text:
Are online USCF tournaments worth playing?
I play a lot on ICC, and I notice they offer a few days of rated blitz and other time controls.
I'd like to play more rated games, however I'm afraid of how easy it is to cheat online. It seems like there is nothing stopping someone from having a laptop with them and making moves by running the game through stockfish. They could screw up just enough to evade "bot behavior" detection.
Are these types of games worth playing at all? Or should I just stick to going to the club once a week for classic games?

Could someone explain why I'm getting downvoted. Is this not a good question? Are people offended at something? I can't write better questions if no one explains what I'm doing wrong...

I didn't vote either way, but my guess is that some people thought the question too subjective and having no clear answer.

@user14142 You got like 1 downovte!

but why?  people deserve to know why they get downvoted.  especially the newer ones under a few thousand points.

only you can answer that.  everybody has their own opinion whether something is worth doing or not.  the question should have been killed early by the thought police for being opinion based not facts.

First of all, the vast majority of people are not cheating.  If they were, 1200 would be a master rating, and it's not.
Second, in a USCF rated game, you're not anonymous.  The games are connected to your real name and your USCF membership.  There might be some people willing to cheat anonymously who would be less willing if it could be traced back to them personally, and possibly put their offline membership at risk, rather than simply forcing them to make a new online account.
Third... yes, some people cheat.  If you do play against Stockfish (with or without added mistakes) once or twice, so what?  It won't be most of the time.
Fourth, if you're worried about cheaters affecting your rating, it appears that online play currently only affects your USCF "Blitz" rating, not your "Regular" USCF rating.
In summary:  If you think it would otherwise be a good idea, there's no reason to let the prospect of cheaters dissuade you.  (Although skipping club to play online would just be silly in most cases.)

Who cares about USCF rating anyway? You are aware of the fact that there is also real rating, right?

@David By "real" I assume you mean FIDE? How many FIDE rated tournaments do you think were within 100 miles of me in the last 5 years? And the question was about USCF anyway.

I am not a citizen of neither Myammar nor Liberia, so I don't know what a "mile" is, but in Spain there is a FIDE-valid tournament on each province pretty much every single week

100 miles is about 160 kilometers. And in the US, we certainly don't have a FIDE tournament every week in every state. On the FIDE website, I see 6 tournaments in the entire US for the month of July, and only 5 for August. The nearest one is over 200 km from me. (And how can you forget Grenada?)

some people cheat and that is too many but it is not the majority.

@David  so you are saying USCF is not real and their ratings fake or what?


text:
How can I "see the board"?
I often get into stupid blunders, get myself into pins and threats that I don't see on time etc.
How can I avoid that ?

Check forcing lines, solve tactics regularly (what once used to be only noticed by calculation will turn into pattern), stay zoned in while your opponent is thinking and use that time to calculate variations. Don't assume mistakes from your opponent, instead consider moves to the best of your ability, and so on. The question is too vague to say anything more concrete. See also: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/18162/how-do-you-solve-chess-tactics , https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/15741/what-are-some-good-resources-one-may-use-to-get-better-at-chess-training-etc/15755#15755

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

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

Practice.  This may include other exercises outside chess to help your brain with visualization.
Start with simple end games like KBN vs K and do a checkmate.  You will be forced to visualize the squares covered to succeed.
Solve tactical problems. You will need to see squares that pieces cover in that exercise too.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
What is the best way to sell old chess books?
I listed some books on eBay but had little interest (few pageviews/few bids etc.) meaning that I would make an untenable loss on them (I'm not selling them for profit, but I want a reasonable price for them).
I've sold other products on eBay before, so I'm not after advise on how to sell more effectively there. My question is, what are the 'best' (i.e. most profitable) ways to sell chess books online?

I think ebay is fine. I've bought a lot of chess books on there in the last year or so. I tend to buy only lots, unless I'm looking for a specific title. The main reason I will pass on bidding, is when the lot consists of several unrelated subjects or openings.

I sold my library a few years ago.  Easy to sell at 10 cents on the dollar.

Oh for Pete’s sake - another perfectly reasonable question closed. And one of the closers is a person who was happy to collect 7 points for answering the question before. Some questions in this complicated world require judgment and experience to answer, but that doesn’t mean the answerer has to be opinionated. Why do you find this so hard to understand?

Thank you for re-opening this question

If you live in the UK I would suggest the English Chess Forum. They have a "For Sale" thread. That way you are advertising to a dedicated audience. If you live in another country I would suggest you look for an equivalent forum in your country.
I would add that opening books devalue very quickly. A 10 year old opening book probably has value as a doorstop or paperweight only, unless it is a rare ancient first edition.

I have bought and sold about 800 books on eBay (about 650 sold, and 150 bought), and it is still probably the single best place to get a wide chess-playing audience for your books that are for sale.
The real issue is if your books are really any good. I bought two books from eBay that I am waiting for right now: One is just a book that is near-and-dear to my heart, that is a first edition hardcover from 1964 in like-new condition, and the other is a very coveted book by Igor Khenkin about checkmating patterns in like-new condition. The problem is that most of what I see on eBay is junk, often in fair condition at best, and then on top of that, it is overpriced.
If your books are in nice condition, and somewhat valuable (search sold listings on eBay to get an idea what it is really worth, and also used listings on Amazon, although they are prices from dealers, so a bit high, but they can still give you an idea if is is a $10 book or a $200 book, or worthless), then it can be worth it to sell them individually.
If you have a bunch of old Dover or Tartan books that were mass produced, then they are not going to be worth much. Typically, these were cheaply made, and thus, they did not wear well over time. You need to realize that they might only be worth a couple of bucks each, and thus, you should bundle them, and price them accordingly. There are a lot of people out there with these books trying to sell them, so there is a lot of competition, so price will be king.
One last factor is the material in the books, and this relates to the age of the books. Today's books are better than ever, and much better at teaching, so not only will they be in better condition since they are newer, but they will have more coveted material. They will be worth more. Opening books do not age well unless they explain well, and are aimed at mid-level players, rather than cutting-edge analysis.
Craigslist is just a step up from yard sale prices, and unless your books are those junk books to be sold in lots, I would not recommend it for selling collectible, or any decent book.

I sold mine on Craigslist and for an acceptable price given their age. I named my price and took nothing less.

Selling used books is tough.
Selling specialized old used books is even harder.
ebay is not a good way to go.
Craigs list can work IF you have chess players in your area.
Possibly through clubs if they would post a notice on their site.
Maybe craigs list in big areas if you can get enough to also pay for shipping.
Give them away and take a tax break?
Take them to big tournaments and display them where many people can see them.
Sell en masse to a book dealer.
Whatever you do you will not get much for them.  Unless you are desperate it is hardly worth the effort.

If it were me, I'd use eBay or any eBay alternative because I live a hundred miles from the nearest large city. If I were back in the New York City, for example, I would go to a used bookstore or take them to a club or tournament and try to sell them there.

Realizing this may be too late for the OP, but hoping to help folks in the future ...
Facebook has a group called Chess Book Collectors. Admittedly, I'm not a member, but it seems to be a place where old chess books are bought and sold (amongst other things).

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
How can a >2000 player stop making basic errors?
For the last 3 months or so I've been unable to concentrate and play chess to the level that I am used to. I'm rated 2050.
I've been suffering from the following symptoms:

Being completely unable to see the board in it's entirety. I've done silly things like put my queen en prise because I just didn't see that an enemy rook is on the same file
Being distracted whilst playing. I have this odd habit of working hard to gain a winning position, then my mind drifts to some music that I like. Inevitably I throw my advantage away
Playing 'hope chess', i.e. I may analyse just one variation a few moves deep and conclude it is good for me. Of course I miss my opponent's best move

My question is, how can I get out of the rut?

Yeah, tell me about it! Do you have similar problems in other areas of your life?

Related: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/8505/worrying-inconsistency-in-playing-strength

are these rapid/blitz games?

Sort of general purpose advice, but sometimes concentration problems are not necessarily related to the domain you're working in. Are you getting enough sleep, exercise, healthy foods? Are you playing at times of day where you're most alert? Have you tried more or less caffeine? I've gotten the impression that the physiological aspect of chess playing becomes more relevant the stronger you get. Many titled chess players appear to be quite rigorous about getting enough sleep and exercise to aid their concentration skills.

If you feel unsatisfied with the answers the biggest unknown variable, I feel, is your mental status. Such blunders are extremely rare at your level. Do you have any more information concerning mental condition, attention disorders, or other disturbances? Scrounged and Philip Roe's answers, as well as Alex Pritchard's comment have created a basis to discover these issues personally if you feel capable, or don't wish to disclose this evidence. Either way, hope it goes well

From the way the question is written it seems like these flaws in your chess are uncharacteristic, and that you recently noticed that they've suddenly become way more apparent than before. The first point about putting pieces en prise does indeed seem uncharacteristic for any player >2000 Elo, unless we're dealing with very short time controls.
For a beginner, putting a piece or two en prise during a game is to be expected, but for someone of expert strenght it's indicating that something is going on. Most likely it has to do with momentary lapses of concentration, and it is very difficult in general to know why these happen. Has something happened in your life recently that puts you under a lot of stress? Then that is very likely the culprit affecting this area of your game, and you should work on improving your personal life in order to get rid of these annoying mistakes.
The second part, about getting winning positions and then not being able to convert them, is not uncharacteristic for a ~2050 Elo player in my opinion. Strong players tend to be remarkably resilient, and they will not yield an inch unless you force them to. Keeping this in mind, it becomes clear that it is very dangerous to think of your position as "winning". That way of thinking makes it much more likely that during a game you will start relaxing too early thinking the position will win itself, and consequently letting your opponent off the hook. Instead, I believe it is much more appropriate to always keep in mind that your position is nothing without you! Without you there to accurately improve it, your position will most certainly deteriorate, no matter how good it is to begin with. Don't forget this; do not relax until the game is over!
The part about "hope chess" should be taken care of if you remember that your opponent is not supposed to be your friend during the game. If they can avoid it, they will never actively cooperate with your plans. However, if the hope chess has increased in the last couple of months it could be caused by the same thing that is causing you to drop pieces. Stress has a way of making people mentally exhausted, and this will inevitably lead to chessplayers 'letting go' the moment they think they see a solution to their problems, unwilling to strain themselves mentally even further by double-checking to make sure the plan is air tight. In this case the solution to the issue should be to work on improving your personal life to eliminate mental exhaustion as a factor in your game.

i agree, even at a lower rating I never made such major blunders. The revelation behind the psychological grasp seems highly likely and logical too. +1

I have a FIDE 1996 rating and I had the same problem you have now. What fixed for me was to play many slow games G/30 minimum and G/60 ideal, and then have Shredder do a quick blunder check on these games. I slowly learned where I am most likely to make silly mistakes. I also changed my game mindset. Rather than try to get a winning position I chose to aim for a solid position all the time with small improvements, nothing too greedy. I chose to win games by exploiting my opponent's mistakes and not because I blew him out of the water with amazing moves. I consistently get winning positions 90% of the time. Now my problem is to efficiently win these won positions. Good luck.

