Plan to proceed in this position I have a position which the engine gives as favorable for black (black to move), but I am confused on what plan should black adopt, as white has a dangerous passed pawn and black doesn't; also exchanging the queens doesn't look good as the black knight is too slow to catch the white pawn.

Let's check forcing moves first.

1... Qxf2 is definitely draw.

[FEN "8/8/8/2p1p3/2Pp2P1/1knP4/3q1QK2/5B2 b - - 0 1"]

1... Qxf2 2. Kxf2 e4 (2...Kc2 { transposes to main line}) {Nd1, or Na4 too slow, so e4 is the only option. Kc2 transposes to this line.} 3. Kg3! (3. g5? Kc2 {Both sides queen, but black remains with extra pawns, winning for black}) (3. dxe4? Nxe4+ {Threatening with fork, if Black exchanges minor pieces, it's a winning pawn endgame for Black} 4. Ke1 Kc3-+ {White has to give up bishop for d pawn, and White's pawn is going nowhere} (4. Kg1 Kc3-+ {White has to give up bishop for d pawn, and White's pawn is going nowhere}) (4.Kg2 Kc3-+ {White has to give up bishop for d pawn, and White's pawn is going nowhere}) {White has to give up bishop for d pawn, and White's pawn is going nowhere}){Not letting Black to get tempo while marching to queen} Kc2 4. dxe4 d3 5. Bxd3+ Kxd3 6. Kf4 Nxe4 7. Ke5=/= {Lomonosov}

So we know that Black at least has draw. But I feel Black should win in this position. Bishop is not active, but knight is doing very good, especially when it lands to e3. Also Black's king is very active, can easily eliminate White's remaining pawns if both sides queen. So, Black probably has a winning continuation.

Some ideas:

[FEN "8/8/8/2p1p3/2Pp2P1/1knP4/3q1QK2/5B2 b - - 0 1"]

1... Qc1 {This move feels best for me. It puts the queen to h6-c1 diagonal to block white pawn which I think important. Qg5 is an alternative} (1...Qg5) 2. Qg3 {Attacking e-pawn, supporting b-pawn} Nd1 {Knight is heading to e3} 3.Be2 {Activating bishop, not much alternative though} Ne3+ 4. Kf2 Kc3 { Attacking d3} 5. Qxe5 Kd2 { Threatening Qe1, taking bishop} 6. Qh2 { Defends bishop } Qe1 7. Kf3 Nxg4 {Wins a pawn} 8.Qf4 Ne3 {Bishop is hanging again} 9. Qh2 Qb1

Resulting position looks very promising for Black. But of course, the line is not forced, so, this continuation may not be the best. Anyway, it should give an idea to decide how to proceed in starting position.

Conclusion

I believe, Black should not play 1...Qxf2, instead should look for a win. Black should centralize the knight to e3 square, put the king into c3, where it attacks d3, should try to force White to give up g-pawn by pressing on g-pawn and bishop same time, knowing that bishop is blocked by allied pawns, and pretty much stands as a target to attack in White's crampy king-side.

Testing my Findings with Monte Carlo Simulation

I run a 10 game Manto Carlo simulation where each side has 10 minutes to finish the game. In all games, black went for the line above, starting with ...Qc1, and won all games.

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2015.12.28"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Stockfish 261014 64"]
[Black "Stockfish 261014 64"]
[Result "0-1"]
[FEN "8/8/8/2p1p3/2Pp2P1/1knP4/3q1QK1/5B2 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "67"]
[SetUp "1"]
[TimeControl "100/600"]

