The Chess Variant Pages

Check out Marseillais Chess, our featured variant for February, 2024.

[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Later Reverse Order EarlierEarliest
Chess. The rules of chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Jon Liberty wrote on Mon, Mar 28, 2022 05:30 AM UTC:

heres a FEN from detective conan season 6 episode 136-137 Ive tried all over with several engines but I cant find a winning play for white.

I'm hoping someone out there can. (not by a stupid play from black but a perfect play by white...)

thank you so much to anyone who tries

.I'm almost certain the game is unplayable as the original may hold both black bishops on black and also holds 9 pawns for black but this is my playable FEN for the board in the episode afformentioned.)

Thanks again, happy analysis to you all.

3Q4/B1ppkp2/1r2P1p1/1p4pQ/1n1p2b1/2bq2R1/1prn2K1/4N3 b - - 0 1

(My play above, the original below, I hope for any contribution and saves of games shared <3) if there is request Ill uplaod anaysis of the attempts and engines I've used for my play as I havnt done any play yet on the origninal. (3Q4/B1ppkp2/1r2P1p1/1p4pQ/1b1p2n1/2bq1rR1/1ppn2K1/4N3 b - - 0 1)

Kevin Pacey wrote on Tue, Jan 18, 2022 04:08 PM UTC:

Is chess [still] important? An older member of my chess club once opined in the new millennium that chess is no longer as important as before. I didn't ask what he meant. To me, chess reached its high mark in the 1970's, mainly with the Geo-political stakes involved in the Fischer-Spassky match, and later the Karpov-Korchnoi one. Chess was also important back then since it was seen as a test for AI whether a machine can beat a highly skilled human player at the game. Chess suffered to some degree because of what followed historically, in both cases.

These days, one Googles 'why is chess important' and the top answers that come up have only to do with the benefits of chess to students and/or children. Does anyone see any other meaningful reasons why chess might be viewed as important in modern times?

edit: I also posted the above on a Canadian Chess (CFC) message board. A reply by Aris Marghetis went: "If I may humbly suggest, chess serves as an inspiration: people of all kinds of differences being able to come together to compete, to create, to enjoy.

I'm not aware of any other single activity that can be played across all kinds of divisions that humanity has created, maintains, etc. Chess is universal!"

Kevin Pacey wrote on Mon, Jul 22, 2019 02:52 AM UTC:

Hi H.G.:

Chess Assistant16 doesn't provide the engine that it used for evaluations, regrettably. However I experimented in another way (though not as you would prefer), using Houdini3 (released 2012) as an engine instead. In the exact position in the line culminating with 9.Qc2-c3 that I gave, after some considerable time to look, Houdini3 evaluates the position as 0.15 (or "+=/="), somewhat better than the 0.04 of CA16's engine (as an aside, a disbelieving master friend dared me to play this line as Black against him in any tournament, back in the 1980s, and gallingly I lost the one time I obliged - in spite of previously winning a number of nice master-level games with it, at least sometimes attacking with queens on the board).

I tried replacing the B on c1 with a White knight (a fairly lousy square for a Kt), and this time Houdini3 gave the position as -0.12 (or "=") after considerable time spent. I then tried looking at the same position but with the White knight on d2 (not a great square completely for a knight, either, but it allows White to develop at least a move faster, probably); in this case Houdini3 rated the position as exactly 0.00 (or "="). Note: replacing the Kt on d2 with a dark-squared White bishop gives a position Houdini3 evaluated as 0.17 (or "+=/="); White can formally develop all his pieces a move faster (probably), but he'll want to eventually improve the lot of that piece (White B) now on d2 - though that seems true if a White Kt were there, too.

It may be worth noting that CA16's engine rates the Nimzo-Indian Defence (position after 3...Bf8-b4) as worth 0.07 (or "+=/=") for White, while Houdini3 gives it as 0.16 (or "+=/=") for White. CA16 considers the Nimzo-Indian complex of defences as numerically Black's best defence to 1.Pd2-d4 (i.e. with 'best' play).

H. G. Muller wrote on Sun, Jul 21, 2019 09:16 AM UTC:

Piece values are an average over all plausible positions anyway, furthermore based on the assumption that the value of an army is the sum of its parts. (Although the B-pair bonus strictly speaking already is an exception to that). So it is to be expected that in individual positions the performance is not as good as the standard value suggests. E.g. the value of a Bishop is commonly considered to be dependent on the shade the Pawns are on. And a Queen is more valuable when the opponent has poor King safety, so you can effectively double-move it via intermediate checks.