I would take quite seriously the possibility of taking medical advice. Our chess ability, measured objectively by rating, is a very sensitive measure of our mental health is several ways.
Some years ago my thyroid gland became underactive (hypothyroidism) which leads to a slowing down of mental processes. This went undiagnosed for two years, because being normally quite a bright chap I was just a bit more normal. My rating fell during this period by at least 200 points. I knew that I was playing badly and felt furious about it.
After treatment had begun I was playing in a tournament and I recall exactly when the cloud lifted. I looked at my opponents k-side attack, and suddenly realized that g5 was not a threat. Quite suddenly, I was analyzing accurately again.
I am not offering a diagnosis of your condition, but this very similar experience of mine was in fact symptomatic of something quite serious.
The fact that you post here indicates that you are quite worried about it. I think you need to talk to a doctor. A good one will not think that complaining about your loss of chess skill is frivolous.

General Play
Building habits is a good way to get out of the rut.
Depending on the the time it could be fundamental to analyze the board and the opponents move to gain a general sense of the direction and goals of each side, of course this is most likely acknowledged by you.
A way to reduce blunders is to manage time, which imposes how you multitask.
If anything, multitasking isn't as much about the ability to effectively tackle on each individual thing, but of being well acquainted with certain aspects so you can focus on certain parts.
Certain sports such as football have many dynamic aspects, but certain things practiced heavily become more natural, such as throwing/ catching, which allow you to focus more on field awareness, position,and the oncoming defenders.
Following this it may be helpful to practice tactics by playing a bunch of chess tactics on chess.com, lichess, etc, or playing chess engines that follow similar moves so you can expand on your knowledge of the systematic processes in opening.
Generally following/ or making a system before playing may help too (analyzing undefended pieces in your side, blundercheck, etc)

Listen to Music
Another thing is it could be useful to listen to music while playing. I personally listen to jazz, classical, or lofi hip-hop while playing. Something calm and relaxing so I'm not as impatient, and aggressive when I play. Something without lyrics is awesome, and can help tame part of your wandering mind.
Though I do expect the use of headphones would be banned in tournament play.

Time Management
You also have to take into account the type of chess you are playing
Classical Chess
Using FIDE standard for Classical Chess, which allows an hour and a half for the first 40 moves and another half an hour for the rest of the game, you have a large amount of time to calculate. In this variation major blunders are pretty much absent at higher level play, as the players are able to completely analyze their moves, anticipate responses, calculate lines and attacks, and even delve into intrinsic theories of the board/ color/ control/ etc.
Rapid Chess
With 10 minutes to an hour you have a fair amount of time to analyze your moves and board. I personally find this variation ends with who has the stronger end game moves, so with standard opening principles I like to spend half of the time in mid-game setting up a strong, preferably 2 rook, or rook and bishop ending with a faster king centralization
Blitz
Blitz is 10 minutes or less, commonly played with 2,3 or 5 minute variations. With 5 you may not have a large amount of time to analyze the opponent's goals and motive, but you should still get a general sense of why they make each move. Personally a quick blundercheck in mid-game, 2-5 seconds, and you should be good, just check common moves like how the position could be exploited (fork, discovered attack, skewer) and structure (pawns, defended pieces).
In the 2 and 3 minute variations it is common to find weaker, less analyzed moves, with stronger players still rarely making blunders. The key to this is memory and intuition, with a large history of chess allowing you to find similar positions, piece combinations, and ideas. This variation is heavy on tactics with both sides waiting for the other to make a blunder or a weaker, exploitable move. The harder part is implementing strategy, but with study of the piece combinations, and chess theory you can practice powerful, unexpected attacks that could force the opponent out of their comfort zone. So using this the key to making less mistakes in this variation is practice, and with the above allusion to football, make tactics inherent.

Rated 2050 where?
Is that FIDE OTB?;   or some online site with inflated ratings?
One old GM said to sit on your hands.  That was to keep you from moving impulsively until you really thought about the position.
You need to train yourself to slow down and be sure before you move.
I would add that you need to stop playing blitz if you care about your OTB ability.


text:
In the Dubois-Steinitz match (1862), at what point does the match become irreversibly lost for White? And why does the engine not pick it up early?
I am a beginner player (~1400 rating on lichess). I was studying a famous match between Dubois and Steinitz shown below (analysis done by Stockfish on lichess.org). My doubts are:
1) At what move does the game become "bad" for White? Is it the 9. Nxg5 move? Or is it some move further downstream? After Black plays 12...Nd4 was there any possible move that would have saved White?
2) Why doesn't the Stockfish engine pick up the fact that Black is winning until the very last moment when White plays 13.Nc3 ? According to engine analysis, 8...h5is an inaccuracy for Black, 9.Nxg5 is a mistake for White, and 10...hxg3 is a mistake for Black! More surprisingly, till 12...Nd4 the engine considers White slightly better (or rather neutral) at +0.3, and in the White's next move it suddenly says checkmate is unavoidable and suggests  13.Ne6 to be better for White. But even with 13.Ne6, black can still play 13...Nf3+ and so on, and win the game.
[fen ""]
[Site "https://lichess.org/OtJ2x5RY"]
[Date "London 1862"]
[White "Serafino Dubois"]
[Black "Wilhelm Steinitz"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C50"]
[Opening "Italian Game: Giuoco Pianissimo, Normal"]
[Termination "Normal"]
[Annotator "lichess.org"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Bc5 { C50 Italian Game: Giuoco Pianissimo, Normal } 5. O-O d6 6. Bg5 h6 7. Bh4 g5 8. Bg3 h5?! { (-0.08 → 0.50) Inaccuracy. Best move was Na5. } (8... Na5 9. Bb3 Nxb3 10. axb3 a6 11. c3 O-O 12. Nbd2 Ba7 13. Nc4 Be6 14. Ne3 Kg7 15. b4) 9. Nxg5? { (0.50 → -1.08) Mistake. Best move was h4. } (9. h4 Na5 10. Nbd2 Bg4 11. Bb3 Nxb3 12. axb3 Bxf3 13. Nxf3 g4 14. Ng5 Qe7 15. c3 O-O-O) 9... h4 10. Nxf7 hxg3? { (-0.83 → 0.38) Mistake. Best move was Qe7. } (10... Qe7) 11. Nxd8 Bg4 12. Qd2 Nd4 13. Nc3?? { (0.31 → Mate in 7) Checkmate is now unavoidable. Best move was Ne6. } (13. Ne6 Ne2+ 14. Qxe2 Bxe2 15. Nxc7+ Kd7 16. Nxa8 Bxf1 17. Bb5+ Ke7 18. Nc3 Bxd3 19. Bxd3 gxf2+) 13... Nf3+ 14. gxf3 Bxf3 15. hxg3 Rh1# { Black wins by checkmate. } 0-1

To your second question, I believe that lichess (and basically all online sites), because of limitations are using a limited power version of stockfish. Did you try analyzing the game offline?

Its not unusual, that each player has not being accurate or make small mistakes. That is why I heard "loses the player that makes the last (decisive) mistake". By decisive, refers to a mistake of a magnitud that any continuation can't avoid losing the game.

Playing the game on lichess.org, I only need to wait for a few dozens of seconds to reach the following analysis for White ninth move:
9. Nxg5 is an interesting counter-attack move that ultimately fails to bring an advantage but white is not lost. After 12. ... Nd4 13. h3! Ne2+ 14. Qxe2 Bxe2 15. Ne6 White survives.
Since 13. h3! saves White, 13. Nc3?? is indeed a fatal blunder. 13. Ne6?? also yields a mate in 7 for black.


text:
What are some chess books on openings which include computer analysis?
I once had a book on the sharp Wilkes-Barre variation of the Two Knights Defense written in the 1970s in which there were a few moves which were said to be clearly winning for one side in which a computer analysis of the position said otherwise. The situations were unusual, for example the last position in the analysis would have three threats in it and the conclusion would be that one side is clearly winning. Then the computer would find a move responding to all three threats and say that the other side has the advantage.
So my question is 'What are some books on chess openings that show how a computer rates the top move choices after analyzing each for a certain amount of time?'

Any chess book nowadays will be double-checked with computer analysis to avoid the type of erroneous conclusions you described. So you could probably say that practically all modern chess books will include computer analysis in some sense.

Traxler Counter-Attack is tactically one of the most complicated openings. So an analysis without an engine in this opening would contain errors very likely.