1... Qc1 { +1.68/24 11s}  2. Qg3 { -1.63/25 12s}  2... Nd1 { +2.40/25 7.4s}  3.
Be2 { -2.36/25 15s}  3... Ne3+ { +2.57/24 7.4s}  4. Kf2 { -2.68/25 12s}  4...
Kc3 { +2.71/25 11s}  5. Qxe5 { -2.85/26 14s}  5... Kd2 { +3.28/27 11s}  6. Qh2
{ -3.47/27 17s}  6... Qe1+ { +3.34/26 7.4s}  7. Kf3 { -3.47/1 0.001s}  7...
Nxg4 { +3.58/27 15s}  8. Qf4+ { -3.47/25 7.2s}  8... Ne3 { +3.58/28 7.3s}  9.
Qh2 { -3.75/25 17s}  9... Qb1 { +3.87/26 40s}  10. Kf2 { -3.05/25 7.1s}  ( 10.
Bf1+ { -3.72/27 30s}  10... Kc3 { +3.72/26 5.7s}  11. Be2 { -3.40/27 6.9s}
11... Qb6 { +3.96/26 17s}  12. Kf2 { -3.80/22 23s}  12... Qf6+ { +5.22/27 17s}
13. Kg1 { -4.60/25 14s}  13... Qg5+ { +5.67/28 12s}  14. Kf2 { -4.97/25 33s}
14... Nf5 { +5.88/29 5.3s}  15. Qh3 { -4.93/23 8.4s}  15... Qf4+ { +6.20/25
7.2s}  16. Qf3 { -4.55/26 9.6s}  16... Qh4+ { +10.93/36 49s}  17. Kg1 {
-4.42/26 6.2s}  17... Ne3 { +28.79/28 7.8s}  18. Qf2 { -52.13/37 17s}  18...
Qxf2+ { +52.11/36 7.1s}  19. Kxf2 { -62.24/39 13s}  19... Kd2 { +54.84/37 4.6s}
 20. Bf3 { -89.07/39 19s}  20... Kxd3 { +58.23/38 32s}  21. Bh5 { -123.53/38
9.0s}  21... Nxc4 { +62.79/41 5.9s}  22. Bd1 { -123.53/37 5.7s}  22... Kc3 {
+M73/35 8.8s}  23. Bg4 { -298.86/37 19s}  23... d3 { +M69/35 8.1s}  24. Ke1 {
-M42/36 44s}  24... d2+ { +M47/35 8.8s}  25. Kf2 { -M36/37 17s}  25... Nb2 {
+M35/36 3.9s}  26. Ke3 { -M34/37 14s}  26... d1=Q { +M31/36 7.0s}  27. Bxd1 {
-M32/36 4.4s}  27... Nxd1+ { +M29/36 3.9s}  28. Ke2 { -M26/36 9.0s}  28... Kc2
{ +M27/35 3.8s}  29. Ke1 { -M24/35 9.8s}  29... c4 { +M25/34 3.8s}  30. Ke2 {
-M22/35 4.1s}  30... c3 { +M21/34 3.8s}  31. Ke1 { -M20/33 7.8s}  31... Kb2 {
+M19/33 3.8s}  32. Kxd1 { -M18/42 5.4s}  32... c2+ { +M17/40 3.7s}  33. Ke2 {
-M16/51 3.9s}  33... c1=Q { +M15/48 3.7s}  34. Kf2 { -M14/66 5.4s}  34... Qf4+
{ +M13/71 3.7s}  35. Kg2 { -M12/120 4.0s}  35... Kc3 { +M11/120 3.0s}  36. Kh3
{ -M10/120 0.31s}  36... Kd2 { +M9/120 0.079s}  37. Kg2 { -49.17/1 0.001s}
37... Ke2 { +M7/120 0.015s}  38. Kh3 { -M6/120 0.039s}  38... Qg5 { +M5/120
0.012s}  39. Kh2 { -M4/1 0s}  39... Kf2 { +M3/120 0.005s}  40. Kh3 { -M2/120
0.001s}  40... Qg3# { Stockfish 261014 64-Stockfish 261014 64 2015.12.28}  ) (
10. Bf1+ { -3.74/26 29s}  10... Kc3 { +3.81/25 47s}  11. Be2 { -3.25/26 6.9s}
11... Qb7+ { +3.87/26 32s}  12. Kf2 { -3.57/27 11s}  12... Qb6 { +3.93/26 40s}
13. Ke1 { -3.57/25 22s}  13... Qf6 { +8.13/28 7.3s}  14. Qf2 { -6.34/27 13s}
14... Qg6 { +13.22/29 11s}  15. Qh2 { -14.05/28 14s}  15... Qg2 { +21.86/33
7.4s}  16. Qxg2 { -39.84/32 10s}  16... Nxg2+ { +52.18/37 6.6s}  17. Kf2 {
-57.87/37 13s}  17... Nf4 { +54.92/37 4.5s}  18. Bf3 { -64.66/38 40s}  18...
Nxd3+ { +61.64/38 13s}  19. Kg3 { -73.95/38 16s}  19... Nb2 { +123.52/38 6.1s}
20. Kf4 { -123.13/37 52s}  20... d3 { +123.55/37 9.1s}  21. Bg4 { -123.19/36
13s}  21... d2 { +123.56/36 6.3s}  22. Ke3 { -74.63/34 44s}  22... d1=Q {
+298.95/34 4.3s}  23. Bxd1 { -M40/33 5.8s}  23... Nxd1+ { +M33/35 8.1s}  24.
Ke2 { -M32/36 6.5s}  24... Nb2 { +M31/35 4.2s}  25. Ke3 { -M30/35 7.3s}  25...
Kxc4 { +M27/35 4.5s}  26. Kd2 { -M26/35 8.2s}  26... Kb3 { +M25/34 4.2s}  27.
Ke2 { -M24/33 5.3s}  27... c4 { +M23/31 4.2s}  28. Ke3 { -M22/31 7.2s}  28...
c3 { +M21/32 4.2s}  29. Kf3 { -M20/30 5.2s}  29... c2 { +M17/29 4.2s}  30. Ke4
{ -M16/30 6.5s}  30... c1=Q { +M15/30 4.8s}  31. Kf5 { -M14/32 6.6s}  31... Qh6
{ +M13/33 4.7s}  32. Kg4 { -M12/42 4.8s}  32... Qg6+ { +M11/41 4.3s}  33. Kf4 {
-M10/112 4.8s}  33... Nd3+ { +M9/106 4.1s}  34. Ke3 { -M8/120 0.047s}  34...
Qf5 { +M7/120 0.10s}  35. Ke2 { -M6/120 0.013s}  35... Kc2 { +M5/120 0.014s}
36. Ke3 { -M4/1 0s}  36... Qf4+ { +M3/120 0.003s}  37. Ke2 { -M2/1 0.001s}
37... Qf2# { Stockfish 261014 64-Stockfish 261014 64 2015.12.28}  ) ( 10. Bf1+
{ -3.65/24 17s}  10... Kc3 { +3.73/26 12s}  11. Be2 { -3.80/25 11s}  11... Qb7+
{ +3.73/28 7.1s}  12. Kf2 { -4.55/26 18s}  12... Qg7 { +3.73/28 7.2s}  13. Qg3
{ -3.92/24 19s}  13... Qf6+ { +4.37/23 12s}  14. Kg1 { -4.20/26 23s}  14... Kd2
{ +5.05/25 37s}  15. Bf3 { -4.20/26 6.6s}  15... Kxd3 { +5.05/26 14s}  16. Qf2
{ -4.76/22 37s}  16... Qf5 { +5.11/26 6.6s}  17. Qe2+ { -4.76/22 6.1s}  17...
Kc3 { 0.00/1 0.001s}  18. Qe1+ { -5.27/22 17s}  18... Kxc4 { +5.82/23 15s}  19.
Kf2 { -6.03/21 13s}  19... Kb3 { +6.00/23 9.7s}  20. Qa1 { -6.72/23 22s}  20...
Qc2+ { +6.13/23 22s}  21. Kg3 { -6.40/25 51s}  21... c4 { +6.74/22 14s}  22.
Qa8 { -7.67/22 19s}  22... Qg6+ { +9.13/21 10s}  23. Kh3 { -8.36/23 7.0s}
23... Qh6+ { +12.94/23 14s}  24. Kg3 { -11.10/25 24s}  24... Qg5+ { +13.89/24
9.6s}  25. Kh3 { -7.31/25 4.2s}  25... d3 { +14.70/25 19s}  26. Qa1 { -11.77/21
17s}  26... Kc2 { +33.72/23 10s}  27. Qa2+ { -17.01/20 7.4s}  27... Kc1 {
+49.10/26 19s}  28. Qf2 { -26.58/22 11s}  28... d2 { +62.82/27 5.4s}  29. Be2 {
-M38/25 17s}  29... c3 { +M33/25 7.6s}  30. Qf8 { -49.06/24 11s}  30... d1=Q {
+M31/27 9.2s}  31. Bxd1 { -M36/25 4.6s}  31... Kxd1 { +M27/29 5.2s}  32. Qf1+ {
-M24/32 7.0s}  32... Kd2 { +M23/32 10s}  33. Qf2+ { -M22/31 7.5s}  33... Kd3 {
+M21/35 4.9s}  34. Qf1+ { -M20/28 5.3s}  34... Ke4 { +M19/36 4.9s}  35. Qh1+ {
-M18/31 2.9s}  35... Qg2+ { +M17/39 4.8s}  36. Qxg2+ { -M16/44 2.8s}  36...
Nxg2 { +M15/56 4.7s}  37. Kg4 { -M14/58 3.8s}  37... c2 { +M13/71 4.7s}  38.
Kg5 { -M12/46 3.8s}  38... c1=Q+ { +M11/92 4.6s}  39. Kf6 { -M10/80 3.6s}
39... Qc6+ { +M9/120 1.9s}  40. Kg7 { -M8/120 0.58s}  40... Kf5 { +M7/120
0.20s}  41. Kh7 { -M6/120 0.013s}  41... Qc7+ { +M5/120 0.008s}  42. Kh6 {
-M4/120 0.003s}  42... Qb7 { +M3/120 0.003s}  43. Kh5 { -M2/1 0s}  43... Qh7# {
Stockfish 261014 64-Stockfish 261014 64 2015.12.28}  ) ( 10. Bf1+ { -3.84/28
67s}  10... Kc3 { +3.69/26 18s}  11. Be2 { -3.87/24 9.6s}  11... Qb7+ {
+3.97/25 14s}  12. Kf2 { -4.03/25 9.0s}  12... Qf7+ { +4.16/27 12s}  13. Kg1 {
-4.14/25 15s}  13... Qg7+ { +4.16/27 6.4s}  14. Kh1 { -4.62/26 37s}  14... Qb7+
{ +4.16/26 18s}  15. Kg1 { -3.02/22 8.3s}  15... Qb1+ { +4.46/27 56s}  16. Kf2
{ -3.52/23 14s}  16... Kd2 { +4.46/28 5.6s}  17. Kf3 { -3.80/24 12s}  17...
Qb7+ { +5.02/27 9.0s}  18. Kf2 { -3.94/25 12s}  18... Qf7+ { +5.02/27 5.6s}
19. Kg1 { -5.23/28 7.7s}  19... Qg6+ { +5.29/26 15s}  20. Kf2 { -5.35/29 11s}
20... Qf5+ { +5.94/26 25s}  21. Kg1 { -5.35/31 5.4s}  21... Qg5+ { +5.94/26
5.1s}  22. Kf2 { -5.99/30 49s}  22... Nf5 { +6.08/27 5.1s}  23. Bf3 { -6.03/23
7.5s}  23... Kxd3 { +6.43/26 13s}  24. Qh3 { -5.35/23 11s}  24... Kc3 {
+10.82/26 23s}  25. Qg4 { -4.73/21 8.8s}  25... Qxg4 { +60.25/35 7.2s}  26.
Bxg4 { -54.79/32 6.8s}  26... Ne3 { +M57/34 4.6s}  27. Bf3 { -123.56/34 9.2s}
27... Nxc4 { +298.91/34 7.5s}  28. Kg3 { -102.45/34 4.5s}  28... d3 {
+298.93/33 4.5s}  29. Kf4 { -298.98/31 6.1s}  29... d2 { +M71/34 18s}  30. Ke4
{ -122.62/33 37s}  30... Nb2 { +M43/34 9.4s}  31. Ke3 { -M36/34 10s}  31...
d1=Q { +M37/34 4.1s}  32. Bxd1 { -M32/35 3.8s}  32... Nxd1+ { +M29/35 4.0s}
33. Ke2 { -M26/36 4.5s}  33... Kc2 { +M27/35 4.0s}  34. Ke1 { -M28/33 3.2s}
34... Nc3 { +M25/35 4.1s}  35. Kf2 { -M26/33 3.1s}  35... Kd3 { +M23/34 3.9s}
36. Kf3 { -M22/32 4.8s}  36... c4 { +M21/32 3.9s}  37. Kg4 { -M20/32 4.0s}
37... Ne4 { +M19/32 5.4s}  38. Kf4 { -M18/34 4.1s}  38... c3 { +M17/34 3.7s}
39. Kf5 { -M16/35 4.4s}  39... c2 { +M15/35 3.6s}  40. Ke6 { -M14/36 2.7s}
40... c1=Q { +M13/36 4.3s}  41. Kd7 { -M12/39 2.7s}  41... Qf4 { +M11/42 3.7s}
42. Ke7 { -M10/63 3.5s}  42... Qc7+ { +M9/74 3.4s}  43. Ke6 { -M8/120 0.37s}
43... Qh7 { +M7/120 0.31s}  44. Ke5 { -M6/120 0.049s}  44... Qg6 { +M5/120
0.032s}  45. Kf4 { -M4/120 0.005s}  45... Qg5+ { +M3/120 0.005s}  46. Kf3 {
-M2/1 0.001s}  46... Qg3# { Stockfish 261014 64-Stockfish 261014 64 2015.12.28}
 ) ( 10. Bf1+ { -3.77/25 23s}  10... Kc3 { +3.96/28 8.4s}  11. Be2 { -2.77/25
7.0s}  11... Qb7+ { +4.11/27 21s}  12. Kf2 { -3.58/25 15s}  12... Qf7+ {
+4.58/27 57s}  13. Kg1 { -3.65/28 17s}  13... Qg7+ { +4.81/25 10s}  14. Kf2 {
-4.29/28 63s}  14... Qf6+ { +4.81/26 8.1s}  15. Kg1 { -5.62/27 8.2s}  15...
Qg5+ { +4.81/26 5.3s}  16. Kf2 { -7.01/28 19s}  16... Kd2 { +4.59/25 31s}  17.
Qh1 { -4.68/22 15s}  17... Qf4+ { +4.59/25 4.9s}  18. Bf3 { -5.41/23 13s}
18... Kxd3 { +4.65/25 4.9s}  19. Qb1+ { -4.70/23 5.6s}  19... Nc2 { +5.29/23
6.8s}  20. Qb6 { -5.13/22 18s}  20... Kc3 { +10.06/23 5.0s}  21. Qa5+ {
-11.58/23 15s}  21... Kb2 { +23.63/21 9.5s}  22. Qb6+ { -16.12/25 16s}  22...
Kc1 { +49.17/29 11s}  23. Qb3 { -17.10/27 25s}  23... Qh2+ { +52.34/34 4.8s}
24. Bg2 { -52.38/34 7.3s}  24... d3 { +52.34/34 4.8s}  25. Qxd3 { -59.72/34
9.6s}  25... Qxg2+ { +M43/38 4.8s}  26. Kxg2 { -59.72/1 0.001s}  26... Ne1+ {
+M37/38 4.8s}  27. Kf2 { -M36/39 12s}  27... Nxd3+ { +M35/37 4.8s}  28. Kg3 {
-M34/37 11s}  28... Ne5 { +M33/36 8.7s}  29. Kf4 { -M32/36 9.0s}  29... Nxc4 {
+M31/35 4.7s}  30. Ke4 { -M30/35 7.2s}  30... Nb2 { +M29/34 7.0s}  31. Ke3 {
-M24/34 9.7s}  31... c4 { +M25/34 7.3s}  32. Kf4 { -M22/33 6.4s}  32... Kd2 {
+M23/32 4.5s}  33. Kg5 { -M20/33 5.6s}  33... c3 { +M19/32 8.6s}  34. Kf4 {
