting has been taken out of it over the years. Basically, it comes down to breaking up the center with Nxe4, or hitting back in the center with d5, before white can finish developing and fortify the center.

There are a few lines you need to know.

 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 (6. e5 d5 7. exf6 dxc4 8. fxg7 Rg8 9. O-O Qf6 10. Re1+ Be6 11. Bg5 Qxg7 12. g3 h6 13. Bh4 Qg4 {and black is quite safe, and much better}) Bb4+ 7. Nc3 (7. Bd2 Bxd2+ 8. Nbxd2 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Qb3 Nce7 11. O-O O-O 12. Rfe1 c6) 7... d5 (7... Nxe4 8. O-O Bxc3 9. d5 Bf6 10. Re1 Ne7 11. Rxe4 d6 12. Bg5 Bxg5 13. Nxg5 h6 14. Qe2 hxg5 15. Re1 Be6 16. dxe6 f6 17. Re3 c6 18. Rh3 Rxh3 19. gxh3 g6 20. Qf3 Qa5 21. Rd1 Qe5) 8. exd5 Nxd5 9. O-O Be6

And you play a standard isolated queen-pawn position.

The main line I gave with 7...d5 is probably not as good at taking on e4, but that line is much more dangerous and has a number of side roads that white can try.

In short  you counterattack and fight hard not roll up into a fetal position.  See the gory details above by Phishmaster.  N-KB3 = Nf6  by black is the strongest although d6 actually has a slightly better game-theory type result favoring it.


How do I make the right move after an opening? I'm slowly getting better at my chess skills.

The one thing that bugs me the most right now is knowing which piece to move after many of my pieces have been developed and the king has been castled.

Any move I make after the opening either seems trivial or will lead to 1-to-1 sacrifices. I'm trying to understand what approach I should follow after both my opponent and I move up our pieces to the point where we can no longer any with sacrificing them in a way that gives me an advantage.

Usually with beginners, they make some silly move so it's easy to know where to move my pieces. But with intermediate people I find it difficult to follow a consistent strategy after the first 10-15 moves.

I tried to use a chess helper to determine the next move, but couldn't quite understand the pattern and the moves it made felt arbitrary.

Usually each opening consists in a middle game plan rather than just a sequence of initial moves. This means that the criteria behind choosing this or that other opening must be driven by the specific middle game positions that one wants to achieve or is confident to play (driven by personal taste, skills or whichever other reason).

There are mainly two ways to develop sense of positions for middle game:

studying the opening thoroughly: this means taking a book written by experts on the subject analysing positions very deeply until the endgame. Classical openings (Ruy Lopez, Queen's gambit, Sicilian, King's Indian) are easy to play but extremely hard to master, therefore one cannot really play them without extensive knowledge (unless you want to fall back into your previous case, where players end up moving pieces randomly after a while)
looking at classical games by classical players: this is the evergreen advice but really it does help to understand what to do. Good players are such because they have a sense of how to treat specific positions and come up with sensible plans for the initiative. In general looking at GM games helps understanding how to convert small advantages into winning positions (at the end of the day, chess games are not won by throwing all your pieces at the opponent's King, rather by accumulating small advantages throughout the game and converting the resulting endgame position).

Read a book; see how the masters do it.

You learned how to walk from observing.

Chess Praxis by Nimzowitsch or Art of Attack by Vladimir Vukovic.

Your thoughts are a subset of something

A framework organizes them.

A book is that framework you're missing.

It helps you look for ideas to accomplish.

Without a book, you don't know what to look for. You are sailing without a map.


Is chess a solved game? Chess is a zero-sum game of limited decisions. The number of possible moves at any given point, and the number of possible states of the board, are all finite.

Tic-Tac-Toe, is one of the easiest examples of a solved game. I can't remember how many years it's been since I last lost a Tic-Tac-Toe match. Does any such "optimal strategy" exist for chess?

Is there any strategy that will guarantee the player would grasp victory or, at worst, a draw?

If there is, please shed some light on it.

Because of the observation you make, that the tree of possible game paths for chess is finite, chess is indeed solvable in exactly the same sense that tic-tac-toe is. So optimal strategies for chess do exist; however, no one has any idea what they are. Whereas tic-tac-toe is solved thanks to a quite small space of possible games, chess is nowhere near solved because its space of possible games far outstrips what could be dealt with by current computing technology.