If I recall correctly, The Wilkes-Barre is Traxler (correct me).
I once analyzed it quite deeply, and the only way white can hope for a win after 5. Nxf7 is 5...Bxf2+ 6. Kxf2 (6.Kf1 is also a tricky draw.) Nxe4+ 7. Ke3.
Or he can simply play 5. Bxf7+ and be a healthy pawn up.
You can do this analysis yourself.

Many of the newer endgame books will make use of at least the tablebases.
Nunn was the first to use computers to assist in analysis in writing one of his endgame books.

I don't recall which of Nunn's books it was. If anyone knows, please feel free to edit it in.


text:
How often does each side win in Rook, Bishop and Knight versus Queen?
How often does each side win in Rook, Bishop and Knight versus Queen endings?  It is a 6-piece endgame so the evaluation of each position is known but I could not find statistics on this endgame after searching for a while.
[FEN "8/8/8/3k4/3N4/2q5/5K2/R5B1 w - - 0 46"]

I just lost to the queen in this contest. There were a couple of moments where mate was possible, but my thinking is that in a relatively open game the two fully versatile pieces should normally win against the 3 restricted ones. https://www.chess.com/game/daily/298218240

The best resource I know for endgame statistics is the ICGA spreadsheet at https://ilk.uvt.nl/icga/games/chess/endgames.php. The spreadsheet posted there contains pretty much all 6-man endgames. So for example KRBNKQ is found in row 277 (assuming White has RBN), with the following percentages:
       wtm    btm
W win 51.35  9.45
 draw 45.13 49.27
B win  3.52 41.28

So the result is highly dependent on who has the move.
EDIT: Clarifications (1) This is a tablebase based on computer analysis of all possible positions with these 6 pieces. It does not refer to actual games played over the board. (2) The spreadsheet refers to "non-broken positions" which approximates to "legal positions".

On the other hand, those black wins would be 95% of the time situations where white loses the rook immediately, so that's effectively just queen vs bishop and knight. Likely the draws would be largely by perpetual check. If white's pieces are sufficiently coordinated and able to protect the white king, white always wins.

The endgame with just those 6 pieces is pretty rare, so I doubt there would be enough games in any database to make good stats. Just judging from the material imbalance though, White is in no danger of losing (unless he blunders his Rook).
Without any blunders, White just has to make sure Black cannot sacrifice his Queen for White's Rook and one minor piece (since K+B vs K is a draw). Then, White can maneuver his pieces and set up one trap after another (pins and forks against the Black King and Queen) until eventually winning the Queen.
The problem Black faces is that he has to watch out for tactics from all 3 of White's pieces, which just so happen to move in all different directions (Rook = vertical, Bishop = diagonal, Knight = L-shape). Meanwhile, Black can only really attack with his Queen, and the Queen alone is not enough to cause serious tactical threats (White just has to watch out for skewers and a few pins from one piece).

I agree white will win. But tactics-wise, white is more vulnerable. Q tactics are mainly forks and with an open K, any loose white piece is vulnerable. Black just need to put K and Q wide apart on different colours to avoid any tactics (but he might be mated quickly if white plays correctly)

@jf328 I think White is only more vulnerable if he leaves any of his pieces undefended. If White keeps all his pieces protected, Black cannot do much other than attempt a perpetual check. Meanwhile, Black will not get anywhere by protecting his Queen with his King, since White is happy to exchange any of his pieces for it. If Black kept his K and Q far apart, tactics would be difficult (but still possible). White's Rook and Bishop can form nice long-range tactical traps.


text:
Rejected game variant for adding a new chess piece
Some time ago İ had a book on chess, that proposed new chess variant invented by some guy, in which a new chess piece was added. so instead the usual 8 by 8 board would get replaced by a bigger 9 by 9 board in which a new piece could be added. This piece would be like the queen but it would be able to jump like knight making it a lot more powerful than the queen.
So my question is, what did you call this new piece that was proposed and who made it at what year? Any info on the subject is appreciated.

I was unable to find a variant with a 9x9 board that included this piece, but that doesn't mean such a variant doesn't exist.
Perhaps you slightly misremembered the powers of the piece. Modern Chess was invented in 1968 by Gabriel Vicente Maura, according to Wikipedia.  It has a 9x9 board and features a piece called the "prime minister" which combines the powers of the bishop and knight.  Unlike any piece in normal chess, it is capable of delivering checkmate without the help of another piece, if the opponent's king is in the corner.
It's also possible you may be thinking of Chancellor Chess.  This was  invented by Benjamin R. Foster in 1887, according to Wikipedia.  It has a 9x9 board and features a piece called the "chancellor", which combines the powers of a rook and knight.
If you're sure that the piece was actually a queen and knight combined (and not a bishop and knight or rook and knight), then Wikipedia says this is called the "amazon", and that it has also been called "angel, ayanu, commander, crown prince, elephant, empress, general, giraffe, grand chancellor, maharajah, rettah, royal guard, superqueen, tetra queen, and wyvern".

hmm i am not sure exactly which one it is, but if i had to take a guess i would say that it was the first answer, the"prime minister" because the name rings more of a bell than the other ones. but none the less this is extremely useful information. Thank you.

I had the privilege of meeting Gabriel Vicente Maura in Puerto Rico when i was a teenager in the 80s. He brought to life in the 70s the World Federation of Modern Chess (Femdam) with the new piece called the Prime Minister which moves like a Knight and a Bishop on a 9x9 Chessboard..

Two dark squared bishops? So basically white has no light square control of the board from move 1?

want a white Bishop then hop the black one like a knight and voila


text:
How can I get a collection of chess games with a 'Greek gift' sacrifice?
I would like to make a collection of chess games that feature the 'Greek gift' sacrifice. There are few games on chessgames.com annotated with this sacrifice. I could find blogs with individual examples of games with this type of sacrifice (example: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6); however they are not in a readily downloadable format.
Is there a collection of games that feature this sacrifice? If not, is there any way I can search for and get collections of games featuring this sacrifice using a chess database like SCID?

Something which might help here is Chess Query Language. Just like SQL does for relational databases, CQL can search in a database of chess games for positions/games which match certain criteria.
I must say I have never used it myself, but it seems to be capable of amazing things, far more complex than what you're looking for. Here is an old article showing a few beautiful studies Tim Krabbé was able to find with the help of CQL.

Thank you @Glorfindel . I didn't know about Chess Querry Language. It is indeed a wonderful tool. Going through basic syntax of CQL from their website, I came up with the following script and method that can pick out "Greek gift sacrifice" by either black or white from any pgn database. I provide an example below using a UNIX system.
First, download a pgn database of your interest (example.pgn).
Second, using a text editor save the following script as a text file greek_gift.cql with the extension .cql.
cql (input example.pgn)
flipcolor flip
next (Bh7
      kh7)

Keep the executable cql program (downloaded from the CQL website), the cql file greek_gift.cql and the input pgn file example.pgn in the same folder.
Open the terminal and navigate to the folder.
Execute the command  ./cql greek_gift.cql.
A new pgn file greek_gift-out.pgn will be generated in the same directory. Note that this will contain games with Bh7 sacrifice by white as well as Bh2 sacrifice by black, followed by capture by the opponent king.
I am not a programmer; please edit the script if anybody thinks there is an error.

in chesstempo's recent tag update (2021Oct), you can find greek gift in their tags
in lichess you can try kingside attack or queenside attack


text:
Is capturing on empty square with a pawn legal?
How is it possible to move c4 to b3?

This type of capturing with pawn called capturing en passant.
Here's the rule explained on Wikipedia:

When a pawn advances two squares from its starting position and there
  is an opponent's pawn on an adjacent file next to its destination
  square, then the opponent's pawn can capture it en passant (in
  passing), and move to the square the pawn passed over. This can only
  be done on the very next move, otherwise the right to do so is
  forfeit.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
How can I find all games between 2 specific players?
How can I find all games played by 2 specific players?
For example: Nigel Short and Magnus Carlsen.
Is there some official FIDE database or something like that?
I'd like an easy way to see things like:

Their overall score against each other
A list of the games that make up this score, each with a link to the PGN of the game, showing date and tournament location etc
Most recent game played

Try http://www.chessgames.com. Just write "Short" and "Carlsen" in the search box.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?yearcomp=exactly&year=&playercomp=either&pid=&player=short&pid2=&player2=carlsen&movescomp=exactly&moves=&opening=&eco=&result=
EDIT
Response to @Ywapom, Chessgames is quite good for top chess players like Carlsen. However, it can be incomplete for non top players. I'd suggest the expensive Mega Chessbase database.

chessgames.com is just one incomplete source of many.  You won't necessarily find all their games there.

@Ywapom The database is quite good for top players, such as Carlsen. It's only incomplete for non-top players.

Agreed that it is a decent source for top players, also that the mega chessbase db is probably the most complete.  However maybe chessgames.com won't have a game of Carlsen vs. Short when Carlsen was a lower rated kid.


text:
How should I read chess books that show games or parts of games?
When reading books like Sorcerer's Apprentice or Life & Games of Mikhail Tal, often a position is shown followed by a list of moves, then another key position, then more moves, and another position, and some reasoning.
How should I read this part?
Should I set up the position on a board or on my PC or just try to imagine it in my mind? After reading through the moves I often feel like I haven't gained any knowledge.

It depends on what you want to get out of the book.
If you're reading for enjoyment, read the text, try to see the point behind the nice sacrifices, and relax.
But for study, you need to do something else: set up the position on a board, put the book away, then try to understand the position on your own. What are important features of the position? What is each side trying to achieve? Are there any tactics or threats? What's the best move?
Then play through the moves in the book. Try to understand them, how do they related to what you thought each side was trying to achieve? What was it you missed? Why are these moves best?
Basically, for study, treat every diagram you ever see as an exercise. The improvement in your chess skill will be directly proportional to the amount of work you put in.
Of course one doesn't always feel like doing that, and that is fine too (I love just browsing chess books). Just don't expect much real improvement then.