-M18/31 3.8s}  34... c2 { +M17/31 4.3s}  35. Ke5 { -M16/31 6.3s}  35... Nd3+ {
+M15/30 6.5s}  36. Ke6 { -M14/34 5.8s}  36... c1=Q { +M13/33 4.1s}  37. Ke7 {
-M12/39 3.6s}  37... Qc6 { +M11/39 4.6s}  38. Kf7 { -M10/72 3.5s}  38... Ne5+ {
+M9/78 4.1s}  39. Ke7 { -M8/120 0.36s}  39... Qb6 { +M7/120 0.39s}  40. Kf8 {
-M6/120 0.034s}  40... Qd6+ { +M5/120 0.018s}  41. Kg8 { -M4/120 0.007s}  41...
Qg6+ { +M3/120 0.007s}  42. Kh8 { -M2/120 0.003s}  42... Nf7# { Stockfish
261014 64-Stockfish 261014 64 2015.12.28}  ) ( 10. Bf1+ { -3.70/24 11s}  10...
Kc3 { +3.65/29 7.6s}  11. Be2 { -3.21/24 7.2s}  11... Qb7+ { +3.93/28 20s}  12.
Kf2 { -3.54/24 20s}  12... Qf7+ { +4.26/28 26s}  13. Kg1 { -3.81/26 12s}  13...
Qg7+ { +4.26/28 6.9s}  14. Kf2 { -3.68/26 7.1s}  14... Qf6+ { +4.51/24 12s}
15. Kg1 { -3.93/22 12s}  15... Qg5+ { +4.89/26 12s}  16. Kf2 { -4.41/23 20s}
16... Nf5 { +5.10/26 6.8s}  17. Qh3 { -5.61/24 15s}  17... Kd2 { +6.68/24 16s}
18. Bg4 { -6.68/25 18s}  18... Qf4+ { +6.01/23 13s}  19. Kg1 { -5.68/25 6.6s}
19... Ne3 { +5.99/24 8.9s}  20. Bf3 { -6.95/25 12s}  20... Kxd3 { +6.86/23
9.7s}  21. Bc6 { -8.54/27 43s}  21... Kxc4 { +7.84/24 9.1s}  22. Qc8 { -8.22/24
15s}  22... Kd3 { +9.20/25 10s}  23. Qb7 { -8.96/25 12s}  23... Qg3+ { +9.26/24
9.0s}  24. Kh1 { -8.54/27 5.7s}  24... Qe1+ { +9.51/24 10s}  25. Kh2 { -8.54/1
0.001s}  25... c4 { +11.72/25 30s}  26. Bf3 { -8.05/27 5.8s}  26... Qh4+ {
+13.43/24 8.1s}  27. Kg1 { -7.84/1 0.002s}  27... c3 { +17.34/25 14s}  28. Qb1+
{ -14.91/23 11s}  28... Kd2 { +32.61/27 28s}  29. Qa2+ { -20.49/25 11s}  29...
Nc2 { +22.64/27 14s}  30. Bc6 { -49.10/27 25s}  30... Qg5+ { +48.89/28 11s}
31. Kf2 { -52.38/29 31s}  31... Qf6+ { +49.06/30 4.9s}  32. Bf3 { -52.25/31
4.6s}  32... Qh4+ { +M47/29 41s}  33. Kg2 { -52.30/30 21s}  33... d3 {
+29.63/29 35s}  34. Bd5 { -39.71/21 6.0s}  34... Kc1 { +M57/28 3.3s}  35. Bb3 {
-52.34/27 8.8s}  35... Ne1+ { +M59/27 11s}  36. Kf1 { -M58/27 8.3s}  36... Qh1+
{ +M61/29 3.3s}  37. Kf2 { -M56/1 0.002s}  37... Qg2+ { +M27/28 18s}  38. Ke3 {
-M48/31 3.8s}  38... Qxa2 { +M25/28 2.6s}  39. Bxa2 { -M26/29 6.5s}  39... d2 {
+M25/27 2.6s}  40. Bb3 { -M24/29 5.5s}  40... c2 { +M21/27 2.5s}  41. Bxc2 {
-M20/27 6.8s}  41... Kxc2 { +M19/28 2.7s}  42. Kd4 { -M16/28 6.7s}  42... d1=Q+
{ +M17/25 2.4s}  43. Ke5 { -M14/33 7.2s}  43... Qd7 { +M13/30 2.7s}  44. Kf6 {
-M12/41 4.2s}  44... Nf3 { +M11/36 2.3s}  45. Kg6 { -M10/1 0.001s}  45... Qe6+
{ +M9/61 2.3s}  46. Kh7 { -M8/120 0.57s}  46... Ne5 { +M7/120 0.36s}  47. Kh8 {
-M6/120 0.012s}  47... Qf6+ { +M5/120 0.008s}  48. Kh7 { -M4/120 0.002s}  48...
Qg6+ { +M3/120 0.003s}  49. Kh8 { -M2/1 0s}  49... Nf7# { Stockfish 261014
64-Stockfish 261014 64 2015.12.28}  ) ( 10. Qf2 { -3.63/25 22s}  10... Qb7+ {
+13.97/28 11s}  11. Kg3 { -8.02/29 18s}  11... Qg7+ { +10.42/31 63s}  12. Kh3 {
-39.78/35 27s}  12... Qg2+ { +44.66/33 8.2s}  13. Qxg2 { -48.94/38 9.3s}  13...
Nxg2 { +52.34/37 8.5s}  14. Bf3 { -57.12/38 14s}  14... Ne1 { +58.68/40 17s}
15. Be4 { -58.81/39 34s}  15... Nxd3 { +63.24/39 17s}  16. Kg3 { -33.37/38 57s}
 16... Ke3 { +73.47/39 19s}  17. Bf5 { -59.58/32 7.7s}  17... Ne5 { +73.33/38
50s}  18. Kh4 { -M44/36 19s}  18... d3 { +M45/33 7.7s}  19. Kg5 { -M38/36 8.9s}
 19... d2 { +M43/35 4.7s}  20. Bc2 { -M36/35 6.9s}  20... Nxc4 { +M35/36 4.7s}
21. Kf5 { -M34/35 7.2s}  21... Kd4 { +M31/36 5.0s}  22. Kf4 { -M30/36 8.8s}
22... Ne3 { +M29/37 7.2s}  23. Ba4 { -M28/36 5.1s}  23... d1=Q { +M27/37 4.7s}
24. Bxd1 { -M26/36 5.0s}  24... Nxd1 { +M25/35 4.7s}  25. Kf3 { -M22/37 8.0s}
25... Kd3 { +M23/35 5.4s}  26. Kg2 { -M20/38 7.6s}  26... c4 { +M19/36 4.7s}
27. Kh2 { -M18/40 6.6s}  27... c3 { +M17/39 4.7s}  28. Kg3 { -M16/42 4.9s}
28... c2 { +M15/39 4.7s}  29. Kg4 { -M14/42 7.1s}  29... Ne3+ { +M13/43 4.9s}
30. Kg5 { -M12/55 6.6s}  30... c1=Q { +M11/55 4.8s}  31. Kg6 { -M10/84 4.7s}
31... Qc6+ { +M9/111 4.7s}  32. Kg7 { -M8/120 0.87s}  32... Nf5+ { +M7/120
0.070s}  33. Kf7 { -M6/120 0.004s}  33... Kd4 { +M5/120 0.009s}  34. Kg8 {
-M4/120 0.005s}  34... Qf6 { +M3/120 0.004s}  35. Kh7 { -M2/1 0.001s}  35...
Qg7# { Stockfish 261014 64-Stockfish 261014 64 2015.12.28}  ) 10... Qb6 {
+3.62/23 11s}  11. Qh8 { -3.81/24 39s}  ( 11. Bf3 { -4.08/25 59s}  11... Kxd3 {
+3.94/21 8.7s}  12. Qg1 { -4.12/21 23s}  12... Qb2+ { +4.08/20 11s}  13. Kg3 {
-4.43/21 14s}  13... Nxc4 { +4.41/21 26s}  14. Bh5 { -4.24/21 29s}  14... Ne3 {
+4.63/21 12s}  15. Bg6+ { -4.65/20 14s}  15... Kc3 { +4.75/22 30s}  16. Kf3 {
-4.94/23 44s}  16... c4 { +5.45/22 7.8s}  17. Qe1+ { -4.99/21 13s}  17... Kb3 {
+6.49/23 5.6s}  18. Ke4 { -5.93/23 16s}  18... c3 { +6.97/23 5.6s}  19. Kd3 {
-7.31/22 12s}  19... Ka3 { +7.49/24 9.0s}  20. Qh1 { -8.99/22 20s}  20... Qd2+
{ +11.19/20 7.8s}  21. Ke4 { -8.99/1 0s}  21... c2 { +11.39/22 13s}  22. Qa1+ {
-13.00/18 5.3s}  22... Kb4 { +12.91/23 23s}  23. Qb2+ { -8.88/18 6.0s}  23...
Kc5 { +13.14/24 30s}  24. Qa3+ { -10.71/20 9.4s}  24... Qb4 { +14.12/25 40s}
25. Qc1 { -11.76/22 13s}  25... Qc3 { +14.09/25 6.1s}  26. Kf3 { -17.11/23 19s}
 26... Nf5+ { +14.15/25 35s}  27. Kg4 { -19.91/23 26s}  27... Qd3 { +18.03/21
7.0s}  28. Qf4 { -19.98/19 5.5s}  28... Qd1+ { +10.94/20 5.0s}  29. Kxf5 {
-20.46/19 8.4s}  29... c1=Q { +11.15/21 3.2s}  30. Qc7+ { -16.23/20 13s}  30...
Kb4 { +18.18/18 4.9s}  31. Qb7+ { -16.35/21 18s}  31... Kc3 { +23.17/20 10s}
32. Qc7+ { -13.56/15 2.3s}  32... Kb2 { +39.71/21 4.3s}  33. Qb6+ { -11.17/15
4.9s}  33... Ka3 { +28.70/22 9.8s}  34. Qd6+ { -21.64/18 9.3s}  34... Ka2 {
+18.53/22 8.0s}  35. Bf7+ { -20.06/20 1.4s}  35... Kb1 { +49.10/25 2.5s}  36.
Qb8+ { -49.02/21 3.4s}  36... Qb2 { +M67/25 8.9s}  37. Qf4 { -49.10/23 2.0s}
37... Qdc2+ { +M65/24 2.3s}  38. Kg4 { -49.62/25 6.1s}  38... Qb7 { +M21/24
11s}  39. Kh4 { -M22/19 1.7s}  39... Qh7+ { +M19/25 2.1s}  40. Bh5 { -M18/24
1.1s}  40... Qhe7+ { +M17/28 2.3s}  41. Kg3 { -M16/27 1.5s}  41... Qe1+ {
+M15/31 2.0s}  42. Qf2 { -M14/31 1.0s}  42... Qg7+ { +M13/34 2.2s}  43. Bg4 {
-M12/37 0.99s}  43... Qxf2+ { +M11/43 2.1s}  44. Kxf2 { -M10/81 0.97s}  44...
Qxg4 { +M9/100 1.9s}  45. Kf1 { -M8/120 0.11s}  45... d3 { +M7/120 0.065s}  46.
Kf2 { -M6/120 0.003s}  46... d2 { +M5/120 0.005s}  47. Ke3 { -M4/120 0.005s}
47... d1=Q { +M3/120 0.005s}  48. Kf2 { -M2/1 0s}  48... Qgg1# { Stockfish
261014 64-Stockfish 261014 64 2015.12.28}  ) ( 11. Qf4 { -3.84/25 32s}  11...
Qg6 { +4.39/25 34s}  12. Qf3 { -4.06/24 11s}  12... Qg5 { +4.56/25 24s}  13.
Qh1 { -4.46/24 24s}  13... Qf4+ { +4.89/22 5.7s}  14. Bf3 { -4.46/24 6.3s}
14... Kxd3 { +5.50/22 11s}  15. Qb1+ { -6.26/23 38s}  15... Nc2 { +5.89/23
8.6s}  16. Qb2 { -6.49/25 22s}  16... Qh4+ { +8.75/24 5.6s}  17. Kg1 { -8.89/25
13s}  17... Qg3+ { +10.73/25 7.8s}  18. Bg2 { -10.51/27 12s}  18... Kd2 {
+10.39/26 10s}  19. Kh1 { -7.77/26 5.5s}  19... Qh4+ { +12.27/25 15s}  20. Kg1
{ -11.33/23 8.0s}  20... d3 { +12.24/26 16s}  21. Bb7 { -16.35/28 50s}  21...
Qxc4 { +17.62/26 11s}  22. Kg2 { -16.58/25 13s}  22... Qd4 { +52.18/28 7.3s}
23. Qb1 { -31.53/27 31s}  23... Ne3+ { +M25/28 7.1s}  24. Kh1 { -M24/27 7.9s}
24... Qh4+ { +M21/31 6.2s}  25. Kg1 { -M22/1 0.001s}  25... Qg3+ { +M19/36
5.4s}  26. Kh1 { -M18/36 5.8s}  26... Ke2 { +M17/38 5.1s}  27. Qc1 { -M16/38
4.0s}  27... Qh4+ { +M15/41 5.5s}  28. Kg1 { -M16/1 0.001s}  28... Qf2+ {
+M13/49 6.0s}  29. Kh1 { -M14/1 0s}  29... d2 { +M11/70 5.2s}  30. Ba6+ {
-M10/81 5.7s}  30... Kf3 { +M9/120 0.47s}  31. Be2+ { -M8/120 0.40s}  31...
Qxe2 { +M7/120 0.007s}  32. Qg1 { -M6/120 0.005s}  32... d1=Q { +M5/120 0.005s}
 33. Qxd1 { -M4/120 0.002s}  33... Nxd1 { +M3/120 0.003s}  34. Kg1 { -M2/1 0s}
34... Qg2# { Stockfish 261014 64-Stockfish 261014 64 2015.12.28}  ) 11... Qd6 {
+3.95/24 20s}  12. Qh4 { -4.12/23 28s}  12... Qg6 { +4.53/24 61s}  13. Bf3 {
-4.00/23 6.4s}  13... Qxd3 { +4.83/24 54s}  14. Qh1 { -3.97/19 8.7s}  14... Nc2
{ +5.34/22 8.3s}  15. Qd1+ { -5.43/23 37s}  15... Kc3 { +5.34/1 0.001s}  16.
Qb1 { -10.45/27 29s}  16... Qxc4 { +5.94/21 7.7s}  17. Bg4 { -7.25/23 40s}
17... d3 { +6.90/21 5.2s}  18. Kg3 { -6.25/23 5.1s}  18... Qd4 { +7.42/22 10s}
19. Qa2 { -8.84/22 27s}  19... c4 { +8.15/24 17s}  20. Qa6 { -12.20/23 39s}
20... d2 { +15.03/23 33s}  21. Qa8 { -12.86/24 20s}  21... Kb2 { +11.22/20
7.5s}  22. Qb7+ { -14.57/23 12s}  22... Kc1 { +13.31/22 10s}  23. Qa8 {
-14.50/24 6.0s}  23... c3 { +15.70/24 18s}  24. Bf3 { -13.50/24 5.2s}  24...
Kb2 { +52.18/18 5.8s}  25. Kh3 { -52.11/19 6.0s}  25... Nb4 { +M47/22 13s}  26.
Qa4 { -M30/21 11s}  26... c2 { +M17/23 5.3s}  27. Qxc2+ { -M16/23 4.2s}  27...
Kxc2 { +M15/33 3.9s}  28. Bg4 { -M14/33 4.9s}  28... d1=Q { +M13/33 4.3s}  29.
Bxd1+ { -M12/53 3.6s}  29... Kxd1 { +M11/57 4.0s}  30. Kg2 { -M10/113 3.5s}
30... Qg4+ { +M9/120 3.7s}  31. Kf1 { -M8/120 0.12s}  31... Qh3+ { +M7/120
0.013s}  32. Kg1 { -M6/120 0.021s}  32... Nc2 { +M5/120 0.005s}  33. Kf2 {
-52.38/1 0s}  33... Ne3 { +M3/120 0.002s}  34. Kg1 { -M2/1 0s}  34... Qg2# {
+M1/120 0.002s, Black mates}   0-1