As noted in another answer, endgame tablebases exhibit optimal play for all positions with limited numbers of pieces. So in those settings, we have solutions that are as explicit and concrete as are those for tic-tac-toe. But it's important to note that while one can easily teach/remember the optimal strategy for tic-tac-toe and swiftly become a perfect unassisted tic-tac-toe player, the amount of information behind, say, the 7-piece Lomonosov tablebases, is 140 terabytes. There is no concise description of optimal 7-man strategy that one could learn/remember and then play perfectly without assistance.

2000-3000 elos more to go until perfect play, so the current
top engines could at least double their strength.
Chess is actually closer to its infancy than to its later stages.
For example, current top engines would guess only one out of 5
best opening moves.
Still a long way to go.


What is the best move for Black? [FEN ""]
[startply "25"]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 d6 5. h3 Be7 6. d4 exd4 7. Nxd4 Bd7 8. O-O O-O 9. Bg5 h6 10. Bxf6 Bxf6 11. Nxc6 Bxc6 12. Re1 Re8 13. Qf3

What is the best move for Black here, and why?

As stated in my comment, I don't think this is a puzzle because there is no clear decisive tactical sequences.

A good move would be 13...Qe7, putting pressure on the e4 pawn and prepare for ...Bxc3. If White did nothing, Black could then continue with ...Be5 and ...Qf6. Note that it's unlikely a bishop pair can be retained in this position, as White can start the exchange by 14.Nd5 Bxd5.

I could be wrong but b5 seems interesting to me sacrificing a pawn

If he takes with 14.Nxb5 you can follow up with Bxb2 threatening a rook and taking your pawn back, the turn he takes to moves his rook can be used to play a6 kicking the knight back setting up to play Bb5

If he takes with 14.Bxb5 you can exchange with Bxc2, he takes with with pawn then d5, if he starts exchanging hes down a piece because his rook and bishop are misplaced, if he plays 15.Rd1 Qe7 is a perfect move he shouldn't have an answer to


Why did the Berlin Defense of the Ruy Lopez disappear from the play of World Champions before Kramnik revived it? The Berlin defense of the Ruy Lopez was played by the likes of Steinitz and Lasker.

[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6

However, it soon disappeared out of the play of World Champions and they rarely played it, before Kramnik revived it. What were the reasons for this? Was it merely a matter of the taste of the positions resulting from the Berlin or was the Berlin considered to be bad for Black after the period of Lasker?

The reason, as far as I know, it is because it is drawish. GMs look for opens that are either heavily imbalanced or uncertain, like the sicilian or the scotch, or quiet oppenings that allow positional manuevering, like the Caro-Kann. Drawish lines are used by GMs solely when they are required.
Another reason is that the Berlin wasn't almost played at all in GM level. Kasparov didn't have such a deep knowlege of the opening, unlike Kramnik. Openings decide games in World Championships.

I would disagree, if a player wants to draw, he would prefer the Ruy Lopez variation as a black. The Berlin Defense on the other hand provides all three results; it's possible to win with black (draw and lose as well), it depends how good black is in outmaneuvering his opponent. With advantage of two bishops (grandmasters value them more than knights, with their power in defense and offense, especially in the open game) vs. double pawns and lost right to castle which isn't the worst. Obviously this isn't an opening which I would recommend for beginners, cause misplay may cost you a game and some of the maneuvers aren't easy to find.


Which chess player has the most openings named after him? I always thought it was interesting that chess players had openings named after them.  The game of chess has only been popular and organized for about 150 years, yet all the most popular openings and most of their sub-variations have already been named, many after players from the 19th or early 20th centuries.  In five hundred years, will all these basic openings still be named after Morphy, Steinitz, Capablanca, and Lasker?  But I digress.

Which player has had the most openings or opening variations named after him?  My guesses would be Botvinnik or Aljechin (Alekhine).

Nimzovitch.