Should I set up the position on a board or on my PC or just try to imagine it in my mind?

Yes, depending on what you have available, this is the best option. Imagining it in your mind ('blindfold chess') will help with your calculation skills; in a real game of chess, you do see a board but you are not allowed to move the pieces to analyse the position.
Using a real board for playing along with the book is easier and recommended for non-advanced players. A chess program will have the benefit that it can tell you other moves to look for, or if you want to analyze a sideline which is not covered in the book.

After reading through the moves I often feel like I haven't gained any knowledge.

Exactly. It's then just like reading a dictionary; you understand the words but you'll never learn them.

What I always used to do (this was back before the PC was invented, when dinosaurs walked the earth) was set up my magnetic travel set with the position of the game, and make the actual game moves on it, then set up a regular chessboard on the table and play through all the analysis of the game on it.
That way I always had a reference of what the game position was, so it was never lost and I could return to it easily if my analysis went too far afield. And that also meant I could use the "analysis set" to chase down any other variations that I was curious about that the author didn't mention, as well as follow the author's analysis better.


text:
Using the king to prevent castling
What is a more difficult problem which involves using the king to prevent castling than the following problem?
White to play and win:
[FEN "r3k3/5p2/2K2P1P/b1N1P2P/8/8/4n3/8 w q - 0 1"]

Kb7 wins. Rd8 h7 1-0.

@michaelc35 For future reference, try to make your question less ambiguous. It's unclear whether you're posting a puzzle for us to solve, or looking for a more complicated puzzle than the one you posted.

I'm looking for a more complicated puzzle than the one above which I created.  An idea I have is to have the rook defended so it doesn't have to worry about being captured by the king.  Another idea is to have the king move which prevents castling not be the first move of the solution.

In this famous problem by H. Hultberg (1944), the white king castles to prevent Black from castling:
[FEN "r3k2/1p1p2p1/2pP3p/8/8/5R2/PPPP4/4K2R - - - 0 0 "]

White to mate in two moves.
According to chess problem conventions, castling is presumed to be legal unless it's provably illegal. In this position, you can prove that at least one player has lost the right to castle, but you don't know which one. (If the white rook on f3 came from a1, the white king must have moved to let it out. If the rook on f3 is a promoted piece, it must have visited a8, e8, or f8 before escaping the 8th rank, so the black king or rook must have moved.)
1.Rhf1? fails to 1...O-O-O.
1.O-O! and 2.Rf8#, as Black is now unable to castle.

This is an interesting problem. I would like to see a problem where the castling rights are known at the start and castling is the only move that wins and it does so by preventing castling.

I don't understand this problem. How do we know that it's Black who has lost the right to castle, and not White (i.e. the f3-rook came from a1, White can't castle anymore, but Black can)?

@Allure When we first look at the position, we don't know which player has lost the right to castle. After White plays O-O we know it must be Black who has lost the right to castle. I don't blame you if you consider this reasoning to be specious.

Maybe in Schrödinger's chess, but castling rights must be defined before the move takes place

@David there is a convention which says that if you can’t prove whether a castling is legal, you assume that it is. There is another convention which (roughly speaking) says that if there are multiple conflicting castling rights then whoever plays it first can do so

In a comment, the OP asked for a non-retrograde analysis problem in which both castling rights are known, and, for fun, I have done so.
[Title "me, chesstackexchange.com 8/27/2019, Mate In 4"]
[FEN "4k2r/2p1p2p/P1P1P2P/8/8/8/6P1/nn2K2R w Kk - 0 1"]

Clearly, in order to checkmate Black in just four moves, White's pawn must be promoted. However, if White pushes their pawn, then Black will castle and there is no mate! Thus, White must prevent Black from castling  The only way to do that is with their rook.
But if White plays 1. Rf1?, then Black will play 1... Nc2+!, also preventing a mate in time. Therefore, White's only option to prevent Black from castling is to castle themselves-1. 0-0!
Here is a shorter mate in 3 version. It shows the idea much more clearly
[Title "me, chesstackexchange.com 11/5/2019, Mate In 3"]
[FEN "4k2r/4p1p1/1P2P3/1N6/8/8/7P/n3K2R w Kk - 0 1"]

One could argue that White is using the rook, not the king, to prevent Black from castling. Even if the rook arrived on f1 through a king move.

The answer to your puzzle is 1. Kb7 followed by 2. h7 (unless Black throws in a spite check with 1...Rb8+ or 1...Ra7+).


text:
Identify this chess set with heavy painted metal pieces
Could someone please help me identify this chess set?
I purchased this from a flea market because I love the look of it. It now sits in my game room so the paint won't wear off.
I have looked all over each piece using a magnifying glass and cannot find anything that would resemble a Makers Mark or other identifying marks.  The pieces are fairly heavy and feel like they are made of some type of metal yet a magnet does not stick to them.  I have pictures of each of the pieces so I could enlarge them to see better but even doing that I cannot find anything to help me identify this set.  Each of the pieces has a felt covering on the base.  I thought about removing one to see if there is anything to help me but am afraid of causing unnecessary damage.
Please let me know if I can provide any other information - not that I have much more - or any additional photos I can provide in helping with this question.

There are many chess sets with figures that represent the sides in the crusades. I've looked through a couple pages on google and not found anything that exactly matches this set. Is there any information on the chess board itself? Also, have you contacted the person who sold this set at the flea market and asked where they got it from?

Thank you for your response. I agree there are many figured sets on the internet, but so far, none like this set. I did ask the seller for information when I bought it and they said they got it after being hired to clean out someone's home.  I have looked all over the board and removed the drawer the pieces set in and can’t find a thing about this! I went to the library to look up Chess sets throughout the years but, I can’t find anything like this set. I want to learn about it so when asked, I will know what I’m talking about. This has now become my personal quest to identify this set!

Still could be metal though just not iron. No clue as to what the set though.

Some of the colors are a bit different, but that could be age or the nature of being hand painted. Also, you don't say how tall it is. That said, it looks very similar to a Crusaders vs. Saracens set (the link I had here no longer works, but a web search should turn up many similar, if not identical, sets). Based on the information in the now dead link, the set pictured seems to have 5 inch tall kings and is made of "polystone", a material made from crushed stone and polyurethane which is supposed to be durable and provide a heavy feel.

Hello GreenMatt;  Thank you for responding.  I clicked on the link you sent and that is the EXACT set to a capital T.

Sorry, I hit 'enter' and ended the reply.  Anyway, it is awesome now that i have something to read.  I am very surprised at the price!  I paid $10 at a Flea Market and it came with the board with storage drawer.  If I didn't like it so much...$$$ Thank you very much for your information regarding this.

That's a very nice set for display, but if you are interested in playing and maybe even getting better at it as you indicate, you should also investigate obtaining a standard "Staunton" design set since they are the ones normally used in regular play. That provides for uniformity regardless of who and where you play.  If you're unfamiliar with that design, just google it. Inexpensive sets are available for this purpose ($10 or less). Good luck with your journey.


text:
Marshall vs. Queen Endgame
In a game of "Sort of Almost Chess", the variant from Mr. Betza that replaces one of the queens with a Marshall (the Rook+Knight compound, also known as the Chancellor, or the Empress in Fairy Chess circles), this surfaced as a possible endgame that was narrowly avoided by a slightly controversial promotion by Black. The Marshall and Queen are represented in the diagram as Knight and Bishop, respectively (given that they can both move as rooks).
    [Date "2018.06.26"]
[Round "-"]
[White "NN"]
[Black "James"]
[Result "?"]
 [FEN "7B/8/6K1/8/8/1k6/6P1/n7 w - - 0 1"]

Given that Black's to move, I'm wondering if it's possible for either side to get a win from this position. A Black Queen (the promotion that actually took place instead of this position) is a forced win for Black with careful play, and Marshall vs. Marshall is almost certainly a draw, but the similar yet different power of the pieces here makes it a complex problem.

If the piece on h8 is a queen, why not use the queen pictogram instead of a bishop ?

Yeah I’m confused. If rules replace both queens with marshals, how/why is there a bishop representing a queen in the diagram?

Regarding the pictogram, I supposed that if one of the major pieces is going to be wrong, they might as well both be wrong, and hopefully that way people would be reminded of the difference between the two, given that the Marshall isn't a regular piece. Concerning the rules, they replace one of the original Queens with a Marshall -- the other one is still a Queen! In this endgame, though, two pawns were promoted to those that you see on the board.