We can strongly(but not absolutely) believe that Black wins in this position.

Black's best hope is for a perpetual by something like

[FEN "8/8/8/2p1p3/2Pp2P1/1knP4/3q1QK1/5B2 b - - 0 1"]

1... Qg5 2. Qf5 Qd2+ 3. Qf2

The question is can White's king escape the checks, maybe via g3 and h4, and then get in g5 when only white can win? I think the key is for black to try and keep his queen on the c1-h6 diagonal, be able to drive white's king back from h4 and prevent g5. If he can do this then he can hold the draw.


Can white still win this? Is it possible for white to turn the tables and win this game or is it "almost" over?

[FEN "1r4k1/2p2pp1/5r1p/p1p1p1bq/P1PpP1b1/1P1P1NP1/2N1QPKP/1R1R4 w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. Nce1

What would you do if you were white?

White can do nothing right now, because he made the last move (Ne1). Black can simply sacrifice the exchange on f3, keeping the pin intact, and aim the other rook at f3. Then, White's position will collapse entirely.

There's no way White can escape the pin, e.g. after h4, Black can just ignore the attacked bishop:

[FEN "1r4k1/2p2pp1/5r1p/p1p1p1bq/P1PpP1b1/1P1P1NP1/4QPKP/1R1RN3 b - - 0 1"]

1... Rxf3 2. Nxf3 Rb6 3. h4 Rf6 4. hxg5 Bxf3+

White is in a precarious position holding onto the pin and has no counter play . As a Prisoner sometimes waits for his punishment and he knows no escape here White has got its centre & Queen side even blocked to generate NIL counter play . Looking at the board without any calculation also an amateur can determine that white would be very soon in Zugzwang resulting in huge material  loss.


What's the best alternative to the 'scoresheet' blunder checking strategy? In Simon Webb's brilliant book, Chess for Tigers, he advises that a player write their move on their scoresheet before playing it. Then, right before you play your move, you check it one more time to ensure you haven't made a blunder. I used this strategy with great effect in my games, and it cut down my blunder rate considerably.

Unfortunately, Fide changed the rules, and now this kind of strategy is illegal: you have to write your move down after you play it. Is there a substitute for this strategy that still uses the scoresheet, but is legal under Fide rules?

I don't know of any proven method but here's one idea: you could try to imagine writing the move. Translate your move into algebraic notation, imagine the text on your scoresheet, maybe even trace it with your finger. Hopefully that will be enough of a pause in your train of thought to enable you to see the move from a different perspective, which I think is the rationale behind the "write before you move" approach.

I assume before playing a move you know what move it is. So instead of looking down at your scoresheet, note the move you're about to play and check it for blunders.


What are the average Elo and USCF ratings? I'm not sure if there exists an average, but what could be considered an average rating range in these systems?

I took the following data from the September 2013 Golden Database1 and "active" players are players with a USCF membership expiration date later than January 1, 20132.  All ratings are regular ratings.  Note that players have an established rating after completing 25 games.

USCF Active Players

Established Ratings

46,574 Players
1315.99 Mean Rating
1390 Median Rating

Provisional Ratings

33,692 Players
537.09 Mean Rating
410 Median Rating

All USCF Rated Players

Established Ratings

252,989 Players
1165.77 Mean Rating
1148 Median Rating

Provisional Ratings

303,153 Players
631.46 Mean Rating
576 Median Rating

Distribution of active, established USCF ratings

Note that unrated players were discarded and that no checks were done on the data (duplicate entries, placeholders, etc.).

Distribution of ratings by age

This image comes from the uschess forums.

1: The Golden Database is a database provided to USCF affiliates and TD's that includes the names, ratings, and expiration dates.  It can be downloaded from the USCF website
2: I picked January 1, 2013 as an arbitrary cutoff date.  If there's a better and easy check for whether or not a player is active I'm happy to add additional data or update these stats.

The average is the sum of list values divided by the number of list entries. Unfortunately, since list values do not contain equivalent information, averaging them does not reduce error. A 500 rating losing to grandmasters with a single draw denotes much greater proficiency than many wins against players who have only just learned how the pieces move (I refuse to embarrass people by citing names). I have found that when players know each other's rating, the lower rated player lets up while the higher rated fights like a demon (peruse any tournament crosstable).
  Ratings are manipulated by players who lose unimportant games and by organizations (CCF, dare to deny it!) who pin ratings because of accidental outcomes. Ratings are inappropriately used (by almost all organizers) to assign prize classifications.
  Average rating does not contain any information for the whole list. However, for a particular event, players tend to perform relatively in accordance with their ratings. This is not because the ratings are accurate, but because the players want them to be so (I want it, and I don't know any player who doesn't).


What is a good opening software program? I am trying to find a good program to help me perfect my opening play. It needs to be something simple because I am no computer expert. I don't understand the opening trees and all that high tech stuff. I was wondering if there was any program that lets you make moves and it tells you what opening you are using and shows the most popular responses and right and wrong moves. If you could provide in your answer what it is exactly that the program does and how you use it I will greatly appreciate it. If it matters my rating is 1430.

Try 365chess.com Chess Opening Explorer.

Gives number of games win/lose/draw statistics and shows what opening was played. You can also click into a game for the moves when the tree gets down to one game.

lichess has a new opening explorer feature when you are using an analysis board that will tell you popular responses to moves and tells you the opening you are using.


Why is it called a draw? There's no information as to why it's called a draw. Some of my students start to take out a pencil and paper and literally draw in the middle of the game.

Why is it called a draw?

I do not think that you will ever get a definitive answer. I did find an interesting article of a dedicated etymology site here.

I will quote part of it here:

  By the Oxford English Dictionary’s (OED) reckoning, the earliest
  record of draw, as in a contest that ends with no winner, comes in
  reference to an 1856 US chess match. Over the next few decades,
  writers marked off draw with quotes or italics, which shows the word
  was novel. The word was familiar by the 1870s.

  This draw is short for draw-game, which the OED finds for a “tie” by
  1825. A draw-game, in turn, is a variation on a drawn battle or drawn match. The OED dates drawn match to a 1610 letter from English
  diplomat Sir Dudley Carleton: “It concluded, as it is many times in a
  cock pit, with a drawn match; for nothing was in the end put to the
  question.” (Before pilots occupied them, game-cocks fought in
  cockpits.)

  Why such a battle or match is characterized as “drawn” is unclear:
  Indeed, etymology often ends in draws. Drawn may be clipped from
  withdrawn, as in fighters who have withdrawn from the battlefield.
  Withdraw, “to take back or away,” features an old and original sense
  of the preposition with, “against,” even though it now, ironically
  enough, means “together.” Draw, meanwhile, is related to drag. And
  withdraw itself might be a calque, or loan translation, of Latin’s
  retrahere, “to retract.”

That is probably as close as you will get.

draw (v.)
"give motion to by the act of pulling," c. 1200, drauen, spelling alteration of Old English dragan "to drag, to draw, protract" (class VI strong verb; past tense drog, past participle dragen), from Proto-Germanic *draganan "to draw, pull" (source also of Old Norse draga "to draw, drag, pull," Old Saxon dragan "to carry," Old Frisian drega, draga, Middle Dutch draghen "to carry, bring, throw," Old High German tragan "carry, bring, lead," German tragen "to carry, bear"), from PIE root *dhregh- (see drag (v.)).

Sense of "make a line or figure" (by "drawing" a pencil across paper) is from c. 1200. Meaning "remove or extract (a weapon) by pulling" is from late 12c., originally of a sword. Sense of "to pull (a bowstring)" is from c. 1200. To draw a criminal (drag him at the tail of a horse to the place of execution) is from c. 1300.
Meaning "select one (from a number of lots, etc.)" is from c. 1300. Sense of "bring (a crowd, an audience, etc.) by inducement or attraction" is from 1580s. Of a ship or boat, "to displace (a specified amount) of water," 1550s. In card-playing, "to take or receive (a card)," by 1772; draw-poker is by 1850. To draw out "lengthen, protract" is from 1550s; to draw the line in the figurative sense of "make a limit" is by 1793. To draw blood is from c. 1400.

The difference between [Draw Poker] and Poker is, that the player can draw from the pack as many cards as he may wish,--not exceeding five,--which must be given him by the dealer; but previous to drawing he must take from his original hand the game number as he may wish to draw, and lay them in the centre of the table. ["Bohn's New Hand-Book of Games," Philadelphia, 1850]

draw (n.)
c. 1400, "act of pulling," from draw (v.). Meaning "game or contest that ends without a winner," is attested first in drawn match (1610s), but the signification is uncertain origin; some speculate it is from withdraw. Hence, as a verb, "to leave (a game, etc.) undecided," from 1837.

Colloquial sense of "anything that can draw a crowd" is from 1881 (from the verb in the related sense).

Alternatively:
Taking out paper and pencil and starting to draw in the middle of the game sounds like they are in kindergarten and bored with the game.

Clearly you should be teaching them to use at least fingerpaint with multicolors to keep them interested.

Or you could tell them it is not a draw but a tie although then they might pull out rope and start making knots.


What type of tournament is needed to get a true chess rating? I'm at the point I'd like to throw my hat in the ring and see what happens. What is the most basic and affordable tournament I should be looking at that still counts for a rating? Would that be FIDE? USCF? Something else? Do I have to do one of those very expensive multiple day competitions or are there cheaper one day events that still come with official ratings?

A "real" rating is gained by joining the USCF and playing rated tournaments.  You can get a rating from any USCF sanctioned tournament.  They don't have to be all-weekend tournamants; I've played in several G30 tournaments that had 3 rounds in one evening.  In addition, you and an opponent can play a rated match if a USCF tournament director approves it.

You can also get a (non-USCF) rating by playing on one of any number of internet sites.

EDIT - here are some clubs in Orlando.  I recommend you join one and mingle.  The first one here has USCF tournaments...

ORLANDO FL 32810 FL. CENTRAL FLORIDA CHESS CLUB (USCF ID A6007091). Affiliate Type: Club. Call for information. Call for information, ORLANDO FL 32810. Contact: HARVEY LERMAN. Contact Phone: 407-644-3542. Club Phone: 407-629-6946. Address: C/O HARVEY LERMAN, 921 N THISTLE LANE, MAITLAND, FL, 32751-3736. email: harveylerman@embarqmail.com. Web Site: www.centralflchess.org, Club Membership Not Required, Casual Play, USCF Rated Events, Blitz Events, Club Championships, Private Lessons Offered, Under Age 18 Welcome, Prison chess support. (Crosstables from past rated tourneys for this affiliate)

ORLANDO FL. ORLANDO CHESS & GAMES CENTER (USCF ID A6018039). Affiliate Type: Club. 10AM-10PM MON-SUN. 8853 COMMIDITY CIRCLE, ORLANDO FL 32819, ORLANDO. Contact: ALEX ZELNER. Contact Phone: 407-248-0818. email: alex@orlandochess.com. (Crosstables from past rated tourneys for this affiliate)

from this page.

There is also an International rating body FIDE.  In some tournaments, you can get both a USCF and FIDE rating.


Why does 4.dxc5 work well for white in the Advance variation of Caro-Kann? [FEN ""]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4. dxc5

I don't want to play 3...bf5 instead, but this 4.dxc5 line in the Advance Variation gives me so much trouble, whether they go with 5.Be3, 5.a3 or 5.Nf3.

What's a good way for black to deal with this 4.dxc5 line?

First, I would wonder why you do not want to play 3...Bf5 first? That is the most common move, and the most natural.

3...c5 almost forces you to gambit a pawn, and if you are not comfortable playing very tactical positions down a pawn, you will want to avoid the immediate c5 in the future (it is still the move you will want to play eventually to free your game, but you will want to prepare it so you are not just losing a pawn for play).

After 3...c5 4 dxc5, here is the main line. (There are a fair amount of written prose notes in the comments below, so make sure you read those too.)

 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. dxc5 Nc6 5. Bb5 (5. Nf3 Bg4 6. c3 e6 (6... Bxf3 7. Qxf3 Nxe5 8. Bb5+ Nc6 9. O-O $16) (6... Nxe5 $4 7. Nxe5 $1 Bxd1 8. Bb5+ Qd7 9. Bxd7+ $18) 7. Be3 Nge7 8. Nbd2 Nf5 9. Bd4 $14 Nfxd4 $2 10. cxd4 Nxd4 $4 11. Qa4+ $18) 5...e6 6. Be3 Nge7 7. c3 Bd7 8. Bxc6 Nxc6 9. f4 {And there are several moves here, most requiring black to be a pawn down. In exchange for that, black has the bishop pair, the white king has been weakened with f4, and black is slightly ahead in development, so you have to play very actively.  Here, I would recommend either b6, or the main book move, g5. a5 is also possible trying to round up c5 at some point.} g5 (9... b6 10. cxb6 axb6 {And now, you also have an open rook file, and can aim for b5-b4 after getting the Bf8 out. you may also play the Bf8 to c5 with the idea that if white trades, you will have strong pressure for the pawn down the a-file and b-file...a bit like the Benko, but reversed.}) 10. fxg5 Nxe5 (10... h6 $5 {Has been played.}) 11. Nf3 {With a wild game with chances for both sides.}

Does not appear to work well to me.