NimzoIndian Defense: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4
Nimzovitch Defense: 1.e4 Nc6
Nimzovitch Attack: 1.Nf3 d5  2.b3 (1.b3 is the Nimzo-Larsen Attack)

Nimzovitch Variations:

Sicilian Defense: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6
Queens Indian Defense: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6
Falkbeer Counter-Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.de5 c6
Falkbeer Counter-Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.de5 c6 4.e4 Bb5+ *
Nimzovitch QP Defense: 1.d4 Nf6 (most sources attribute it to Bogoljubow)
Latvian Counter-Gambit: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5. Nc4 fxe4 6. Ne3
Philidors Defense: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nf6
French Defense, Advance Var-Nimzovitch Var: 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. Qg4
French Defense, Nimzovitch (or Winawer) Var: 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4
Four Kts Opening, Nimzovitch or Paulsen Var: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bb4 5. O-O O-O 6. Bxc6
English Opening, Nimzovitch Var: 1.c4 e5 2.Nf3
Benoni Defense, Nimzovitch or Kts Tour Var: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. Nf3 g6 7. Nd2
Caro-Kann Defense, Nimzovitch or Tartakower Var: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 de4 4.Ne4 Nf6 5.Nf6+ ef6
Ruy Lopez, Steinitz Var - Nimzovitch Attack: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d6 4. d4 Bd7 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Bxc6
English Opening - Four Kts Var - Nimzovitch Var: 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e4
EO - Nimzo-English Opening: 1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4

Notes: Simon Winawer played the "Winawer Variation" of the French Defense once in his entire career; why it's named after him instead of Nimzovitch who really popularized it is a mystery (to me at least). And no, Winawer does not deserve the credit for playing it first (if he even did that) many openings are named after the masters who hammered out the theory of them and/or made them popular. Ergo the "Advance Variation" of the French Defense should also be named after Nimzovitch!

SOURCES: "The Oxford Companion To Chess" by David Hooper & Kenneth Whyld, 1984; p 226
http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-opening-database/search/Nimzovich-variation
http://www.365chess.com/eco/C62_Ruy_Lopez_old_Steinitz_defence_Nimzovich_attack

BUKAYEV, Yury V. (Букаев Ю.В.) is an inventor of many opening systems. Не isn't only a chess innovator, he is also innovator in chemistry and physics.


White fights for equality in French classical? Normally, using engines for any given opening I can find ways for White to maintain a slight edge into the middle game. By a "slight edge" I mean an evaluation of around +0.20

The exception to this is the Classical French (and Steinitz), where it seems like every line Black has at least equality and most lines lead to an edge for Black!

For example, in his book on the French, Psakhis says that after 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4 0-0?! is dubious for Black after 7. Bd3. However, the engine shows that not only is not dubious for Black, but Black has the advantage after 7...c5!

This is just one example. No matter what line I try, Black always seems to get at least equality.

Even more scary is that not only is Black always getting equality, but White seems to have a lot more ways to go wrong than Black in many of the lines.

Is there any line in the Classical where White can retain a pull?

I am using Komodo 10 as my engine.

An evaluation of +0.2 is just noise and nothing like a "slight edge". Another engine might very well give you -0.2 or so. I would not be overly concerned by such evaluation.

When analyzing opening lines, much more important is the character of the position: whether you like it, whether it  gives you winning or drawing chances (depending on requirement), whether it is easy to play for you (and difficult for your opponent), etc. All of these are difficult to assess automatically with a computer and require you to look at it. That's why GM spend so much time on openings and don't just have their computers running looking for the line with the highest evaluation.

You need to first understand what does this +0.20 exactly means . Well true that in majority of cases White stands a slight more advantageous to Black if both play their openings correctly . The reason for this is White always gets to move first . White always has the initiative . In a standard middle game +0.2 for any engine like Fritz/ StockFish /Komodo or any other Engine it means that out of 64 Squares before the game begins White & Black has equal number of Squares on their command . After a few moves White may occupy 2-3 Squares more than Black . It may be that as in case of Ruy Lopez White has 2 pawns in center like e4,d4 and Black has e5 d6 . May be that White castles first or an extra piece developed .Then the evaluation changes to +0.2 or +0.3 . These are some  examples to consider . I would advise until & unless the Score shows a tentative > +0.8 you should not get bothered by such low figures .

With time, knowledge & experience I have seen that even when the Score shifts to +- 1.0 also people with less than 2200 Elo can not find looking at the board as to who has a better position in many respective positions .

People with 2400 IM norms & above are the ones who can pull out the win from these positions. So in opening and especially French you can ignore that slight advantage . Yes in Sicilian/Evans/Semi Slav Meran it may affect you because positions are very razor sharp and openings may turn the middle game into a disaster if not carefully played .


Explaining knight move to kids I am currently teaching a kid (~6 years) chess and we started with the pieces.  While she had no trouble picking up the rules for the rook, the bishop, the queen and the king, the knight seems more difficult.