Since my Stockfish fork for fairy chess variants already supports Almost Chess, I added Sort of Almost Chess with both sides having all promotion options (which is what you seem to imply in your question).
I ran a search on the given position up to depth 50 with the commands below:
setoption name hash value 1024
setoption name multipv value 30
setoption name UCI_Variant value sortofalmost
position fen 7Q/8/6K1/8/8/1k6/6P1/c7 b - - 0 1
go depth 50

The results below state that white is winning (latest in 23 moves) irrespective of black's next move. Going through some of the variations in the output it seems relatively clear that the chancellor has no way to give a perpetual, so white is able to advance the pawn and finally either promote or force the exchange of queen and chancellor.
info depth 50 seldepth 47 multipv 1 score mate -23 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1a4 h8f6 b3a2 f6e6 a2b2 e6e2 b2c1 e2e3 c1c2 g6f7 a4a5 e3e2 c2b3 e2d3 b3a4 d3d4 a4b3 d4b6 b3a4 b6a5 a4a5 g2g4 a5a6 f7f6 a6b7 g4g5 b7a7 g5g6 a7a6 f6e5 a6b5 g6g7 b5c4 g7g8q c4c3 e5e4 c3c2 e4d4 c2b2 d4c4 b2c2 g8g2 c2d1 c4d3 d1e1 g2g1
info depth 50 seldepth 47 multipv 2 score mate -23 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1e1 h8b8 b3a2 b8a7 a2b3 a7b6 b3c4 b6a6 c4b4 a6d6 b4c4 g2g4 e1a1 d6c6 c4b4 c6e4 b4b3 e4d3 b3b2 d3d4 b2a2 d4a1 a2a1 g6f5 a1b2 f5e5 b2b1 g4g5 b1c1 g5g6 c1d1 g6g7 d1e2 g7g8q e2f3 g8b3 f3e2 e5e4 e2f2 e4f4 f2g2 b3c2 g2f1 f4f3 f1e1 c2c1
info depth 50 seldepth 45 multipv 3 score mate -22 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1g1 h8b8 b3c2 b8c7 c2d3 c7d6 d3e4 d6b4 e4d3 g2g4 g1h1 b4d6 d3e3 d6e5 e3f2 e5f4 f2g1 f4c1 g1h2 c1h1 h2h1 g6f5 h1g2 g4g5 g2f2 g5g6 f2f3 g6g7 f3e3 f5e5 e3d3 g7g8q d3e3 g8b3 e3e2 e5e4 e2f2 e4f4 f2g2 b3c2 g2f1 f4f3 f1e1 c2c1
info depth 50 seldepth 45 multipv 4 score mate -22 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1f1 h8f6 f1g3 g6f7 g3h1 g2g4 h1h7 f7g6 h7h3 g4g5 b3a3 g6f7 a3b4 g5g6 h3h6 f7e6 h6g4 g6g7 b4c4 e6f7 g4g1 f6c6 c4d3 c6g6 g1g6 f7g6 d3e4 g6f6 e4f4 g7g8q f4e4 g8c4 e4f3 c4d3 f3g2 d3e2 g2h3 e2f2 h3g4 f2e3 g4h4 f6f5 h4h5 e3h3
info depth 50 seldepth 45 multipv 5 score mate -22 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1d1 h8f6 b3a4 f6c6 a4b4 c6b6 b4c4 g2g4 d1e1 b6d6 e1a1 d6c6 c4b4 c6e4 b4b3 e4d3 b3b2 d3d4 b2b1 d4a1 b1a1 g6f5 a1b2 f5e5 b2b1 g4g5 b1c1 g5g6 c1d1 g6g7 d1e2 g7g8q e2f3 g8b3 f3e2 e5e4 e2f2 e4f4 f2g2 b3c2 g2g1 f4f3 g1h1 c2g2
info depth 50 seldepth 43 multipv 6 score mate -21 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1c1 h8f6 b3a3 f6d6 a3b3 d6d7 c1c5 d7d1 b3a2 d1d2 a2b3 d2e3 b3b4 e3c5 b4c5 g2g4 c5d6 g6f7 d6c6 g4g5 c6d7 g5g6 d7d6 f7f6 d6d5 g6g7 d5e4 g7g8q e4e3 f6e5 e3f3 g8b3 f3e2 e5e4 e2f2 e4f4 f2g2 b3c2 g2g1 f4f3 g1h1 c2g2
info depth 50 seldepth 43 multipv 7 score mate -20 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1a6 h8f6 a6a4 g6f5 b3a2 f6e6 a2a1 e6e1 a1a2 e1d2 a2a3 d2d3 a3b4 d3e4 b4b5 e4a4 b5a4 g2g4 a4a3 f5e5 a3b2 g4g5 b2b1 g5g6 b1c1 g6g7 c1d2 e5e4 d2c2 e4d4 c2b3 g7g8q b3b2 d4c4 b2c2 g8g2 c2d1 c4d3 d1e1 g2g1
info depth 50 seldepth 41 multipv 8 score mate -20 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1c2 h8b8 b3a2 b8a8 a2b3 a8d5 b3b2 d5e4 c2c1 e4b4 b2c2 b4c5 c2b1 c5c1 b1c1 g2g4 c1d2 g6f5 d2d1 g4g5 d1e2 g5g6 e2e3 g6g7 e3e2 f5e5 e2e3 g7g8q e3f3 g8b3 f3e2 e5e4 e2f2 e4f4 f2g2 b3c2 g2g1 f4f3 g1h1 c2g2
info depth 50 seldepth 39 multipv 9 score mate -19 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1a5 h8b8 b3a2 b8d6 a5a4 d6d5 a2a3 d5d3 a3b2 d3b5 b2a3 b5a4 a3a4 g6f6 a4b5 g2g4 b5b6 g4g5 b6a7 g5g6 a7a6 f6e5 a6b5 g6g7 b5c4 g7g8q c4c3 e5e4 c3c2 e4d4 c2b2 d4c4 b2c2 g8g2 c2d1 c4d3 d1e1 g2g1
info depth 50 seldepth 31 multipv 10 score mate -15 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1a3 h8h3 b3b4 h3a3 b4a3 g2g4 a3b4 g4g5 b4c5 g6f6 c5c6 g5g6 c6d6 g6g7 d6c5 f6e5 c5c4 g7g8q c4c3 e5e4 c3c2 e4d4 c2b2 d4c4 b2c2 g8g2 c2d1 c4d3 d1e1 g2g1
info depth 50 seldepth 31 multipv 11 score mate -15 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1a2 h8g8 b3b2 g8a2 b2a2 g2g4 a2b3 g4g5 b3b4 g6f5 b4b5 f5e5 b5b6 g5g6 b6c5 g6g7 c5c4 g7g8q c4c3 e5e4 c3c2 e4d4 c2b2 d4c4 b2c2 g8g2 c2d1 c4d3 d1e1 g2g1
info depth 50 seldepth 31 multipv 12 score mate -15 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1b1 h8b8 b3c2 b8b1 c2b1 g2g4 b1c2 g4g5 c2d3 g6f5 d3e2 g5g6 e2e3 g6g7 e3e2 f5e5 e2e3 g7g8q e3f3 g8b3 f3e2 e5e4 e2f2 e4f4 f2g2 b3c2 g2g1 f4f3 g1h1 c2g2
info depth 50 seldepth 29 multipv 13 score mate -14 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv b3a2 h8a1 a2a1 g2g4 a1b2 g4g5 b2a1 g6f6 a1b1 g5g6 b1a2 g6g7 a2b2 g7g8q b2c2 g8g3 c2b2 f6e5 b2a2 e5d4 a2b2 g3c3 b2a2 c3b4 a2a1 d4c3 a1a2 b4b2
info depth 50 seldepth 21 multipv 14 score mate -10 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1a7 h8b8 a7b7 b8b7 b3c4 g6f5 c4c5 f5e5 c5c4 b7f3 c4b5 f3c3 b5a6 e5d6 a6a7 c3b2 a7a8 d6c6 a8a7 b2b7
info depth 50 seldepth 19 multipv 15 score mate -9 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1h1 h8h1 b3c3 h1h4 c3b3 h4d4 b3c2 g6f5 c2b3 f5e4 b3a3 e4d3 a3b3 d4b6 b3a2 d3c2 a2a1 b6b1
info depth 50 seldepth 19 multipv 16 score mate -9 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv a1a8 h8a8 b3b4 a8c6 b4b3 c6b5 b3c2 g6f5 c2d2 f5e4 d2c3 e4e3 c3c2 b5b4 c2c1 e3d3 c1d1 b4b1
info depth 50 seldepth 17 multipv 17 score mate -8 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv b3b4 h8a1 b4c4 g6f5 c4d3 a1a4 d3e2 a4d4 e2f1 f5g4 f1e2 g4g3 e2e1 g3f3 e1f1 d4a1
info depth 50 seldepth 17 multipv 18 score mate -8 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv b3a3 h8a1 a3b3 a1d4 b3c2 g6f5 c2b3 f5e4 b3a3 e4d3 a3b3 d4b6 b3a2 d3c2 a2a1 b6b1
info depth 50 seldepth 17 multipv 19 score mate -8 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv b3c2 h8a1 c2d3 g6f5 d3c4 a1a4 c4d3 f5f4 d3c3 f4e3 c3b2 e3d3 b2b1 d3c3 b1c1 a4a1
info depth 50 seldepth 17 multipv 20 score mate -8 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv b3a4 h8a1 a4b3 a1d4 b3c2 g6f5 c2b3 f5e4 b3a3 e4d3 a3b3 d4b6 b3a2 d3c2 a2a1 b6b1
info depth 50 seldepth 17 multipv 21 score mate -8 nodes 860106805 nps 1814762 hashfull 355 tbhits 0 time 473950 pv b3c4 h8a1 c4b3 a1d4 b3c2 g6f5 c2b3 f5e4 b3a3 e4d3 a3b3 d4b6 b3a2 d3c2 a2a1 b6b1


text:
What is the right defensive set-up for the King-Bishop_Rook trio in the diagrammed position?
It's Black's move in the diagram.
In a recent correspondence game I managed to win an exchange at a cost of weakening my kingside a little bit. In the diagrammed position the g-pawn is missing and the White queen is lurking around. You also see the dark-squared bishop as a potentially aggressive resource for white. Seeing all of this coming my question was:
1. What are the right squares for the king?
2. Should I push my h-pawn to h6? (I will probably have to play e6 to protect f5, so, Bg5-f6 is a threat.
3. Do I put my rook on g-file? In the actual game I did, but that ended up smothering my king in the corner and for a long time to come gave tactical traps to my opponent.
Is there a general guide for how to defend such weakened structures? Like how to cover up for a missing h-pawn, or g-pawn, or f-pawn?
Thanks for your time.