RELATIVE TO OTHER MOVES
white e5 is poor
pxp is worse

Black should have played Bf5 not pc5
and then whites best is c3 not the moves you gave

What is the problem you encounter with the moves given?
How would you handle the panov attack?

To answer your last part after pxp  black should play nc6 as the least worst alternative. That yields about a 44% result rate.


Chess engine with API I am looking for a chess engine which provides a normal API which I can use with some high level programming language like C# or python. I went through the list of leaders (Houdini, Komodo, Stockfish and Rybka) and was not able to find any signs that these engines provides API (which surprised me and suggested that I am missing something).

To be less vague, here is what I need from this API:

be able to load specific game into the engine
be able to evaluate position of the game
be able to make a move

So, does anyone knows an engine which provides a clear API to it's functions?

As others have said, UCI is the API you want.  The full specifications of the protocol is here (the zip file extracts to a text file): http://download.shredderchess.com/div/uci.zip

It's actually very straight forward and simple, a UCI engine must respond to and reply in plain text through stdin, stdout and stderr.  In fact, you should be able to launch the executable binary of any UCI engine on your platform and issue the UCI commands manually.

UCI facilitates instructions from a GUI or other engine to tell the specific engine to do whatever it is that you want it to do, including analyse a specific PGN file (the loading of it is through the GUI or similar front-end, the raw moves are then fed to the engine in extended algebraic form, such as e4 becoming e2e4).  The second and third points of your requirements are standard with UCI, but it is up to each engine developer to support them (given how lean those requirements are, that should be most of them).

Here's an example of UCI in action on the command line:

bash-3.2$ ./stockfish-5-64
Stockfish 5 64 by Tord Romstad, Marco Costalba and Joona Kiiski
uci
id name Stockfish 5 64
id author Tord Romstad, Marco Costalba and Joona Kiiski

option name Write Debug Log type check default false
option name Write Search Log type check default false
option name Search Log Filename type string default SearchLog.txt
option name Book File type string default book.bin
option name Best Book Move type check default false
option name Contempt Factor type spin default 0 min -50 max 50
option name Mobility (Midgame) type spin default 100 min 0 max 200
option name Mobility (Endgame) type spin default 100 min 0 max 200
option name Pawn Structure (Midgame) type spin default 100 min 0 max 200
option name Pawn Structure (Endgame) type spin default 100 min 0 max 200
option name Passed Pawns (Midgame) type spin default 100 min 0 max 200
option name Passed Pawns (Endgame) type spin default 100 min 0 max 200
option name Space type spin default 100 min 0 max 200
option name Aggressiveness type spin default 100 min 0 max 200
option name Cowardice type spin default 100 min 0 max 200
option name Min Split Depth type spin default 0 min 0 max 12
option name Threads type spin default 1 min 1 max 128
option name Hash type spin default 32 min 1 max 16384
option name Clear Hash type button
option name Ponder type check default true
option name OwnBook type check default false
option name MultiPV type spin default 1 min 1 max 500
option name Skill Level type spin default 20 min 0 max 20
option name Emergency Move Horizon type spin default 40 min 0 max 50
option name Emergency Base Time type spin default 60 min 0 max 30000
option name Emergency Move Time type spin default 30 min 0 max 5000
option name Minimum Thinking Time type spin default 20 min 0 max 5000
option name Slow Mover type spin default 80 min 10 max 1000
option name UCI_Chess960 type check default false
uciok
isready
readyok
quit
bash-3.2$

The commands I issued were uci, isready and quit.

To utilise the UCI commands you essentially have two main choices; you can use an existing interface (e.g. ChessX, Arena and a host of others) or you can write your own code to issue instructions to an engine or group of engines.  I believe there may already be Python wrappers for accessing UCI engines, but I'd need to double-check.  There's definitely python-chess (import chess) and pychess (import pychess), I just can't recall the extent of their functions.  I can't recall where pychess is lurking (probably github or google code), but python-chess can be installed with pip.

Here there's a port version of Stockfish in .Net:
https://github.com/bpfliegel/Portfish

To use this engine (once it's compiled), you'll nedd a GUI like Arena http://wwww.playwitharena.com or ScidVSPC http://scidvspc.sourceforge.net. These applications are used to provide a nice interface and allow you to load games/positions, analyze them (I'm pretty sure you can load a game on pgn and analyze it by an engine with criteria like "n seconds per move" or "n plies per move"), run matches between engines, etc

In (almost) every chess engine you should find something like a uci.cs or an xboard.cs file which is commited to this communication task.

(A "chess engine" is a program that is capable of playing chess but has no graphical interface. The way it communicates to applications like Arena or ScidVSPC is by the UCI or xboard protocols. Most of the chess programs are written this way, so the developer can forget about the GUI stuff and focus on the "brain").


Emanuel Lasker and Psychology I have heard many people saying that Lasker used psychology to win. But I have also read a Wikipedia page mentioning recent researches refuting this belief and justifying Lasker's tactics to be quite ahead of his time and something laden with a hidden master plan. I need to know if there exists any such analysis which is available online so that we can know the truth ?

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

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

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

I know that there has been some analysis done which compares computer moves to historical games.  Here is a wikipedia article including that comparison and also some other measurements for comparing players throughout history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_top_chess_players_throughout_history

Perhaps the Lasker wikipedia page refers to one of these kind of measurements.


Is there any website or software that are like "Guess the move" training program in chesstempo? I find the "Guess the move" training program in chesstempo website very helpful. But this is not free and also the number of games is not much (compared to tactics training program which is in the order of hundreds of thousands; while "Guess the move" program contains around 100 games).
Is there any other website or software that is like "Guess the move" training program?

What about the iOS SmallChess app written by myself?

(source: smallchess.com)

(source: smallchess.com)

(source: smallchess.com)

(source: smallchess.com)

Try lichess.

It is free and offers tactical positions where you need to find the best next move.


ICCF rule for analyzing position with another human I do know for certain that on ICCF engines are allowed, but the question is whether analyzing the position with a human is allowed? I know that on chess.com if you let someone play on your profile you will get banned. The reason is that if it's allowed I am planning to post a question regarding my current position on a game on the ICCF.

Yes, it is legal.

ICCF: Says nothing about it, or assistance of any kind, and you can even use computers legally. Here are their rules.

USCF: "3. You may consult chess books and periodicals but not other players." Here are their rules.

With regards to the ICCF rules, my guess is that they just decided it was too hard to police computer used, so they just allow it. Books have always been permitted. Human assistance also.

When I played in ICCF, the rules were any sort of reference help other than another person was allowed.  That was mainly books back then. I had wondered if Berliner had used his IBM access to help win the world championship in the '60s.
Now understand that they specifically allow computers as well as books.  There is no way for them to know if someone is using another person. So the only thing stopping it is your ethics and conscience.
Why bother playing postal chess if you are average and then getting someone to help you?  And if you are a top player, then good luck finding someone who could help you better than you and your computer can do.


How long does it take for Elo rating to reflect changes in player's strength? Suppose a player with ELO rating X has improved (for simplicity, without playing in tournaments) and she is now actually playing at the level X+N. How many games will it typically take for her rating to reach the level X+N, depending on N? Is there a quantitative research into that?

The way FIDE rating (and rating change) is calculated is described in FIDE Rating Regulations effective from 1 July 2017. For an already rated player the calculations for working out the rating change are given in section 8.5.

From here it can be seen that how fast a rating changes for a given performance depende on the "k factor". This is defined in 8.56:

  8.56 K is the development coefficient.
  K = 40 for a player new to the rating list until he has completed events with at least 30 games.
  K = 20 as long as a player's rating remains under 2400.
  K = 10 once a player's published rating has reached 2400 and remains at that level subsequently, even if the rating drops below 2400.
  K = 40 for all players until their 18th birthday, as long as their rating remains under 2300.
  If the number of games (n) for a player on any list for a rating period multiplied by K (as defined above) exceeds 700, then K shall be the largest whole number such that K x n does not exceed 700.

Here are the relevant sections of 8.5 describing the calculations:

  8.5 Determining the rating change for a rated player

  8.51 For each game played against a rated player, determine the difference in rating between the player and his opponent, D.

  ...

  8.54 A difference in rating of more than 400 points shall be counted for rating purposes as though it were a difference of 400 points.

  8.55 (a) Use table 8.1(b) to determine the player’s score probability PD
  (b) ΔR = score – PD. For each game, the score is 1, 0.5 or 0.
  (c) ΣΔR x K = the Rating Change for a given tournament, or Rating period.

As to your question:

  How many games will it typically take for her rating to reach the
  level X+N, depending on N?

Table 8.1(b) is non-linear so as well as depending on the k factor the number of games also depends on N in a non linear fashion. So, you will have to perform separate calculations for different values of N.

Here is an example for N=100. How many games would a player require to draw against players on average 100 points higher to raise the rating by 100 points?

In that case, according to table 8.1(b), PD = 0.36. So, ΔR = 0.14 and the number of games required for a 100 point rating gain = 100 / 0.14 / k.

For k = 10 number of games = 72
For k = 20 number of games = 36
For k = 40 number of games = 18

It depends.  Ability changes constantly.
Ratings only reflect performance history not ability per se.

How accurately do you want it to reflect the true ability at this moment?

Are you improving rapidly like many kids do?
Do you play a lot of rated games?

If your strength was not changing and your opponents did not change andor play erratically then ten games would give you a fair approximation, and 100 would give you an answer within the margin of error of all the other factors influencing it.

In your example ten would give you a fair idea and 100 a good one.
But it would depend on how big an improvement and what sort of tournaments you played in.  Open tournaments against a wide range of opponents is best as in a national swiss open.   Playing in small local tournaments only and  you might never get a true answer.


Does black really have a disadvantage? Most people say chess is a draw, and it is quite believable, white is but a tempo up, and skill plays a lot of part in the game. But even the most skillful agree that blunders are made, in some games more than other.

How have blunders affected black losses? Have games where black lost been only played best or second best moves?

How many games, out of the ones that white won, ended because of blunders, and could have been saved otherwise? Is there a statistic for this?

We have no way of knowing this, chess isn't remotely close to being solved. We only know that as opening theory digs deeper, it finds it harder and harder to find advantages for white, so the game is probably a draw. But that's no proof.

If the game is a draw, then any game that is won by either side must involve at least 1 wrong move. But we don't know which move was wrong. It is likely that most games involve quite a few bad moves. Mine do, anyway.

Using a computer doesn't help -- they're nowhere near strong enough. A match between the two strongest computers on really strong hardware gives many decisive results, so they're not playing perfectly, and they look much deeper than 10 ply. Their scores (+2, -2, etc) are merely estimates and not the final truth.

White does have a practical advantage, proven by the fact that white consistently scores a little bit better than black on all levels. Apparently, white gets positions that are easier to play right.

Yes, black does really have a dissadvantage. This is because white always goes first allowing white to be able to gain a checkmate


Why are the symbols 0-0 and 0-0-0 used for castling in algebraic notation? I'm curious about why the symbols O-O and O-O-O  are used for castling in algebraic notation. Why not use the consistent and logical Kg1/Kc1 for White and Kg8/Kc8 for Black? Why adopt the less than obvious O-O and O-O-O from descriptive notation?

The castling notation was invented by Johann Allgaier and used for the first time in his 1811 2nd edition of his Neue theoretisch-praktische Anweisung zum Schachspiel.

He didn't explain why he came up with it.

Allgaier (and algebraic notation in general) used digit-0. The use of letter-O is an anglo-saxon oddity.

Kg1/Kg8 or Kc1/Kc8 are Singular moves where the King only moves during the Game . Since before the Algebraic Notation Descriptive Notation was used which was quite cumbersome & lengthy Algebraic was a short hand . Why 0-0 & 0-0-0 was exactly used is quite inexplicable but this is the only move in International Chess where two pieces are moving simultaneously . In K-side Castling K is moving two squares and in Q-side Castling it is moving three Squares .

So it might have seen an innovative way of recording the Castling move since King is the most important piece in a Chess Game 0-0/0-0-0 was a royal move indicating King is going inside the castle and the Battle Begins .