I explained that the knight takes two steps horizontal or vertical and then it makes a turn and one more step.  While with the other pieces she immediately "sees" which moves are possible, for the knight she is now counting, counting and counting.  I think she already got better and sometimes just "sees" where she can move, but often she does not.

Now I have the following questions:
Will this problem just vanish with increasing practice?  Or is the way I introduced the knight move not suitable?

Should I try and explain the knight move differently, e.g., more visually? In this case I would be thankful for any suggestions.  So far I have refrained from giving alternative explanation to avoid confusion.

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

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

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

Most probably "L" Should be simple to remember.But if she fails to remember that method you could try with this Rook1 and Bishop1 Method .

First Consider knight as Rook and move 1 step.
Then consider knight as Bishop and move 1 step in same direction(in which rook was moved).
And just ask them to remember knight can not reach same color as current knight's square and at most knight have 8 possibilities to move on .

Black lines - Rook moves
Green lines - Bishop moves


What are examples of very aggressive openings? One of my favorite openings is the King's Gambit.  It is extremely aggressive, and makes for a sharp tactical game without sacrificing too much material.  It isn't played much at the highest level at standard time controls, but even today it is occasionally used in blitz by top level players such as Hikaru Nakamura.
What other openings for black or white would force these kind of very aggressive, tactical, sharp and open games?  (Without putting yourself in too bad a position.)

The most (overly-)aggressive openings I know of that aren't too bad would probably be the Danish Gambit (Accepted) and the Fried Liver Attack.

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

White gets three open files and both bishops on open diagonals facing black's king; black gets two pawns.  Usually considered slightly better for black, but played occasionally even up to master level.

Fried Liver Attack:
[FEN ""]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6. Nxf7!? Kxf7 7. Qf3+ Ke6 8. Nc3

White sacrifices a knight to get Black's king out right away.  Proper defense is extremely difficult over the board, but played correctly, black is thought to have a slight advantage.  In most lines, white wins their material back.

I read all the comments , by your post I think you need a new opening to learn which has a solid reputation but aggressive in nature which always favorite of many chess player club players and grand masters . If you are trying to find new gambit lines then you can try The gambit  by M.yudovich , but if you want aggressive but solid openings first, I want to recommend you Vienna Game it also can transfer from the bishop's opening which goes like , 1.e4 e5 2. (Nc3/Bc4) (Nf6/Nc6/Bc5/others) 3.(Bc4/Nc3) {now after nf6 there is also frakenstein-dracula line which will be like 3..Nxe4 4.Qh5 which always a drawish line but you can pressurize your opponent and he/she can fall into your traps} 3....Bc5(after nf6) 4.d3 d6 5.Ne2 0-0 6.0-0 Nc6 7.Kh1 Be6 8.f4(and suddenly you can see it is a solid version of king's gambit) which always played by many top players recently it's been a fashion for top players to refute petrov defence or russian defence (1.e4 e5 2Nf3 Nf6). Now e4 is played for many many years to have the main purpose checkmate the king with controlling the f7 square. In the e4 lines I also like the opening called the Najdorf sicilian english attack, (1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6.Be3) , 6. Bg5 is also aggressive which all comes into the main pawn race with g4 , g5 , and in the side of d4 openings solid and aggressive lines can be found in the A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire by Aaron Summerscale , ( the barry attack is one of favourites from that book which goes like 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Bf4 , with the plans of going in pawn race with h4 or g4 this opening also been mastered by GM mark hebden and also a new form of this opening been played by famous GM baadur jobava and the opening is named as jobava opening . Now you can also read A Ferocious Opening Repertoire by C. LAKDAWALA which includes veresov opening with f3 lines . And with black against e4 my favorite opening is najdorf (1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6)and also can play tiger modern (1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6) and against d4 you can play Grünfeld Defence(1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5) and you can play dutch defence (1. d4 f5 ) and this is also aggressive but solid played by many player you will find many examples in the ginger gm youtube channel.I don't recognize benko gambit as a aggressive opening cause a if your opponent knows then it can be not an aggressive one.And also other openings. Anyway Best Of Luck!!