[fen "5rk1/2q1ppbp/p1p5/2N1Pp2/8/2PP2Q1/P1P3PP/1rB2RK1 b - - 0 1"]

1...Qxe5 2. Qxe5 Bxe5 3. Nd7 Bxc3 4. Nxf8 Bd4+ 5. Kh1 Be3

FYI: I can't take on e5 due to the exchange followed by knight fork :(

Most answers are addressing the tactics in the specific position so lets say White's pawn is already on d4;  Now you don't have tactical defensive resources around Qxe5 and we can answer your general questions:

Yes, the king should go to h8.
You don't want to sit in the pin and you have to deal with Bh6 threat.  white doesn't have enough forces to target the h7 pawn and his knight is going to take a while to assist any kingside activity.
Yes, Rg8. Your rook becomes much more active on the g-file! and can possibly deploy to g6 or g4 etc.
No, you don't need a pawn on h6 and yes you need to defend f5 with e6 at some point.  Bg5-f6 is nothing if your king is on h8 and rook on g8.

Thank you, that was the answer I wanted. Actually computer does the similar maneuver. In the game I did the above but unfortunately included h6 which cost me the game. I was stupid, it gave white a target, I moved INTO attack voluntarily. White queen came to h5 and forced me to return the exchange by taking on c1. You may find the game here: https://www.chess.com/daily/game/197498164

You forgot to say who has the move in the given position. This is always important.
For example, here if White has the move, he can attack with 1.Bh6, and he will be up a piece.
So we can assume that Black has the move.
In that case he had better play 1...Kh8 to avoid White's attack with 2.Bh6. This move also frees Black's bishop, so White should probably defend the pawn with 2.d4 and Black will probably need to play 2...Rg8. This already answers a couple of your questions (the king needs to go to h8, and the rook will go to g8).
But I leave the other points to better players...

It may also be worth noting that pushing h6 doesn't prevent Bxh6.

How do you defend f5 then? And what about that mention of Rg8 suffocating the king in the corner?

@BehnamEsmayli After 2...Rg8, the f5 pawn is not under attack yet, because the white Rook is busy protecting the Bishop. White probably wants to remove the Queen from the g-file, to avoid discovered attack from the black Rook. He might move the Queen to a square where it attacks f5, for example 3.Qd3, and in that case Black will probably need to defend with 3...e6. I think Black is doing fine here.

When you say that your king is suffocating, are you worried about pressure on h7? White needs many moves before he can attack h7 with two pieces, and the two pieces are probably Queen and Rook. In this case, ...Bf8 and ...Rg7 should hold.

It is not about "holding" or being fine. I need an advantage for Black.

[fen "5rk1/2q1ppbp/p1p5/2N1Pp2/8/2PP2Q1/P1P3PP/1rB2RK1 b - - 0 1"]

1...Qxe5 2. Qxe5 Bxe5 3. Nd7 Bxc3 4. Nxf8 Bd4+ 5. Kh1 Be3

Due to the pin on the 1st rank, black wins a piece with a won game.  Although the end game is difficult, it's better than passively hiding.

Since we're close to an end game, the right place for the king is in the center.
If more pieces were on the board, I would go with a plan of Kh8; e6; h6; Kh7.  This would limit the white dark square bishop.
The rook on the g-file doesn't accomplish anything.  No other piece can assist in any attack.  The only active place would be on b1 via b8, after you protect against a knight fork on a6.

A general rule-of-thumb is that when under attack to return material to weaken the attacking force.  One that I use is to return material to simplify into a won end game.  That is, if I have a queen and pawn versus a rook, I exchange the queen for the rook to get a won pawn end game.
Most books are written for the fun part of chess--the attack.  However, by assessing the needs of the position, you can find defensive moves.  Here the most important element is to stop Bh6 and mate next.  Kh8 must be played; f6 looks too artificial and just kills your pawn structure.  The next step would be to both protect f5 and fix the weakness on e5 (the weakness is not the pawn but that it blocks the bishop), but white's first move is most likely d4 to protect e5, which makes a new threat on a6--it was protected earlier by a queen fork.  (BTW, we'd like to keep the pin on e5 until we can fix it with e6, so protecting the a-pawn would be done by a5, even though Qa5 seems to win an pawn.  Finally, h6 and Kh7, if you can manage these move, would restrict white's bishop further.
This seems like a long post, but I barely scratched the surface.

Actually, I am not sure about the line you propose. After 1... Qxe5 2. Qxe5 Bxe5 3. Nd7 Bxc3 4. Nxf8 Bd4+ 5. Kh1 Be3, Black is not up a piece, as you say. 6.Nd7, material is even, and where is Black's advantage? I think in this way the advantage evaporates.

I should have said wins the piece back.  Black has an extra pawn and a bishop vs. knight end game.  This end game is won for black, although it is difficult.

Still not clear. After 6.Nd7, do you self-pin with 6...Bxc1, give back the extra pawn with 6...Rxc1 7.Rxc1 Bxc1 8.Nb8, or postpone the capture on c1 ? In no case is it clear to me that Black would be better, even less than "This end game is won for black".


text:
En Passant Checkmate
I made a check with a pawn that was subject to an en passant movement.
The check led to a checkmate, but the rules at chess.com didn't count it as a checkmate but let the opponent make his move. He took the pawn with his pawn with an en passant movement.
It seemed a bit strange to me because, I thought that in this case the check mate would be valid, and I wonder what happens in the case the opponent plays some other piece, does the checkmate become valid?
Or he is obliged (no other move allowed) to make the "en passant" movement even in the possibility he is not aware of the en-passant type of movement? (In this case I suppose the game is won, anyway)
My idea is that the rule is wrong in this case, the check mate should be counted as valid even if the idea of the en passant is that the movement ends at the time the opponent plays, but I think in this case the king is dead.

It is not checkmate if the other player has any legal move that gets them out of check. Capturing the checking piece is one such way; whether the capture is en passant or not is irrelevant for the purpose of this question.
In this case, an en passant capture is the only legal move. If the other player didn't know the en passant rule, I suppose they might lose on time unless they figure out what's going on first. Using a website such as chess.com one might be able to discover the rule accidentally, since clicking on a piece normally highlights all the possible moves for that piece.
Regarding your question of "what happens in the case the opponent plays some other piece", that would be an illegal move. A site such as chess.com simply won't allow it. In an over-the-board tournament, the consequence may vary: in blitz, the player who makes the illegal move loses; in long games, the move gets retracted and a time penalty is applied, at least for a first offense.

If White had a pawn on f4 instead of f5, would it be considered checkmate? The answer in both cases is no, since in both cases White can validly capture Black's g-pawn. There is no legal difference between performing a regular capture or capturing via en passant.
If your opponent wasn't aware of the en passant move, then you'd probably win the game via the clock :)

In this particular position White would have a choice between a normal capture (fxg5 or Rxg5) and an e.p. capture (hxg6).

@Noam D. Elkies Note though that my answer didn't limit "regular capture" to only pawn captures :)

If you take the privilege of being able to move the pawn 2 squares, you must also accept the qualification that the pawn can be captured en passant. These two rules work together. Your footsoldier leapt past an enemy footsoldier who could stab you on the way past ("en passant") so yours was dead before he landed if the enemy took this option. A dead soldier can't check.
"Stabbing on the way past" is a retrospective choice, but once the pawn has been confirmed as having safely landed ( by a different move from the enemy ) it is just like any other pawn.

That is not a checkmate. The opponent is right in taking the offending pawn en passant.


text:
Studies on how people really improve at chess?
How do people really improve at chess?
I often hear people say that any of the following will improve a player's ability:

Doing tactics puzzles
Playing more games
Playing bullet games
Playing longer games
Playing correspondence games
Memorizing openings
Analyzing own games
Reading chess books

Sometimes I hear a specific example like "I've been doing tactics puzzles since last year and it has improved my understanding significantly", and then I ask for their lichess name, and I check it, and their rating has been extremely steady for the last 3 years.
Often these kinds of suggestions seem at first to be anecdotal, but even anecdotes would be true. These are worse than anecdotes because they are not based in reality.
Is there some scientific study of GMs and their history to find out exactly the key points that made them great? Or some study of kids over time with different training techniques and comparison of rating changes to see what works and what doesn't?
As far as I can tell, the thing GMs have in common is that they all had strong chess coaches when they were kids and became very strong players by the time they were 15 or younger.

People often discourage #3, 4, and 6.  I've seen studies between chess players vs. non-player, mostly by Dr. Ferguson.  I'm trying to find his method; this may help.