Which free chess (learning) programme would you recommend? I sadly do not have the time for a paid engagement regarding chess, yet I would like to use a good (learning) programme in my spare time.

I used an old programme from my grandfather, but it doesn't work on the new OS anymore. Any suggestions?

Take a look at Lucas Chess.

http://www-lucaschess.rhcloud.com

From its web:

Play: The program has 21 engines prepared to play from the start, and with very different levels, from 1300 to 3000 elo.

Train:
You have an extensive list of trainings with which to try to improve your chess:

Training positions
Play like a grandmaster
Training mates

Compete: In Lucas Chess there are several competitions, and in two of them you can publish the results.

I still love shredder chess, it's powerful and I'm sure I read somewhere that Carlsen recommended it.


Positional principles in chess openings I am a d4 player as white and I really don't like to memorize tatical lines in the opening altought I know most commons lines very well in the first 8 - 15 moves depend on the opening based on my practice.

I am looking for positional principles that can guide my play.

Do you have any line that you memorize few principles and you can guess some theory based on this considerations, or guide your play after your theory knowledge ends?

Please point out what positional rules you follow.

(For example someone teached me that queen's indian is a fight for the control of e4 square.

When I am playing with white and my theory knowledge ends or black play an unknown variation, I always check if I can break on e3-e4 and if I could usually is a good move.

When I am playing with black the same line and I reach a point where my theory knowledge ends and I don't know what to play, I always check if it is possible to overcontrol e4.

So the positional principle: control of e4, helps me a lot in queens indian when my theory knowledge ends or my opponent make an unusual move

Another example that come in my mind is when you reach common positions of benoni, black will try to play c5-c4 and put a knight on d3, but if black play this allow white to play knight f3-d4-c6, and this fight guide my play in both sides of this variation, and after I understand that I became stronger in both sides of this variation

A last example that I can give is the almost sure f5 by black in KID and petrosian variation of KID is a line that is not usually good for black force f5... Even fischer lose a beautiful game for tal insisting in playing f5 in this line... So this change in black's way to think the KID can be very annoying even for stronger players... I usually do so well with this variation based that black side of KID usually will force f5 and petrosian variation make it so difficult)

As TMM said, you won't get any edge with White without any memorization or tactical, not only positional understanding of the opening.

I would recommand you though to look at the Reti opening 1. Nf3. As a d4 player, you won't be out of your territory and would be able to dodge normal Grünfeld type of positions, which is a sharp opening of course, and the Nimzo-Indian as well, which requires also a lot of work. These subtleties are based on move orders though and transpositional "tricks". You have to know them !
The Reti should spare you some precious time but you won't get away from studying opening.

Against the KID, you should look at the Smyslov variation. You won't be crushed within 15 moves (or even less) as in the main lines.

Consider what imbalances you can create with a particular opening and the strategic principals that go with the imbalance.  For example, Karpov often traded a bishop for a knight and then steered the pawn formation to favor knights.   You might consider the book "The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings" by Reuben Fine


Why was Nd2 played? instead of f4! 1kb4r/4r3/p1p3p1/Pp1p1p1p/1P1P3P/5PP1/2P2K2/1NR2R2 w - - 0 1

1. Nd2 Rhe8 (1... f4!) (1. f4!)

Silman suggests 1. Nd2, with a black response of Rhe8. Wouldn't black just respond with 1...f4! instead? This gives black counter-play on the kingside, opens an f-file for him, and activates his bishop (with an eventual ...Bf5!)

White should have just played 1. f4! What prevented such a move from being considered?

Why 1. Nd2?

Silman is suggesting to improve the worst placed piece with Nd2-b3-c5. This makes sense because:

White will have a good knight vs. bad bishop
The position is closed so White has the time to improve the worst piece

Why not 1. f4?

Black's ...f4 and ...Bf5 plan isn't that strong, because:

When black's bishop gets to f5, it doesn't threaten anything
White doesn't have to open files with gxf4. White should continue with the Nd2-b3-c5 plan as before

Having said this, 1. f4 isn't a bad move, i.e. it deprives the bishop of another target.

1.f4 gives away the e4-square and temporarily hands black a slight initiative. Aesthetically, it looks unpleasing.


How to bring tactics skills into the actual play? According to few popular sites, my tactics rating is consistently about 400 points above my game rating (say, 2200 vs 1800).

Of course, partially it could be a fault of the process: when a tactics engine gives you a position, you know that there is some tactics. On the other hand, I almost always find combinations while observing other people play, in real time - and miss quite many while playing myself. It seems that I become too preoccupied with the plan, or something like that.

Any ideas how it can be healed?

As you have noted yourself, an important difference between solving tactics and finding tactics during a game is that you know that there is something interesting when solving tactics. There are a couple other important differences.
In a game, it comes down to your ability to discern a critical position from an ordinary one that only requires positional consideration. In long time controls, it is advisable that you treat every position as a tactical puzzle, at least for some amount of time. Of course some positions you know are not critical, but spending a little bit of time checking every move will help you be more tactically aware. And of course, you got to watch out for your opponent's tricks too.
I will ignore the question relating to having a 2200 tactics compared to 1800 elo because the scale may be different between the two and an 1800 rated player could have a range of tactical ability anyways.

Maybe because you become unaware of tactical indicators in your own games. Unprotected pieces, double attack, overprotection, intermediate moves/checks, etc.


Are there any Chess960 positions where Black has the advantage? I've heard it said that some Chess960 positions have a significant advantage for White, usually involving fast attacks against undefended pawns. However, since zugzwang positions do exist, it's theoretically possible that Black could have an advantage in some opening setups. Which leads to the question: are there any where he does? If not, are there any that give White less of an advantage than he has in normal chess?

It happens that someone tried to evaluate all 960 positions with an engine. Several positions got a score of 0.00, but none of them offered any advantage for black.

Of course, those conclusions are only the evaluations of Stockfish at 40 plies depth. It is a strong hint, but no definite proof, that Black is fine  in the huge majority of 960-chess starting positions, but not better in any of them.

This result matches with the intuition that in a symmetric, non-developed position, with all pawns on the 2d and 7th rank, there is always something useful to do if you are on move: in other words, there cannot be mutual zugzwang.

No starting position can have an advantage for black, but it may be that white may not be able to establish a positional advantage like in standard chess. Also, any attack that black can do can be executed by white also (or if not at least stopped by correct play).
As for zugzwang, just as Evargalo said, it just not possible.

I play 960 quite a bit (though it may affect my opening) and have not encountered any such position. Therefore, it probably is just a myth that such positions exist.


Is it possible to force checkmate with King, Knight, and Bishop vs. King? If a King, Knight, and Bishop are pitted against the opposing King, is it possible to force checkmate? I find it very hard to do, enough so that I'm not sure whether there's a clean method.

Yes, mate can be forced in 33 moves from nearly any position, according to Wikipedia.

See the standard "w" maneuver cited in that article.

It is not always possible , I try out everything possible in maximum cases I found it written as possible but then I started playing obtaining that position with chess grandmaster , it doesn't let his game defeated by any cost , then I tried grandmaster with various softwares and finally game draw .


What is right way to set up King & Queen In the beginning of game? I know this is very basic question, but I just started playing and want to know. How do you set up king and queen the right way?

Heading

I generally get confused between the King and Queen and what square they start from. I recently read this about chess setup. I just want to be sure, as I am still confused.

It starts with the board being setup correctly, and that means a light square in the right-hand corner. Then, the queens each go on their own color.

 [FEN ""]

King belongs to e file and Queen belongs to d file. 1st and 8th rank for the White and Black pieces respectively. As simple as that. Exception is Fischer Random Chess aka Chess960.

More precisely-

If the file names are not present or for some reason you are unaware of the notations, look for the opposite colored centered square for the King on the top and bottom. Look for the other centered square for the Queen.

White King - Black center

White Queen - White center.

Black King - White center

Black Queen - Black center.


Why does the London System have the reputation it has? After being out of chess for many years, I became interested again. While I never studied in my earlier playing days, I always played e4 openings when white. That was partly due to that being recommended by the one book I read and partly because that is what Fischer (usually) played and Fischer was the world champion and something of an idol at the time.

Now, I'm trying to take chess a bit more seriously. Much of what I've read recommends the London System as an opening for beginners. That has been backed up by a couple coaches (one a National Master, the other an International Master) from whom I've taken instruction.

It seems the London System has a reputation as a "safe" opening. I've read this in several places online and heard it from the coaches I mentioned above. Furthermore, I've even read things that say you can develop in the London without paying attention to what your opponent is doing.

Of course there is a learning curve with a new opening, thus I don't expect to get win after win after win with the opening. However, my results with the London have not left me feeling that it is "safe". In one tournament game against a beginner I lost two pieces because I really didn't pay attention to what he was doing until too late. In a "friendly" against a master, he destroyed me with a tactic I'd never seen, but which he said is well known as an attack against the London. In other games in which I've tried it, I have felt like I'm being forced out of the system very early.

Thus, why is the London System considered safe? Why do proponents say you can utilize it regardless of what your opponent does?

Well, I want to give you a third master's opinion, and most coaches teach the London because they can teach students an opening that the students can, for the most part, be mindless for the first 10 moves (d4,Nf3,Bf4,e3,Bd3,0-0,c3,Nbd2,Qe2,Re1, etc.) or so, against almost any black response. Of course, in chess you can never totally ignore what the opponent is doing, but if you have studied the London System at all, you know what I mean, and to the level I mean you can be "mindless". The coach can then say, "look, you got out of the opening, so I taught you well", when in reality, the problems are just beginning, and the coach has taught you nothing. This seems to be what you are experiencing: You get to the end of those 10 moves, and you are lost.

I do not agree with that approach at all, and it is just a lazy way to teach.

The London, while not a bad opening, is considered "safe" because it is, primarily, a very solid position for white; but it is not particularly ambitious as it does not hit back in the center as successfully as an early c4 does. It can be played against 1...d5 or the King's Indian Defense. Because c4 is not played, it also rules out the Benoni, Benko and Grunfeld. Since black usually wants to play c5, it also, in effect, rules out the Slav, or a tempo is wasted. Limiting black's defensive options is another reason some coaches like to teach this lazy opening, but if you ever get to a certain level, you will find yourself having to learn a whole new set of openings from scratch, and you will have lost years of experience playing against so many mainline defenses. That is not a good thing.

One of the biggest problems with the London for novices is that the resulting positions, where white must get in e4 and try to attack require a lot of positional skill, as well as tactical skill. Against anyone stronger, they are ready for e4, and they are prepared to take c5xd4, and get counterplay. So you get students a solid position after 10 moves, but then what is required from there is often just way over their heads. It does not make sense to teach this way.

Weaker players have trouble with deep strategic play, which is why I constantly talk about studying tactics, tactics, tactics; but these London positions do not bring up the open, or semi-open types of positions that favor that type of tactical play, which is easier to grasp, and thus, easier for novice players to play.

What this means is that this opening either does not really fit in with your ability level or style (you were an e4-player for a long time, after all), or you must learn the plans associated with it, from move 10 on, much better.

I wanted to give you a recommended book, but as I looked at them, there was nothing particularly great at telling you how to play these positions IN WORDS, but this was probably the best of the bunch: "Win with the London System".

This question is opinion based and subjective.
London is 'safe' because it will take black longer to mate you if you are a beginner.  Play a wide open tactical game and you will lose faster.
But for experienced players it is not really safe nor unsafe.  Just another opening to play.


Open Sicilian Variation, newbie question Im pretty new and i was analyzing the opening stages of one of my recent games. I was playing white and we started off
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 e6

    [StartPly "6"]

    [FEN ""]
    1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 e6 4. Nc3 (4.d5 Nd4 5.Nxd4 cxd4 6.Qxd4 Qb6 7.Be3 Qxd4 8.Bxd4 exd5 9.exd5 Ne7 10.Nc3 Nf5 11.O-O-O Nxd4 12.Rxd4 Bc5 13.Re4+ Kd8)

Now my next move was Nc3 (but doesn't really matter) and the lichess computer analysis marked this as a mistake and proposed playing d5 instead (leading to the computer generated variation 4.d5 Nd4 5.Nxd4 cxd4 6.Qxd4 Qb6 7.Be3 Qxd4 8.Bxd4 exd5 9.exd5 Ne7 10.Nc3 Nf5 11.O-O-O Nxd4 12.Rxd4 Bc5 13.Re4+ Kd8) which presumably has me 1.4 pawns up. I looked up this variation on chesstempo and found that it was never played in 2200+ vs 2200+ play, but used 57 times in all games of the database. In those game it lead to white winning in 82.5% of the games.
Which variations make this move "bad" in top level play (except for the fact that 3. d4 e6 wouldnt happen in the first place aka preselection against this variation)?
What are good alternative 4.?
If the d5 variation is not that strong, why does the computer engine still recommend it. Is it just an error in the way it assesses the position, is there a lack of depth / computing time?