What is the most sound, yet still sharp, gambit? I have played chess seriously for a little over a year and my style is an aggressive one. I started off playing really dubious gambits (at least in my opinion) like the King's Gambit and the Latvian Gambit, immediately looking to give away material for active play right from the opening. I have since toned down my aggressiveness, preferring much more quiet openings like the Ruy Lopez and the Pirc. I really want to re-ignite my gambit play and I need some suggestions on sound gambits I could go for and why.

The Evans Gambit is probably one of the most sound. It's still occasionally played at GM level and most of the critical lines are rarely if ever tested.
The Vienna Gambit and Blackmar–Diemer are probably playable. The Scotch gambit is playable although I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a forced draw.
With black the Benko is probably sound and the Budapest is playable. Black has fewer sound gambit options since black starts out a half tempo down. Giving up a pawn for a move just gives you an equal position but you're down a pawn.
I'll add though that virtually any opening is playable below 2000 level and certainly in rapid or blitz. In fact, you could probably get to around 2300 with any normal openings.

You can have 'gambit', you can have 'sound', but you can't have both.... the Benko is the closest you're going to get. Take heart in the fact that gambits are perfectly OK in practice, if unsound in theory.


Deep Rybka vs Deep Fritz vs Houdini vs (other), which one to buy? I want to invest my hard-earned money to buy a chess engine which can help me to:

analyze games easily
experiment with different opening repertoire
strategical analysis
positional play

I don't expect an answer like, all are good enough to beat a human player, etc. I am not looking for an engine whom I can beat, as I know it's not humanly possible for a 1600 rated player to beat these engines, but my purposes are different (as given above).

So, if you have or use any of these engines, please let me know a comparative detail on which one I should go for.

I would suggest you look into some open source engines. And tools for analysis.  These will be free. Some will be quite fully featured and very very powerful:

Stockfish. Rating: 3121
Critter (free) Rating: 3207

Also, look into SCID: an information database to which you can import millions of games and pair the database with analysis engines, add chess move-engines etc.
    -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane%27s_Chess_Information_Database

note 1: there are millions (literally) of master games which have been annotated, and can be downloaded in zipped .pgn files, then which can be imported to SCID for play through etc. So analysis, openings, endgames etc, can all be analysed via scid though whichever engines you decide on (no reason to only have one).

note 2: Crafty finished in second place in the 2010 Fifth Annual ACCA Americas' Computer Chess Championships. Crafty lost only one game to the first place winner Thinker.

note 3: In various computer chess rankings Stockfish 2.1.1 was second or third behind the top gratis program Houdini and the free program Critter.

Good Luck!

To the best of my chess knowledge I would purchase the best ever software on this earth it is Houdini. It is simply incredible. No software has ever beaten Houdini.


What does Kasparov mean by "I was behind in three and even in one after six games"? This not a question about chess exactly but I'm reading Deep Thought by Kasparov and I didn't understand what he meant by "I was behind in three and even in one after six games" when he was describing his matches with Karpov.

  In my five world championship matches against Karpov, I was ahead after six games in only one, our last match in 1990. In the other four I was behind in three and even in one after six games, but didn’t lose any of them in the end, winning two and drawing one. (Our first match was terminated after I came back from 0–5 to 3–5.)

Does this mean that he was three games behind in the first six in one match and one game behind in the other?

He is talking about the score after the sixth game of each of his matches with Karpov. To be precise, these were the scores after game six (shown as Kasparov-Karpov, not counting draws, to follow the same convention as the quote from the book):

1984: 0-2
1985: 1-2
1986: 1-1
1987: 1-2
1990: 1-0

As you can see, Kasparov was behind after the sixth game in three matches: 1984, 1985, and 1987. The score was even in one: 1986. Put both facts together and you have "behind in three and even in one". And indeed in only one match, 1990, Kasparov was ahead after the sixth game.

He just means he was behind in four of the matches, and after just 6 games for one of them. He is not trying to compare the result after 6 games for all matches.


What projects have been undertaken to solve chess completely? Chess is not completely solved yet but what efforts have been undertaken to solve it? Has there been a large project like the HGP or is something like that even worth pursuing? What failed efforts have been there if any? I am speculating that the the Alpha Zero project must have taken some steps towards that end.
EDIT:-Answers ponder on the point that is extremely difficult to solve chess which i have clearly indicated in the first line in the question. What I would like to know that are there or have there been any projects that try to solve chess. Like that Moscow university 7-piece tablebases and any efforts like that. It is clearly an expensive problem to solve but who is doing it and what approaches are being taken? It is often said that there are more chess combinations than atoms in the universe (probably because of that ad) but so are the real numbers but we have a rich theory about that. We also know a great deal about the universe as well but we had to try hard to get to that point. Is chess being treated the same is my question.