What you show here is not evidence of that, however. That there is no obvious compensation doesn't mean there is no compensation. Apart from the Bishop-Knight imbalance, the position is quite asymmetric. So the absolute value of the position cannot really be attributed to material only. A better test would be to replace one of the white Bishops by a Knight, and then look how much the position scores on average. If white is then significantly worse you know it cannot be due to material, as that is perfectly balanced.

Kevin Pacey wrote on Sat, Jul 20, 2019 06:05 PM UTC:

On computer chess (or even human) piece valuations, a 'controversial variation of the Nimzo-Indian Defence' (according to Dutch Grandmaster Jan Timman in The Art of Chess Analysis, circa 1980, referring to 5...Nf6-e4 below) that I (as a master-level player) have liked to play as Black over the years just might illustrate an exception to giving a very significant bishop-pair bonus on an 8x8 board to the side possessing it, even when there appears to be no clear reason to make the exception.

The variation in question goes 1.Pd2-d4 Ng6-f6 2.Pc2-c4 Pe7-e6 3.Nb1-c3 Bf8-b4 4.Pe2-e3 Pb7-b6 5.Ng1-e2 Nf6-e4 6.Qd1-c2 Bc8-b7 7.Pa2-a3 Bb4-c3(ch) 8.Ne2-c3 Ne4-c3 9.Qc2-c3 (see diagram below; note that nowadays in my games, some players prefer to give Black the bishop pair instead, by playing 6.Bc1-d2[!] - in either case there are some tiny factors going on in favour of either side, but these are not so easy to articulate, at least in a few words, even for master-level players; also note my 2008 book Encyclopedia of Chess Openings volume E, 4th edition gives the line as definitely slightly better for White ["+="] in either case, but my more modern chess database's human evaulation [i.e. that of 2015's Chess Assistant16] gives White only its usual symbolic edge ["+=/="] as in its more mainline openings' variations, also with the CA16 engine's evaluation as only 0.04 pawns in White's favour, in either case):

Kevin Pacey wrote on Sun, Jun 9, 2019 05:14 PM UTC:

For what it's worth, here's the (very detailed) wikipedia entry on Computer chess:

Kevin Pacey wrote on Sat, Feb 20, 2016 06:02 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Back rank or smothered checkmates, along with the large number of playable openings from the start position, and a nice average of 40 moves to a game, are some of the more pleasing peculiarities of standard chess that make it harder for other activities or board games of skill to compete.

I tend to agree most with Dutch World Chess Champion Max Euwe's relative piece values for the pieces, i.e.: P=1; N=3.5; B=3.5; R=5.5; Q=10, noting that some authorites give K=4 for its fighting value (though naturally it cannot be traded), and also noting Horowitz (and others) rate a bishop as being microscopically better than a knight on average, and in both cases I tend to agree, too, so perhaps correct N to =3.49.

Here's a CV allowing the play of 4 chess games at once, winning first game takes war:

Ben Reiniger wrote on Wed, Dec 9, 2015 01:09 AM UTC:
test ' and " and / on game page comment

also, < and > and &

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Tue, Dec 8, 2015 08:25 PM UTC:
Test comment. I replaced the Perl footer with a PHP footer based on the one I already had in the Play subdomain.

Anonymous wrote on Wed, Apr 4, 2012 07:59 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Thank you so much!

Ed wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 02:50 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Dear Mr. Gabor:

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think that this is a local feature of chess
play that once prevailed in a number of locales in central Europe

I seem to recall Murray in his _History of Chess_ proposing such a feature
as evidence of an 'undercurrent' of Mongolization in western chess that
would date from the time of the Golden Horde.  He also posited the sway of
chess clubs, I think, as the most effective instrument for these local
customs disappearing, but clearly they endure in Hungary.

Gabor Tardos wrote on Sun, Mar 18, 2012 09:49 PM UTC:
In my native Hungary many elderly amateur players open the chess game with
two legal moves - then black is to respond with two moves followed by
standard rules thereafter.

I know this is not allowed by the standard set of rules, but I wonder if
this variant was ever popular in other countries or is it just a Hungarian

Toriah Taylor wrote on Tue, Oct 18, 2011 07:56 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Dear Mr. Hans L. Bodlaender, 

  I really loved the instructions it helped me so much I really appreciate
you for making these instructions because I really wanted to play against
my little sister(whos only ten!) and win instead of losing all of the time
so I thank you again Mr. Hans L. Bodlaender for exposing me to the real
world of chess!!!!

