Qe7+ otb; the queen is easier to reach than the rook. Rxe8+ online in a non-correspondence game; the mouse slip Qe6 probably happens >1 in 10,000 attempts at a queen move, but there's no d-and-a-half file. No idea what I'd play in a correspondence game against a random -- I might just consult random.org just to avoid getting caught in an error loop. I'd go for the fancy mate against a friend and any of the mate-in-twos against a random.

To speak more to the psychological side of it. The reason I play Qe7+ followed by Qxe8# (instead of Rxe8#) is because I think it feels like a stronger mate, even though it obviously doesn't matter. It's mate with just the rook on the 8th file but I kinda hate how the Queen is stuck on the 7th file and not even checking the King. Qxe8# just has that nice linear battery of pieces (even though yes technically the rook isn't checking the King, either). And I think I would always use my Queen to mate when given the choice. Just seems just to me. And that's not even speaking to the whole birds and bees aspect of it.

I have a question about an uncommon chess situation that almost came up in one of my games, and I have no idea how it would work out.

Say the black king is on g8, and I'm about to move my white queen to g7 for checkmate.

My queen is being covered by my bishop on b2, and my king is on b1. But the bishop is currently pinned by a black rook on b5.

Is queen to g7 checkmate, or does the king just take my queen because lololol can't move the bishop?

That's checkmate.

I played a game in college with the same scenario (my friend checkmated me) and I tried to argue that I could just capture his queen and his bishop couldn't get me because then my Rook would get his King. He laughed and told me I was wrong. I also assumed I was wrong and just laughed about it and knew I lost.

I think an easy way to remember it is that you can't put a king in check, and by capturing your queen there, he'd be putting his king in check (whether or not the bishop could undo the pin or not). So you can't capture (since you'd still be in check) and you can't move to any other safe square. So it's game.

I'd love to see this scenario played out on a board

Yeah, the thing to realize here is the very thing you say White can't do, you have Black doing it first. Imagine that instead of ending on checkmate we end with the actual capture of the king. Then it's clear Black loses here.

If you're in check and can't move such that you're not in check anymore, it's checkmate - game over. Simple as that.



Also checkmate:



There is a problem set where you have to decide whether the position is checkmate, stalemate, or neither that my friends use in their chess classes. It's a good exercise.

Here is a stalemate, reachable by legal moves from the normal chess starting position. It is unusual in that it does not involve being unable to move because of check. Trying to find one that does not use an underpromoted bishop.

I've expanded my Prodigy Watch dataset to include 115 players (including every player rated 2700+ on the February 2015 ratings list, every player to achieve the GM title before their 16th birthday, and a bunch of others.) I can't guarantee it's complete, or that there aren't some people who posted record-setting ratings at like 10/11 years old but never kept it up. That said, I think it's a lot better than it was before (and I'm still working on expanding it.) I also have everything out of Excel and into an actual database, so I can query and all that good stuff. Proper data structures FTW, it makes adding new players WAY quicker and easier.

Favorite analysis so far:

First one is nice, didn't think of putting the pawns on the 7th.

Second one maybe go for maximum material.

proof game for the second:

1. Nf3 b5 2. Ne5 f6 3. Ng6 hxg6 4. Nc3 Kf7 5. Ne4 Rh3 6. a4 Nh6 7. c4 Kg8 8.
Nc5 Bb7 9. Ne6 dxe6 10. Qb3 Bf3 11. axb5 a6 12. bxa6 Rxa6 13. d4 Nd7 14. Kd1
Kh8 15. Qb5 Ne5 16. Qb3 Nef7 17. Qb5 Ng5 18. Qb3 Ng8 19. Qb4 Nh7 20. Qb3 Qd6
21. Qb4 Qf4 22. Qb5 g5 23. Qb4 Rh6 24. Qb5 Rg6 25. Qb7 Qh4 26. Qxc7 Qh6 27. Qc5
Bh5 28. Qf5 exf5 29. Kd2 Ra2 30. e4 Rxa1 31. Be2 Rxc1 32. Bg4 fxg4 33. g3 Rxh1
34. f4 Rxh2+ 35. Ke3 Rxb2 36. f5 Rb4 37. d5 Rxc4 38. e5 Rc5 39. Ke4 Rb5 40. e6
Rb6 41. d6 Rxd6 42. Ke3 Ra6 43. Ke4 Rb6 44. Kd5 Rxe6 45. Kxe6 *


maximum material is trivial from that (3 more blocked pawns on the queenside) and proof game should be only slightly harder

edit: or maximum material for White? maybe trickier since he can't give up pawns on the kingside to double the Black pawns

With Hou Yifan out of the Women's Knockout Championship (schedule conflict+silent protest), here's my final preferred final four:

Humpy
Anna Muzychuk
Ju Wenjun
Guo Qi

Going out on a limb with the first three, lol. Guo Qi wasn't even on my radar though, so you've got one solid underdog pick there. Off to do some research!

Cmilyte all the way!

Oops, I didn't know that Peter Heine Nielsen is her husband. I guess pro players are so absorbed by the game that it's hard for them to find spouses outside the chess world (I mean its extension, 'friends of friends').
______________________________________________

For correspondence chess lovers who're tired of the chess.com interface, the CC Club is setting up the first ever CC tourney of Lichess

I did a little study on how long it has taken players to progress from their first published rating of 2600+ up to their first published rating of 2700+

Wei Yi will, when the March list is published, have gotten there in 1.33 years, the same amount of time it took Anish Giri. Wang Yue was faster though, at 1.25 years, and faster still were both Vladimir Kramnik and Maxime Vachiere-Lagrave, with a gap of exactly one year (1.00). Right behind this group, at 1.50 years is Magnus Carlsen and Alexei Shirov.

What about players who take longer? Hou Yifan has been languishing in the 2600 club for over four years now, without yet breaking the magical 2700 barrier (though she's awfully close after Gibraltar!) Is that bad? Not really. She's actually remarkably on par with Hikaru Nakamura (who took 4.25 years... hitting 2600 at 16.81 years old, and not hitting 2700 until 21.07). Hou turns 21 at the end of this month, was 16.91 years old when she first hit 2600, and currently has a live rating of 2686. A good performance in her next event and she might prove almost EXACTLY the equal of Naka, in terms of her path to 2700.

I have 89 players in my study (not fully comprehensive) who eventually did reach 2700+. 4.34 years is the median time gap from 2600 to 2700, with a mean of 5.61 years. So who is dragging that mean upward?

Ah, Nigel Short. Rated 2615 on the July 1986 rating list at the age of just 21.1 years old. So much promise. And ultimately he did follow through on that promise, with a published rating of 2701... in July 2003. A gap of 17 years! He got there though

Alexander Beliavsky is another one who took a while, hitting 2600 just after his 27th birthday, but not reaching 2700 until he was over 43.5! A 16.51 year gap (and I *believe* a record for the OLDEST age at which anyone has ever achieved their first 2700+ rating.)

Fun stuff, no?

So I threw this up on Twitter: "Wei Yi's journey from 2600+ to 2700+ took 16 months. @nigelshortchess took 17 years to gain those 100 rating points. #GibChess"

Nigel Short is now arguing with me on Twitter about rating inflation. LOLOL.

Can we have the conversation, please?

https://twitter.com/BobJoeJim/status/563755641261420544

Great research, BJJ.

selling yourself short...

Oh Yea!!!

Nigel Short sure is/seems insufferable. Bring back Lawrence Trent or Svidler to the commentary box please.

When you see an incredible endgame study or brilliant beautiful puzzle but you just get a bunch of comments from clueless idiots saying how it's easy or not very impressive because their engine solves it so quickly