Endgame tablebases can be seen as such an effort, in that we started at few pieces and have increased the number. In 2012, 7 piece tablebases -from Moscow state university were generated, so chess is solved for positions of 7 or fewer pieces (including the kings).
The problem is, the 7 piece tablebases take about 140 TB in storage. 8 piece tablebases would take about 10 petabyte of storage, and a computer with 50 TB of ram (source) to keep hashes in memory to generate them in reasonable time (a few years?). I guess it would be doable these days if someone makes the millions of dollars available. 9 seems way out of reach.
So it will take a while before we get to 32.

I think everyone here has a good and necessary point with the space complexity of chess being larger than the number of atoms in the observable universe.  However, I think I can add some additional points onto that.

As others have pointed out, the definition of "solved" is not super clear.  If "solved" means "find the optimal move from any possible game state", solving chess is impossible.  However, if we take solved to mean that we just want to play the single "perfect" game of chess we may be able to reduce space complexity.

The problem with point one is that chess does not have a single perfect game.  A perfect game of chess implies that you are always making the move that leaves you with the highest chance of winning.  It also implies that you are accounting for your opponent making optimal moves, as otherwise it would not be a perfect game (and would also break the previous space complexity issues).  However, chess is a well balanced game and any game perfectly played would necessarily end in a draw.

There are likely a near-infinite number of optimally played games that end in a draw.  While the number of optimal moves from any position is much smaller than the number of possible moves, according to the best chess engines we have today there are many moves that have near-optimal results from the starting position and in the first few moves.  Because a significant advantage is needed to win any game of chess, many of these moves would likely be included in a "perfect" or solved game.

Lastly, how would you prove my points 2 and 3 right or wrong? You can't.  Again, you run into the space complexity issue.  To prove any position is either winnable or unwinnable if both players play optimally, you need to diagram out every single possible move from a given position.  As we have shown earlier, this is impossible until we are below a certain piece number.


Who is best at Fischer Random chess, humans or engines? I know that the old good question about engines vs humans has been asked multiple times, e. g. here.

But what about random chess (aka Fischer chess or chess960)? Can humanity feel confortable about struggling machines in this game?

Do you know of plays or championships that throws any light about the question?

You have to understand, that a top ten player is superior to an engine in the opening, because he used engines to analyze openings for many years, and because engines usually don't have an opening book on the level of the preparation of a top player.

In chess 960 you basically take away the opening book for both players and at the very top this actually benefits the engine.

So I think there can be no doubt, that engines would be similarly superior in chess960 as in normal chess. But the only Human-Engine match I know of was still won by the human player: Peter Svidler vs Baron, 1,5:0,5 in the year of 2005.
Of course the big jump in engine strength only came with Rybka in the very same year 2005.

The basic difference between Chess 960 and Classical Chess is that by switching the pieces around at the start, you've in essence removed the computer's opening book. That would eliminate the potential initial advantage that had afforded, since most humans wouldn't have matched that. However, during the "960" opening and subsequently, the machine would go about business as usual, developing quickly and then searching for all possible tactics. Depending on the depth of search, it should prove superior to the vast majority of humans in that respect.


King+Knight vs King+Pawn checkmate How is it possible for a King and Knight to checkmate a King and Pawn? I've composed a working position, but I am not sure if this can occur through a series of moves.

In the general case K+N vs K+P is of course a draw - or a win for the pawn if it can promote unhindered.
There is however a famous construction were the knight can force a mate against a king stuck in front of its own well-advanced rook pawn:
[fen "8/3N4/8/8/8/p7/k7/2K5 w - - 0 1"]

1.Nc5 Ka1 2.Kc2 Ka2 3.Nd3 Ka1 4.Nc1 a2 5.Nb3#

There are many variations on that theme, the first such position being published by in the Bonus Socius before 1300.

It is not possible for king+knight to force checkmate but a helpmate is possible.
Basically the pawn promotes to a bishop, the king moves to the opposite coloured square to the bishop with the bishop next to it and the opposing knight delivers checkmate with the king blocking off the two squares in front of the other king.
Like this:
[fen "KB6/8/kn6/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]