The closest thing there is to a long term study from child to gm of training techniques would be the polgar sisters. I'd advise searching for information on them to answer your question. Also I'm sure old soviet literature is full of ways to train chess GMs, they specialized in that for many years and had quite a few methods they thought optimally trained young players.
Anecdotally I can tell you from 2000 to 2200 I trained 2 hr 45 minutes on average each day, studying at minimum 10 chess tempo tactics, 3 recent gm games, a gm game of guess the move on chesstempo, and 1 15+ minute game on ICC a day with about an hour spent afterwards studying related games and opening lines. I also participated in an endgame club for about 4 months that year, read through Dvoretskys Endgame Manual, and Endgame Strategy by Mikhail Shereshevsky. At the beginning of that year (first 3 months) I also read through Winning Chess Middlegames by Ivan Sokolov.
For the first 10 months I gained maybe 50 rating points over 3 tournaments. I gained 150 points in 2 tournaments in the last two months.
I think this level of training could probably net 400 points in a year at lower levels, so long as young trainees were given optimum resources to practice with. Often times people use books that are either not suited to their level, don't address their weaknesses, or simple aren't very good. Also people have a tendency to play a lot of blitz or do things they find easy, but not the optimal things for improving their strength.
/end anecdote


text:
Evaluation of this alternative to French exchange lines
I am a French Defense opening player from both sides. I don't like exchange line of the French Defense. They are drawish positions and my brain gets bored resulting in a positional or small mistake.
I have never played it at a 90+30 FIDE rated games, and I know the engine says this is not good at all. Anyhow I have played c5 with black several times on blitz, and I still do it.
The level of the players I play against rounds the range 1650-1900. There are some tricks if white don't plays well. Sometimes, especially for the players with lower rating. d4 or d5 pawns get pinned and become a trouble.
Should I stop playing it?
rnbqkbnr/pp3ppp/4p3/2pP4/3P4/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq c6 0 4

I think I should have played this following line some dozens of times, having good results with black at blitz at a level 1650-1800.
[FEN ""]
[Date "2018.07.29"]
[Round "-"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 c5 4. dxe6 Bxe6 5. Bb5+ Nc6 6. Nf3 Qa5+ 7. Nc3 O-O-O *

Less frequent, but sometimes they fall, I recover the pawn, and there is misdevelopment. eg:
[FEN ""]
[Date "2018.07.29"]
[Round "-"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 c5 4. dxc5 Bxc5 5. dxe6 Bxf2+ 6. Ke2 Qxd1+ 7. Kxd1
Bxe6 *

At some of the games I played -note it is blitz- they have clear they wanted an exchange and they just do not try to profit white's advantages. Then I like to have my pawn at c5 and accept the exchange and avoid the gambit variation.
[FEN ""]
[Date "2018.07.29"]
[Round "-"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 c5 4. Nf3 exd5 *

Done. If I remeber more lines I will add them. I don't know how to quit those blank spaces. If someone please can edit and explain me what I did wrong it would be helpful if I post more diagrams. I have asked too at a comment on the meta post. thanks in advance

I should have posted if this is acurated for blitz at a medium level, but I have seen some troubles after changing the tittle of an answered question.

This gambit looks extremely dubious since you give a central pawn, White has played only developing moves and she has no weakness.
Besides the unassuming 4.Nf3, insisting on an exchange French, you could be worried about:

4.Nc3, transposing into the rare Marshall French (3.Nc3 c5?! 4.ed5). It is considered to favour White. The very slight plus side for you is that since White has played 3.ed5, he might not be too familiar with this line.
4.c4, when after 4...ed5 the very open position means that the extra tempo will probably be valuable.
4.de6, grabing the pawn in exchange for a single developing tempo. After 4...Be6 5.Nf3 there is no doubt that Black's compensation is unsufficient.
4.Bb5+, probably the most critical, accepting the challenge. After 4...Bd7, any of 5.Nc3, 5.a4 a6?! 6.Bc4 and 5.Qe2 make sense.

All in all, you can use this line in online blitz in you like to (but I wouldn't). However I consider it totally unsuitable for 'serious' chess with rapid or classical time controls.

I don't see the point of saccing a pawn for no reason. The exchange french can lead to sharp positions, in fact as white I play exchange french when trying to win as well. Perhaps you need to study the opening a bit more before jumping to conclusions.
I would castle long, and pawn race on opposite sides of the board.

My initial reaction is that as white I'm going to play Bb5+ followed by de and ef+ if you let me. I might even be prepared to sacrifice the bishop on b5. Your king is going to be very exposed.

I think Bb5 is stokfish move. But I migth have a win ratio because they get stumped at blitz. To be frank I said 1650-1900 but that is my range of oponnnets. For +1800 I just play the exchange most of times.

Is this your sac @Brian Towers ? I find it nice for blitz but stockfish says black is winning i.stack.imgur.com/DJgCw.png Stockfish plays dxc6 I realized. But at a blitz game at my level that looks to me complex to refute, knowing there is sure refutation and is probably not at any chess book. Looks like playing a Smith-Morra with white, nice for blitz.

I I also find it interesting that black is winning according to stock fish, but it looks  hard to play in Blitz. If u sac the bishop on b5 then you have ef7+ followed by Qh5+ and Qf3+ which threatens b7 and consequently the black bishop on b5, rook on a8, and not to mention you have recovered yet another pawn back.

@Universal_learner At blitz I would not be able to resist the temptation to sacrifice the bishop. It looks like a lot of fun. At standard I would have a long think and then it would depend on the game and my mood. In a team match I might not be very popular if I gambitted and lost :-).

the problem I see of taking on b7 -after Qf3+ is Bc6 and g2 pawn falls loosing material @Isac


text:
Is the dead position problem solvable?
In chess, there are some dead positions (FIDE Laws of Chess).

5.2.2 The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal
moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately
ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in
accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7

Arbiters or players will terminate the game OTB, but is it possible to have computer solutions for dead position detection? If it is, then how?

@J.Doe The position you posted in another comment (in a deleted answer) is a dead position because it is a forced stalemate. We should also consider positions in which both sides have spare moves but no possible way of checkmate, like a totally closed pawn chain with all white pawns on squares of the same color, all black pawns on squares of the opposite color, and a bishop per side running on squares of the same color as its own pawns. These are positions very difficult to automatically declare dead by software, because of the loops.

The rule terminates the game. Arbiters or players on the other hand may not. See Topolov-Nakamura 2016 and my comment there.

Luckily it doesn't make a lot of difference if a dead position is missed because it will necessarily be a draw anyway. A  position incorrectly diagnosed dead is a different matter.

Conceivably it could make a difference in actual play
if one side runs out of time in a dead position.

Computer detection of dead positions is much trickier than people think. It is unlikely that an algorithm exists that runs in reasonable time and is 100% accurate.
It is easy to check for a simple condition like insufficient material (K+B v K, K+N v K). It is less easy to check for cases with blocked pawns, for instance:
2b1k3/8/8/1p1p1p1p/1P1P1P1P/8/8/2B1K3 w - - 0 1

since there are a lot of legal moves to check. Computers aren't based on intuition like humans: you'd have to enumerate every single possible continuation for up to 150 ply without pawn moves/captures (those reset the counter) and check that none of them end up in checkmate for either side.
You could try other tricks, like trying to store the positions reached in a tree and checked that none of the reachable positions are mate. That's only 76176 positions for the example I gave, but you'd need to check that the tree is indeed exhaustive - i.e. every legal move in every position must be tried. That's not going to be efficient.
You could also try to invent some arbitrary heuristics to help your algorithm, like checking for blocked pawns and same coloured bishops. The problem with this approach is that sometimes the heuristics are wrong, or they aren't general enough. (Brian Tower's answer is an example of an attempted heuristic, but in the comments user17439 shows it fails to flag some dead positions and I show it incorrectly flags a non-dead position.)
And I would love to see any heuristic or algorithm that can distinguish between the following positions (problem by Andrew Buchanan, StrateGems 2002)
Dead:
Bb1k1b2/bKp1p1p1/1pP1P1P1/1P6/p5P1/P7/8/8 w - - 0 1

Alive:
Bb1k1b2/bKp1p1p1/1pP1P1P1/pP6/6P1/P7/8/8 w - - 0 1

The second position is alive since mate is possible after
1.Ka6 Ke8 2.Bb7 Kd8 3.Bc8 Ke8 4.Bd7+ Kd8 5.Be8 Kc8 6.Bf7 Kd8 7.Bg8 Ke8 8.Kb7 Kd8 9.g5 Ke8 10.Kc8 a4 11.Bf7#

In sum, I do not believe you can have an algorithm that is 100% accurate in distinguishing between dead and alive positions that runs in reasonable time. Brute force is the only 100% reliable method, but it is definitely not efficient. You can get a decent success rate for "practical" positions with heuristics, but it will not be 100% accurate, even for real game positions.

I agree that in general you can't make a simple enough rule that works 100% of time. Although a sufficient one for all these 3 problems can be pretty simple: figure out which tiles are reachable for all pieces you have left. This should be pretty manageable in terms of runtime. If there is overlap between black king and white non-king pieces, position may be still alive. To eliminate 2nd as dead, simply note that only king and bishop overlap with black's king. As bishop takes just 1 tile from king, black king needs to not move to get checkmated - which isn't possible in 2nd case.

Luckily, if the position repeats even once (you need twofold repetition, not threefold), then you can cut that branch.

Is it not possible to use some slightly involved heuristic to determine whether the position is “clearly alive” or “clearly dead”, and only fall back to brute‐forcing if neither of those two match? Generally, positions that are “difficult to determine” tend to be very constrained and have very few possible moves available, so brute‐forcing (using a table) shouldn’t take too long, I imagine.

Miguel Ambrona's program does distinguish between these two positions, and correctly assigns all other positions that it's been given. It amazes me

Miguel Ambrona’s CHA solver “Chess Unwinnability Analyzer” (GitHub repo, white paper) is an efficient solution to this problem. It uses an incomplete algorithm to analyse positions and determine whether there is a possible checkmate by either side, optionally falling back to a slower, more thorough “brute force” analysis when the incomplete algorithm isn’t able to conclude whether a checkmate is possible with certainty.
In practice, the thorough search only ends up being necessary for constrained positions where there are few moves available for each side, so even then it ends up being fast.
From the paper:

Definition (Unwinnability) We say that a position is unwinnable for a given player if there does not exists a sequence of legal moves that ends in a checkmate by the player.
Note that the above definition focuses on whether a specific player can still win, typically the player whose opponent ran out of time. Concluding that a position is dead would require two individual analyses, one for each player as the intended winner.
[…]

I would expect that it is a good bit easier to write a program that is good at detecting dead positions than to write a program that plays chess well.
A simple strategy may be to play out a large number of games randomly to the end starting from the position given. If the position is dead, none of the playouts will have a result different from draw. If on the other hand the position is not dead, the probability that one playout discovers a helpmate (it need not be the shortest one) approaches one as the number of playouts tends to infinity.
In practical terms, I would conservatively expect a well-optimized random mover to be able to reach on the order of ten million playouts per second on a single core of a modern CPU. Under this assumption, 100 million random playouts per second are not unreasonable on a current PC. If we allow roughly a minute for resolution of a position as dead or alive, we can therefore probably do a few billion playouts and hence fairly reliably detect any helpmate that is found with likelihood more than, say, one in one billion under a random playout policy.
Edited: This simple strategy is likely not enough to practically solve cases like Remellion's example further up in this thread.
Nonetheless, the point stands that an algorithm that declares a position to be dead when no helpmate can be found within some computational budget will only return a wrong answer if the position contains a helpmate it cannot find. In that sense, the decision problem for dead positions is at most as hard as the problem of finding helpmates. There are good helpmate solvers and they have no trouble solving e.g. the "alive" position given by Remellion (see for instance this online solver ).