I might be misinterpreting your question but it seems that you're asking something like this:

  My computer says that such-and-such a variation of the Sicilian defence is really strong for white but it never comes up in games between strong players. Has my computer made a mistake?

No, your computer hasn't made a mistake. The reason that this variation never comes up in games between strong players is that it's too good for White. Black has plenty of better options than allowing White to get into this position. Black's a whole pawn down, he has an isolated pawn and he still has a lot of work to do to get his pieces into the game; in contrast, after something like Bb5 and Rhe1, White has everything developed, has full control of the open e-file and is aiming a lot of material at the vulnerable e8 square.

Black's mistake is 3... e6, which looks like it controls d5 but doesn't because white can just play 4.d5 and either win a pawn or kick Black's knight around.

Ultimately, the point of 1... c5 is to prevent White from playing d4 because, if he does, Black will exchange his c-pawn for White's more valuable d-pawn. Typically, White says "I don't care!" and plays d4 anyway, since exchanging pawns on d4 gives White a strongly placed piece in the centre. Because Black doesn't have a c-pawn any more, he probably doesn't want to play ... e5 to push the piece from d4, because that would leave his own d-pawn backward and vulnerable.

By the way, after 3... e6, there's nothing particularly bad about 4.Nc3, per se. Indeed, after 4.Nc3 cxd4 5.Nxd4, we've reached a perfectly normal variation of the Sicilian via a different move order: the normal route to that position is 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3.  Both sides have a decent position; the only problem with 4.Nc3 is that it fails to punish Black's mistake.

4.d5 move is strong. Black 3. e6? wasnt good.
After  1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 your opponent should play cd4 and after 4. Nd4 e6

This variation of course doesnt exist in top level play because 3. e6 was horrid.


Statistically, what is the best opening? Statistically, what opening has white won with the most?

Such as, 1.e4 e5 2?

What is the move that white makes that has won the most games?

Here is a tongue-in-cheek answer. The 4 move checkmate (1. e4 e5 2.Qf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5?? 4.Qxf7#) is an opening where White has won 100% of the time.

The reason why I post this answer is to highlight a few flaws in the question you asked:

Maybe if you find an opening with a high win ratio, you will build your reportaire around it? This is flawed logic as Black can sidestep your preparation, which may lead you into a bad line. Instead, play the openings that feel right for your playing style
What is an opening? Ultimately the opening are just the first few moves in the game. Crucially for a statistical question, you didn't say how many moves you are looking at. The first? The first 10? Assuming best play with Black? In most chess games, there are many moves other than those in the opening stage that determine the outcome of the game. I'd suggest you concentrate more on the middle and endgame than the opening

Hard to say, as opening trees are biased as number of games played and player strengths are different. And the score difference between best scoring openings is very little, we can say statistically insignificant. So it's really hard to say.

Therefore, if you ask this for building an opening repertoire, don't do it. But if ask this just for curiosity, then you have the answer.


Are there games between top computers which uncovered never-seen-before ideas? Are there games between top computers which uncovered never-seen-before ideas?

And if so, how can humans notice?

Addendum: I understand the position of James Christopher in his answer, but my question goes a little beyond that. It is possible for the computer to find a winning move without understanding the idea behind it, and thus to win the game. If afterwards a human notices that the move discloses a new theme or idea never before seen, that would qualify as a positive answer.

Addenddendum: We have a linguistic problem here. Let me clarify: The computer does not need to have a new idea or even understand what it is doing. But it can find a move that wins the game, and later, when people analyze what happened, they realize "oh! this move wins because of such-and-such!" The computer does not need to know that it forked the king and queen, it just evaluates the material gain and decides that the knight move is best. We call it a fork and add a section in the basic tactics chapter.

My answer is - Yes. A simple example is the use of endgame tablebase. Many positions, which were thought to be drawn, now have a winning line. IMO this is a new idea. One day computers might uncover that castling is bad - it is a new idea, doesn't matter if it was achieved by brute force.

ps: even though computers work on fixed algorithms, they can uncover new ideas. Same algorithm can return different results when run for longer duration and/or better hardware. In the end, chess is deterministic and finite.

Interesting question,

In my opinion computers dont play chess but do something that just looks like it. The way they do it is simply through number crunching algorithmes. It must be said that in their programming there are some heuristics that could be seen as rudimentary ideas about the game.

To answer your question I am sure computers produced moves that showed something new about the game but they didnt uncover any ideas. Computers can not think and ideas belong to the realm of humans. So to notice an idea needs someone to interpret the move or sequence of moves and form some sort of generalisation.

Besides opening innovations and improved endgame analysis computer chess is rather killing a lot of ideas by showing that many positions are defensible after all.


Database of every possible move in chess Imagine that there is a chess database of every possible move and position. This database contains all possible moves from opening to end game.

If I played using my intuition against a chess engine, it can predict which move will make me lose and win.

So this means there is no need for a "chess engine" because all of the possible moves are already recorded.

If such a database exists it would have the following advantages:

In fast blitz games, chess engine will definitely lose against chess possibility move database.
We can exactly know which opening will have more opportunity to win against the others.

Or if such a database didn't already exist we could have a mathematical calculation of all possible moves from opening till end game.

Would it be possible for such a database to exist?

I believe your question essentially boils down to the topic of whether it is possible to completely "solve" chess.  Wikipedia has an excellent article on the topic which should give you a good overview.

To summarise, the number of possible game variations in chess is estimated to be 10^120.  This is a staggeringly huge number, for comparison, consider that the number of atoms in the observable universe is estimated to be around 10^80.  In other words, if you were using the entire observable universe as your hard drive, you'd still need to store 10^40 combinations of chess games on each atom, in order to simply store it all.  Needless to say, this is so far beyond our current and forseeable technologies that most people consider it to be completely impossible.

Chess endgames are considerably less complex, and we've got to a point where it's possible to calculate all possible combinations for five-piece and six-piece endgames.  These are typically huge undertakings done by reasearchers with access to supercomputers, and the resulting endgame databases are huge (on the order of hundreds of terabytes).  Each time a new piece is added, the size and complexity of the calculations goes up exponentially, which means that in the forseeable future, we can expect these results to expand by only a few pieces.

Yes, I think it would be possible. But only if the database was more like a neural network, taking moves that caused it to lose and deleting them. That calculation is based on exponentiating(bear with me) all possible actions in a chess game at move one, to move 100 or something. Meanwhile if we got rid of repeats, ((Ke3 Ke4 Ke3 Ke4) looping) 10^120 could probably become something like 10^70. That is still ridiculously huge but if we somehow were able to encode it onto a 4D plane (Which I believe is possible) it would be child’s play.


Is Stockfish 11 (level 20) beatable? I have heard many people saying, “Hah! I beat Stockfish,” and one saying, “I am the best chess player ever! I beat Stockfish.” So I wonder if it is possible, just to know whether I should try to beat it. I tried to play it once; I barely played 25 moves.

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

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

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

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

Gary Kasparov has beaten Deep Blue several times. Carlsen and Kasparov haven’t played against Stockfish yet, as far as I know, so we can't comment on this issue. But in my opinion, world champions will he able to beat the best of the best computers for next 20 years or so.
This is because, as we can easily see in TCEC games, no chess engine is unbeatable. If every single game they play against each other ends in a draw, then we can conclude that we have reached the stage of fool-proof chess engines.


Why do titled players always play online (blitz) speed chess? If you have been to an online chess server, you will notice that almost all titled players always play quick games (3 0) at a max.

On the other hand, if you go to tournaments, it needs cool thinking and not instantaneous moves.

I am surprised, then how do they maintain this balance? Doesn't playing too many quick games spoil their overall playing ability?

Good chess players who play online prefer quick games like 10sec + 1 or 1 min because nobody can cheat with a computer engine for such short games.

If a player tries to cheat with a computer, in this type of game, he loses the game on time.

After many quick games, these players can maintain this balance easily. Indeed, they train brain to think very quickly. And those who can think quickly can think slowly. Thus, there is no problem playing slow games after fast games.

Moreover, just for your information, blitz game refers to all chess games where each player has up to 10 minutes for all the moves.

Think about taking a test. You're given 120 minutes for it. Under normal circumstances you may take all of the allotted time, even when you've adequately prepared for it.

But what about overpreparing? If you've assumed you only have 80 minutes for this exam, you may just begin preparing under over constrained time limits.

A chess game is an exam of your tactics and plans for enhancing your position. The faster you can finish it, the less pressure you are placed under. Blitz games help with this.


1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 c5 — Sicilian Defense to King's Gambit? [FEN ""]

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 c5

What's the refutation of Black's unusual third move, or anyway the best way to play against it? Which is stronger, the Open Variation 4. d4 cxd4 5. Bxf4, or the Closed Variation 4. Bc4 Nc6 5. d3?

If there is no refutation (as seems to be the case), then why is 3...c5 hardly ever played, or mentioned in the books? Is it because there are so many good lines against the King's Gambit that nobody needed another one? Is it that the people who like to play c5 usually play it on the first move?

My initial reaction is that 3...c5 is very weak just by looking at it, which is why it is so rare. The ECO key that comes with ChessBase's Mega databases is very detailed, but even this does not even have its own specific sub-key.

There are 112 games in Mega 2020 database with 3...c5. The most popular response, played in 87 of the 112 games was 4.Bc4, which had a winning percentage of 64.9%, followed by 4.d4, which was played in 17 games and had a winning percentage of 61.8%). 4.d3 (6 games/33.3%) and 4.Nc3 (2 games/50.0%) were also played.

Obviously, 4.Bc4 and 4.d4 are the choices, but you also have to think about what to play stylistically: If you play the King's Gambit, you like open, tactical, positions, so it does not make sense to play the latter two moves at all unless they eventually become the natural move to finish development later. You still want to strive for the quick development of the kingside, and play down the f-file and open center.

3...c5 is weak, but as I looked through the games, the only plan that white needs to fear is the Be7 and g5 plan (possibly g5 first), holding the pawn. Black scored in the 40-50% range in most of those lines. That might bode well for the 4.d4, and early Bxf4 plan by white.

Now that I have discussed what humans play, I am going to see what Stockfish 11 says. After looking at many lines, a lot of which are below, but that is only a small fraction of what I actually looked at, I cannot say that Stockfish found any pure refutation, but I suspect that the you will do well following the main line because if black plays 3...c5, it is because black is a weak player to start with...deny black holding f4, and you will probably win most of the time as the human stats above show.

4.Bc4 and 4.d4 early on both come in with the same evals, but as the depth gets deeper (depth 33), 4.Bc4 is preferred by Stockfish, but they are both the typical minor pluses that computers typically give white in the opening, about +.5, but as I force in lines, and go deeper, everything levels out a lot. Here are some sample lines.

One last note about the play: The reason that white can play the early Bc4 in these lines, and not worry about g5, it that it seems tactically refuted if black tries to save it. White is playing a gambit line, so I was not really worried about trying to get the pawn back simply because we are down a pawn, but the computer might be; nevertheless, I was concerned because it gets in the way of developing the Bc1 and opening the f-file, so I did lean toward recovery.

Please note that there are also extensive comments within these lines.