Anonymous wrote on Tue, Mar 22, 2011 03:15 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Tue, Dec 28, 2010 11:32 PM UTC:
When a white Pawn reaches g8, it may promote to a Bishop. Whatever piece a Pawn promotes to, the new piece always replaces the Pawn on the space it moved to, not on another space. So the Bishop would go to g8.

Assuming your opponent is trying to keep his Queen, the quickest way is to force an exchange of Queens or to allow your opponent to exchange his Queen for something more valuable, such as two Rooks. The latter might not be advisable, since you will lose the exchange. And even an even exchange is not advisable if you are behind. Even less advisable is to create a position in which a Queen sacrifice on your opponent's part would quickly lead to you being checkmated. This would quickly get you your opponent's Queen but at too high a cost. Remember that the object is to checkmate the King, not to capture the Queen, and capturing the Queen is worthwhile only as a means to this end.

Assuming that you don't want to take the Queen at too high a cost, the most effective tactics for getting the Queen are to (1) skewer the King when the Queen is behind the King in the same line of attack, (2) fork the King and Queen, or (3) pin the Queen with a protected piece. When your opponent is forced to choose between protecting the King or the Queen, he will have to choose the King, and you can then take the Queen.

Anonymous wrote on Tue, Dec 28, 2010 01:13 PM UTC:
if moving a pawn to opponants g8 , can this then be promoted to a bishop ,
if so and the player already has a rook on white diaganals does the
promoted new bishop re enter the game on g8 or f8 ?
Also whats the quickest way to obtain opponants queen at the start of a

Phil Munyao wrote on Thu, Oct 21, 2010 02:35 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
Hi, I assume that the idea behind the online chess is that you are targeting an experienced type of players. However, I wish you had in mind young and new future players and, as such; Please add to the explanatory rules a thorough naming of the characters involved in the chess board. Thank you, P.T

Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 05:27 PM UTC:
Hezekiah, your opponent is correct. No specific move is ever forced in chess unless it is the only possible way to get the king out of check.

Hezekiah Barnes wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 04:49 PM UTC:
I am having a difference of rules understanding with an opponent. I am under the impression that if a pawn has the option to capture an opponent it can not move forward to an empty space if you wish to move it at all. My opponent believes you can move that pawn forward, ignoring the opportunity to capture.

John Ayer wrote on Tue, Aug 31, 2010 01:43 AM UTC:
If a player erroneously announces checkmate, he loses whatever time it takes to convince him of his error (if the game is actually being timed) and is subject to teasing thereafter.

Anonymous wrote on Sat, Aug 28, 2010 07:30 PM UTC:
If a player erroniously announces he has the opponent in checkmate, is there a penalty?

Joe Joyce wrote on Tue, Jul 20, 2010 11:31 PM UTC:
Hello David Derrick. You asked this question:
''[R]ecently I came across a questionable move for which I cannot find
an answer: 
situation, yet I don't believe the Bishop enjoys the same advantage that a
pawn has.
(It would be the in the case of a Rook, but most unlikely to progress that

En passant involves only pawns on both sides. While any piece could attack the space the pawn double-steps over, only another, enemy, pawn that attacks the first square of the double step may move into that first square and capture the pawn, which just advanced 2 squares, as if it had only moved one square. 

No piece in a standard game of chess may make en passant captures. Only pawns may capture or be captured en passant.

David Derrick wrote on Tue, Jul 20, 2010 08:08 PM UTC:
In the nearly five decades of playing just-for-fun chess, my biggest
rewards have been teaching newcomers.

This reward has been a doubled-edged sword in that all students eventually
began to beat me -- regularly.  (Which rather proves my mediocre game

However, recently I came across a questionable move for which I cannot find
an answer: 

situation, yet I don't believe the Bishop enjoys the same advantage that a
pawn has.

(It would be the in the case of a Rook, but most unlikely to progress that

I would be greatly appreciative for your comments on this.

[email protected]

Anonymous wrote on Sat, Jul 10, 2010 08:36 PM UTC:
With respect to an illegal move, my position is-if neither player observes
the illegal move when it is make and the player who didn't make the
illegal move touches his piece in the process of moving after the illegal
move has been made, the game continues.  Having said that, I believe that
it is neither players' obligation to see  an illegal move, and if they
don't the game continues.

This rule should apply especially when a player is in check and neither
player see's it at the time, but observes it a move (or several moves
later).  With respect to resconstructing a poaition, this can only be done
if both players agree the reconstructed position is the right one.

jake h. wrote on Sat, Jun 5, 2010 06:36 AM UTC:
pleasantly to-the-point, and very helpful...GREAT JOB!!!

25 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order EarlierEarliest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.