When you say play out a large number of games to the end, how do you define end? E.g. in @Remellion's first position.

Or, simpler, this position? FEN:4k3/8/8/8/8/8/8/4K3 w - - 0 1

Obviously a helpmate solver that will reliably run in sufficiently quick time and use sufficiently little storage would be the answer OP is looking for. To be confidently used a proof of the time and storage requirements would be necessary. You say that they cope with the alive position given by Remellion, but how long do the take to annnounce "no solution" for the two dead positions in my previous comments?

I am not sure exactly which question the OP has asked. There are various degrees to "solving" the problem of dead position detection. The hardest might be something like decide aliveness for any legal position and output a short proof of death along with a proof of legality, while refusing (with proof) illegal positions. Easiest would be something like "decide aliveness quickly with lower error rate than a human arbiter for positions that may arise in games".

My argument would show something like "Ability to quickly supply short proof of liveness for many positions that are hard for humans, ability to correctly classify as dead all dead positions". I would not be too pessimistic that helpmate solvers could get to a point where it becomes infeasible to construct a legal alive position they can't solve (which is of course less than nonexistence of such difficult helpmates), but I could be wrong about that, of course. I would be pessimistic about exact proof (not necessarily short) for all dead positions, but could be wrong about that as well.

I think the answer is probably not. In fact I would say that the introduction of the dead position rule to replace the previous draw by insufficient material was a mistake. (Btw why did FIDE excise the draw by insufficient material rule when they introduced the dead position rule but not the stalemate rule?)
The following position is dead under FIDE competition rules because there is no legal continuation that will result in mate before the game terminates under the 75 move rule.
7k/3N4/5K2/6B1/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

White to play. Ply count field in FEN 146.
The following position is also dead if the position (as defined in the 5 fold repetition rule) that would occur after Kf7 has already occurred four times previously.
7k/3N4/5K2/6B1/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

White to play. Ply count field in FEN 144.
The arbiter (and any software seeking to solve the dead position problem) needs to keep track of possible helpmates taking both the 75 move rule and 5 fold repetition rules into account.
How do arbiters cope? The answer of course is they don't. The following game actually terminated in a dead position with White's move 132, but was recorded as a draw under the 75 move rule after Black's move 132 (which wasn't actually part of the game).
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1825274
For software to cope it would require helpmate EGTBs.
Since helpmates are generally shorter than forced mates these would possibly take less computation than the existing forced mate variants under FIDE basic rules (which now exclude any n move or n fold repetition rules) but the fact is there are also many more positions where helpmates are possible and forced mates are not, so the storage requirement would be much greater.
Under FIDE competition rules the EGTBs would need to store helpmate lengths under a DTZ75 metric for all possible combinations of positions that have been repeated four times and both the computation and storage requirements would greatly exceed those required for the current forced mate EGTBs.
I would also class the following position as dead according to the FIDE rules. (There is nothing in the FIDE rules that states that a position can become dead only as a result of a move being 'made' under art 4.7 and before a piece is touched as in art 4.3 by the player who then has the move - indeed on my reading the two events may be simultaneous.)
k6K/8/6PR/7P/8/8/8/1R6 w - - 0 1

White to play. White has touched the h6 rook.
Of course if the solution is required only for computer "chess" the solution could ignore such positions, because computer "chess" never properly implements art 4. But if the solution were intended as an aid to arbiters or chess players then these situations would also need to be taken into account (whether under basic or competition rules).

To my best knowledge (and I only recently made my national arbiter license), assume in your last position you add a bPh7 and White loses on time before completing the forced Rxh7. Still 0-1, touch-move is NOT relevant for the "future".

@Hauke Reddmann Art 5.2.2 is The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.* Immediately White touches the h6 rook the rule applies (whether or not there is a black pawn on h7 as far as I can see) and the position is dead at that point. So I'm struggling to follow your comment.

@Hauke Reddmann Time doesn't enter into it. The rule says neither player can checkmate the opponent's king, time is not involved (not even under competition rules).

@Hauke Reddmann I don't have an arbiter's license, but I would still question your evaluation of the score should the flag fall in the circumstances you posit. Art 6.9 says Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by thatplayer. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves. The last sentence would appear to apply even ignoring the dead position rule.

The first position is a bad example because in all realistic situations it would have already been drawn via the 50-move rule. The current rules are the best rules that apply properly in most reasonable situations. The previous rulesets that used to be in place also came with their (worse) shortcomings. For instance, under United States Chess Federation rules, there are some positions where a player has forced mate but you can get a draw by letting the clock run out

@David In fact games very often continue many moves past the point where a draw could have been claimed under the 50 move rule even if one side is obviously losing.

@David The dead position rule says nothing about realism and realism would probably not be taken into account in any software solution. But you might prefer this FEN:2n5/8/8/4N3/8/3K4/1k4B1/2b5 w - - 148 1 The reason I think the dead position rule was a mistake is that there is no simple algorithm given for determining if a position is dead or not. That strikes me as a non rule. Of course what I said doesn't apply under USCF rules anyway because the dead rule is claimable under those rules. I'm assuming that the question is aimed at internationally accepted rules rather than local variants.

@MartinRattigan All FIDE-sanctioned events must have a human arbiter, so how well computers can implement the rules is not a matter of consideration when making the rulebook. The types of situations that can arise in practice are though, and a position that has played for 70+ moves without captures or pawn moves is something that will never happpen in a tournament game.

@David I agree that how well computers can implement the rules should not be a consideration in formulating the rules (whether for formal or informal games). For an examples of games that went on for 70+ moves without captures or pawn moves see https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1268705 or https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1861167 or https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1861167 or https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1825274

The first of those games was played before the 75 move rule was introduced, so perhaps not relevant. The last three were adjudicated draws under the 75 move rule, but the last reached a dead position one half move previously without the arbiter noticing.

Sorry, I put Yudasin-Erenburg in twice in my first post. The third game should have been https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1959810 .

@David It's my fault for commenting on the dead position rule in my answer, but a discussion of what the rules should be is getting a little off topic. OP asked if a computer solution could be found for the "dead position problem".

@MartinRattigan I still fail to see what's so "wrong" about those examples. All I see is the rules being applied as they should, while the previous ruleset was a mess and sometimes led to controversy

@David I didn't say there was anything wrong about my examples nor the games I posted with the exception of Topalov-Nakamura where the dead position rule was not being applied as it should.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Am I missing something about the KBNvK endgame positions? I think they're mate in half a dozen moves...

@Glorfindel  7k/3N4/5K2/6B1/8/8/8/8 is a #3  (1. Kf7 Kh7 2. Sf8+ Kh8 3. Bf6#) as well as h#3 ( 1. Kg8 Ke6 2. Kg7 Nf6  3. Kf8 Bh6#  )  ... so there certainly seems to be paths to mate.  I would have expected at least one of the commenters to catch that. But position 1 and position 2 seem to be expected to be different ... ? So perhaps they are not the original positions?

IMO when you lose on time, you can challenge the arbiter (or your opponent), and they have to prove that the position is winnable from their side.

@Glorfindel You're probably missing the fact that a game under FIDE competition rules terminates when the ply count reaches 150 or before. Both positions are White to play so your second example doesn't apply. Your first example needs 5 ply so the game would terminate without mate from ply count 146. Mate in 3 can be achieved only with 1.Kf7 so if the position with that move had already occurred four times mate again could not be achieved because 1.Kf7 would terminate the game under the 5-fold repetition rule. The positions are not dead under FIDE basic rules.

Ah, now do I understand the meaning of 'ply count' - it might be worthwhile to [edit] the answer to make that a little bit clearer.

@Ferazhu Depends on whether you're playing FIDE or USCF rules, but in neither case does the player make the challenge; it's the arbiter's task to decide. Under FIDE rules he has to decide if the position is half dead and mostly the same under USCF rules but in some cases e.g. KNNvKNN the arbiter is tasked with deciding if there is a forced mate. In that case if you don't know how to play the ending and your opponent does, you do best to go for coffee and eventually let the arbiter play it for you.

@Glorfindel Yes, will do. Second time in a week or so my use has been misunderstood, so I should be more specific.

Detecting for insufficient materials for checkmate is super easy. Just get the FEN position, and look for the number of pieces remaining and what they are.
The second solution requires enumerating all possibilities until a certain depth. If there is really no legal way to make progress, the variations will quickly repeat. A modern laptop should have the memory to do it.

There are two classes of dead position (positions from which helpmate is impossible)

Insufficient material
Positions where both pawn moves are impossible and future captures are also impossible

The first is trivial to program. The second less so but I think still possible. Checking for possible pawn moves is straightforward. Checking for possible future piece captures is less straightforward but should still be possible.


text:
Which chess rules cover Internet play?
From FIDE Laws of Chess:

FIDE Laws of Chess cover over-the-board play.

So, which rules cover Internet chess play?

Each individual site will have their own rules, although many of them will be the same.
I haven't played online in years, so I can't list specifics, but I know the rating systems are different from site to site.

I think FIDE Online Arena rules, but I cannot find them in a written form.