 [FEN ""]

 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 c5 4. Bc4 Nc6 5. d3 {This is Stockfish's favorite, and is indicative of trying to stop the early g5 plan. It still is not the most human move, which I will also cover.} (5. d4 cxd4 6. Bxf4 Nf6 7. O-O Nxe4 8. Bd5 $1 {This leads to mind-boggling complications.} (8. Re1 d5 $17) 8... Nf6 9. Ng5 Nxd5 10. Nxf7 Qf6 (10... Kxf7 11. Qh5+ Ke6 12. Nc3 {And the other rook comes in and wins...+8.}) 11. Bg5 Qg6 12. Qe1+ Be7 13. Bxe7 Ne3 14. Rf2 Nxe7 15. Nxh8) (5. O-O $6 {This is slow, but leads to typical positions.} g5 6. d4 cxd4 7. Bxf7+ (7. g3 $5) 7... Kxf7 8. Nxg5+ Qxg5 9. Bxf4 Qg6 10. Be5+ Ke8 11. Bxh8 b6 {With wild play that the computer likes barely for black, but I do not believe that a human will survive.}) 5... Bd6 $5 (5... g5 $2 6. h4 g4 7. Ng5 $18) (5... Be7 6. Bxf4 Nf6 7. Nc3 d6 8. O-O O-O 9. Qd2 $16) 6. O-O Nf6 (6...Nge7 $4 7. Ng5 O-O 8. Qh5 $18) 7. Nc3 (7. Qe1 $5) (7. e5 $2 {This does not work due to tactics and threats of smothered mate, and the Qd1 and Bc1 hanging if the queens get traded.} Nxe5 8. Re1 O-O 9. Nxe5 Bxe5 10. Rxe5 d5 11. Bb3 c4 12. dxc4 Ng4 13. Re2 dxc4 14. Qxd8 Rxd8 15. Nc3 cxb3 16. axb3 g5 $17) 7... O-O 8. Bd2 a6 9. a4 {And the computer thinks this is roughly equal, but white is more fun to play.}

There is no obvious refutation other than white wins in the end.
Certainly not a single move !! as shown in the tournament book recap.

Chess Tempo shows black doing well with it but those games are from all players 2200 and down.  Looking at some of them,  white was nowhere near 2200 with the moves they made.

The key point is that nobody above 2200 plays c5 as black.  [maybe a few  do in a bigger database]
So the refutation comes down more to the players ability to beat an inferior move.

With no top GMs showing the way you will need to use a good engine to find the refutation.   But I suspect it will be too subtle for you to duplicate OTB when your opponent makes yet another deviation from the normal moves.

Following good chess principles and developing and then improving whites position until tactics decides or you win the end game would be a good strategy.

I never made GM so while I would be tempted to play b4 here I would likely just play nb3 bb4 and then pq3 to have a better position and edge in development while black has awkward pawns and a king in a weak position.


What are the rules for pawn wars? I ask about the exact rules for the chess variant known as pawn wars. The starting position contains only pawns which move exactly like in chess and the first to promote wins.

[FEN "8/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/8 w - - 0 1"]
[Title "The first to promote wins"]

But it should also be stated how to evaluate the end result when the side to move has no legal moves left. Is it lost or stalemated? I have been thinking about this game for years as a study tool for beginners but also as a philosophical research project into the game of chess for advanced players. I have found it recommended on several websites by kid educators.

I would like to write an engine to play this game but I cannot make up my mind on the best statement of the rules to maximize its practical relationship to chess. Are there any guidelines by experienced educators or existing environments to play this game? Any ideas how and why to fix the rules?

A situation like this, with Black to move, is a win for White:

[FEN "8/8/8/3pP3/3P4/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

Why? Well consider the case where White has been skillful enough to take all of Black's pawns and promotes easily. By definition, Black has no legal moves. From a training game we do not want to teach that losing all material leads to a forced draw. That would be a poor lesson to learn for building a knowledge of King and Pawn endings on.

A note on passing. It seems that to implement this in a program, a player with no legal moves is forced to 'pass', just in case a situation arises that allows the 'stalemated' side to have a legal move later on.

First you need to prove that someone can force a promotion.  That is far from obvious.

Then you would need to prove that it is not , with best play, always a blocked position with the same player making the last move.

I suspect that this is just a puzzle that could be solved by computer that shows there is one best outcome that is always the same.


How to challenge a queen with a bishop pair in endgame? Any hints how to survive or win having a bishop pair against a Queen in endgames. What you should do? how to cooperate between them? what's the opponent best strategies?

This is one of the well known endgames and the side with the queen almost always (92% positions) wins, although some wins take more than 50 moves with perfect play.

See the solution for your position here by entering your position into the diagram.

I must point out that every move has been taken into account and every possible continuation has been explored.

I forgot to answer part of your question about challenging the queen:

with best play side with the bishop loses most of the time, as stated above;
side with the bishops can never win, due to reasons user ETD pointed out in his comment;
in order to defend vs queen, use bishops to create barrier for the enemy king; keep them close to your king in order to be safe from double attacks queen can make.

It is worth noting, that the position shifted down by one row is a fortress setup and black draws. The setup is known as the Lolli position.

8/6k1/5bb1/8/2Q5/8/3K4/8 w - - 0 1

This looks like a very simple draw. Shuffle the bishop from g7 to f8 to g7 and if that is illegal shuffle the king one square back and forth while protecting both of the bishops.


Tools for automated notation: webcam movie to PGN Sometimes during blitz games over the board, or when in zeitnot, it gets very difficult to annotate them.

I've seen several software / hardware to help in writing the notation, even one that's FIDE approved; these require that you repeat the moves on the device. Hardly faster than pen and paper, just as prone to errors, plus you risk typing the wrong move and wasting even more time.

DGT makes a board that will do this automatically, but it will only work with its pieces, and starts at 400€, double that for tournament boards.  Some independent projects are available such as usb chessboard 101, or voice controlled chess robots, Chess board step sequencer.  Additionally some open projects are available that even move pieces (or gigantic pieces).

I have a playoff tonight, and the tournament rules dictate shorter and shorter games until there is a winner.  Hence I thought about shooting a movie of the board should we lose track.  But then my programming background kicked in and I thought "there must be some software that can process a movie and write the PGN".

I searched everywhere, and found nothing.

Does any such thing exist (webcam/video to pgn converter)? A prototype maybe?
Has anyone attempted such a feat and shared their research?
Are there obvious limitations that make this project unlikely to succeed?
Would you buy it if it existed?

It's 2019-12 now and 5 years after the original question.

Does any such thing exist (webcam/video to pgn converter)? A
prototype maybe?

see

https://github.com/WolfgangFahl/play-chess-with-a-webcam/issues/19
https://github.com/WolfgangFahl/play-chess-with-a-webcam/issues/22
which are both closed by now. See http://lichess.bitplan.com for a game successfully recorded. Join https://gitter.im/play-chess-with-a-webcam/community to discuss

Has anyone attempted such a feat and shared their research?

Yes - so far I found some 35 research papers and some 10 open source solutions and one commercial offering

2.1  http://wiki.bitplan.com/index.php/PlayChessWithAWebCam/Papers

2.2. http://wiki.bitplan.com/index.php/PlayChessWithAWebCam#Open_Source_Projects

2.3. http://wiki.bitplan.com/index.php/PlayChessWithAWebCam#Commercial

http://wiki.bitplan.com/index.php/PlayChessWithAWebCam is another project
aiming at the goals stated by you. The project was started 2019-10-15 and in a few hours I already found a lot of resources e.g. this Question
Some two months later I have updated my answer (see links above)
Are there obvious limitations that make this project unlikely to succeed?
I can only answer from my own experience with a similar project I did 31 years ago see http://wiki.bitplan.com/index.php/MagneticSensorChessBoard1987.
At that time i tried to create a chess board that would detect moves. I used magnets
in the wooden pieces and reed contacts. The key to success was using a chess engine
that new "the rules" to be able to concentrate on movements alone and not having
to detect individual pieces. As outlined in an answer above promotions to non queen
pieces might be one of the edge usecases that are difficult. Detecting the motion of
pieces via picture differences is a well understood problem.

Chess engines and UCI compatible GUIs are also available these days. So the problem
is more an integration problem these days then solving the individual detail issues.

A major obstacle is the difference between a "prototype" and a product. See e.g.
http://www.nandanbanerjee.com/files/ICCVR-08AUG12-011%20paper.pdf

a paper that is even older than this question but far from a product that you can buy
at a reasonable price.
Would you buy it if it existed?

Yes. When I bought a new chess board a few days ago I was looking for one that
could record moves and it was still around 500 EUR. As it looks the hardware cost
will be well below 150 EUR these days including a decent chess board and pieces.

The software might well be opensource and free (as in free beer) soon. I'll update
this answer accordingly.

I use the Monroi Chess Notation Device for all my chess games and it is basically an electronic board.


Moves to test a notation generator I've made a small program that takes a list of moves in ICCF notation and translates them to the following:

SAN
FAN
LAN
MAN
RAN
CRAN
Smith
Descriptive
Coordinate
ICCF

For example, a starting move of 2133 (Nc3 in SAN):

SAN  FAN  LAN     MAN  RAN     CRAN  Smith  Descriptive  Coord  ICCF  Comments
Nc3  ♘c3  Nb1-c3  Nc3  Nb1-c3  Nc3   b1c3   QN1N-QB3     B1-C3  2133

Unfortunately, I'm having some difficulty understanding a few of the rules of the various notation formats (especially Descriptive - as you can see, it doesn't currently omit the unambiguous ranks/files because I haven't implemented the check for unambiguous destination ranks/files yet... so it's possibly a bit too descriptive). For example, checks (e.g. +) are added to the end of a move, but promotions (e.g. Q) are also added to the end of a move. What if both happen at the same time? For that particular situation, I'm pretty sure the check is listed after the promotion indicator, but I'm even more sure that there are other situations I'm not even thinking of.

What I'm hoping for (and haven't been able to find with a few Google searches, as I don't even know what search terms would produce it if it existed) is a sample game with moves that create these uncommon notations, so that I can input them into my program as a kind of test suite, see what it produces, and check the results. Alternatively, a simple list of these situations (e.g. "a pawn that captures a piece into a promotion, for a check") would be good too.

If, once I've done that, I can't tell if the program's output is even correct, I'll ask a separate question about it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For sample games, just write a program which generates a sequence of games each composed solely of randomly selected moves. A file with a few million random PGN games should be sufficient to cover all cases of interest.


Why does FIDE rate women in different category? Has FIDE ever given reasons why it rates woman in different category and organises their tournaments seperately?

First, let's clear up a misunderstanding.  Women and men are rated on the same scale, with the same formula.  A woman with a FIDE rating of 2400 can be assumed to be equally matched with a man with the same 2400 rating.  FIDE merely defines four titles that are only available for women.  In general, woman can and do participate in tournaments against men.  However, there are a handful of tournaments open only to women, including a Women's World Championship.

The reason for the tournaments and titles is obvious: some women want to participate in such tournaments, and some women appreciate the titles.  Chess is filled with reserved tournaments and not-too-prestigious titles of other kinds - this isn't a "woman-thing".  Every club, state, or national championship is a tournament which sacrifices strength and prestige to encourage the participation of a specific group.  The USCF has titles down to "4th Category", a title which requires hardly more than a heartbeat and a willingness to play in at least five tournaments, obviously to encourage tournament play among those still learning the game.  FIDE correctly calculates that having the WGM, WIM, WFM, and WCM provides motivation for some women and encourages them to improve their game and participate in tournaments.  Given that FIDE exists to promote chess among all populations, including women, providing these title is a no-brainer.

Damning women who participate in such tournaments or accept such titles is as ridiculous as complaining that the Canadian National Championship is tainted by the lack of Americans in the field or considering the USCF Candidate Master title to be a farce because it is easier to obtain than the FIDE Candidate Master.  There is no shame or fraud in competing for these titles, as the requirements are well-known and observers can easily understand exactly how much prestige should be attached to them.  Some of the strongest women players may disdain the women-only titles, but there are many male GMs who disdained their IM or FM norms.  You may choose to learn what you want from their examples.

Chess is not a sport that relies on physical skill, not withstanding the rigors of tournament and match play. Men and Women should not be separated on the FIDE title scales. Separate tournaments? Maybe - that is the organizers prerogative. World Championship? Yes. Titles, no. This is False Prestige.

After watching the Women's Championship from (Spain?) last month and the horrid play by a supposed FIM making horrendous errors, I have no faith any of them. You are either an IM or you are not.

The Polgar(s) got it right when they refused to accept watered-down, female FIDE titles. There should be no difference, especially in this day and age where the average woman will hardly blink at telling you how smart she is and wants equal pay for equal play. I say, prove it.

Chess should award titles equally across both genders on the same scale and not discriminate women any longer.