 |
|
MAP Links Contact Us Books Glossary ECO Search Tools FAQ News
HOME CLUBS BANNERS BLOG VIRTUAL MUSEUM ARTICLES CAISSA FORUM
 | |||
 Chess Theory - MenuChess TheoryQuick introduction Current Chess TheoryNew Chess TheoryDynamic classification |
|
|
|
|
For many reasons we judge useful to begin this chapter by some historical reminiscences. This is, in our opinion, the best way to understand the evolution of ideas.
1o) The First Steps of the «Modern Strategy» : As we said above, we need to know relatively well the evolution of chess ideas, through the Centuries, if we wish access to a good comprehension of Classical concepts related to Opening and Development; the following remarks have been formulated by Ludek Pachman in «Modern Chess Strategy»: «This is between the end of the XVth Century and the beginning of the XVIIth that one can locate the progressive development of modern chess. Particularly in Italy and in Spain. In the late Fifteenth Century Lucena (in Spain) and, some years latter, the Portuguese Damiano (in Italy) published chess books, which already contained the first Chess rules.» The main change is related to the walk of Bishop and Queen. In particular this latter became, as it is always nowadays, the most powerful piece on the chessboard; whereas the Bishop saw its operating range strongly increasing, so much so that it can cross all the board. This way, the Chess game was energized, in particular under the influence of great players of this time. Pachman continues: «The Spanish Master Ruy Lopes, who confronted greatest Italian masters, finished, after a first period of success, by being pushed back in the second plan, because the unceasingly increasing renowned of Italian Chess. In 1574 Leonardo di Calabria beat him in a match. Cesare Polerio started to analyze systematically each beginning. His work was continued during the seventeenth century by Salvio and Greco.» 2o) The role of Gioachino Gréco : Now let us pay attention to the opinion of our friend Erich Ruch, ICCF responsible, a very specialist of European Chess History: («Le Courrier des Echecs», 535, décembre 2003, p.500) «Gioachino Gréco was born in Celico close from Consenza in Calabria, which deserved him the nickname of Calabrian, under which he is perhaps more known. He learned the game in manuscripts from Lopez and de Polério and he encountered this latter for the first time in Rome, whereas he lived under the protection of rich prelates, like the cardinal Savelli, monseigneur Corsini... It is at this time that he started to write manuscripts in the shape of chess game collections, which made his celebrity.» «But it was not long in leaving Rome to seek fortune abroad and one finds him in 1621 at the court of Duke de Lorraine, in Nancy, at which he dedicated a splendid manuscript on July 5, 1621. He went then to Paris where he met the strongest chess players of the time like the Duke de Nemours, Mr. Arnault le Carabin and Mr. Chaumont de la Salle and he quickly recorded there strong profits with the chess game. In 1622 he crossed the English Channel, but he encountered, on the road of London, highwaymen who took away his fortune. There (in London) he met the strongest players of the time and wrote several manuscripts containing his own games, but also those of Ruy Lopes and the 1604 manuscript of Salvio.» «He went back to Paris between 1624 and 1626, period which corresponds to his greater literary activity. He went then to Madrid at the court of Philippe IV, where he defeated also the strongest Spanish players who were opposite to him. He was then encouraged to accompany a noble Spanish in the Occidental Indies, where he is deceased before 1634, in bequeathing all his fortune to the Jesuits. He did not turn over any more to Italy after 1621, and as his reputation was especially forged after this date, this explains why his influence did not extend to his native fatherland.» Gréco left a score of manuscripts and was thus the most prolific of all players, at least until the Eighteenth Century. This fact his contribution, as well to the History of Chess as to the evolution of ideas, was completely essential. Thus the Calabrian formed many of the European players, on nearly two centuries... including, as precisely Eric Ruch notices this, the great Philidor. 3o) Philidor facing the Italian school : The Italian school, recommending amongst other things a brilliance play of chessmen, was essential in Europe and still reigned as an uncontested Master in the middle of the XVIIIème century. Its principal theorists and protagonisites were, as Pachman notes it, LED Rio, Lolli and Ponziani. But it is however at this time that one of greatest figures of Chess emerges: the French F.A. Danican, known as Philidor. This last was quickly recognized as been an exceptional player and the most widespread opinion is that he was in fact the strongest player of his time. Where that he went, in France, England or Holland, he outclassed chess players whom he met, at such point that he took the habit to play mainly of games with handicap. Unfortunately it did not have any encounter between Philidor and best Italian players of his time, against which he was savagely opposed from the point of view of theoretical designs. Philidor published for the first time in 1749 his work of which the repercussion, although late, was to be considerable: "Analyse du Jeu des Echecs" (English translation: "Analysis of the Game of Chess", bublished in London, 1790). The Philidor's fundamental innovative idea held with the very particular importance that he recognized at the pawns. You know his famous sentence: «les pions sont l'âme des Echecs (The pawns are the soul of chess)». More precisely Philidor said: «My main goal is to be recognized by an innovation that nobody warned himself, or perhaps was able; it is the fact of well playing chess pawns. They are the soul of chess; it is them only which form the attack and defense and of their good or bad arrangement entirely depends the winning or losing of a chess game.» Let us pursue with the very clear and accurate Pachman's synopsis: «It was an entirely new thesis. Neither the contemporaries of Philidor nor his immediate successors seized it. Philidor taught that it was necessary to treat the pawns with precaution; they did not have to be weakened by the isolated advance of only one pawn, it was preferable to carry out the advance in tight rows. He attached such an importance in the victorious advance of the pawns, that he subordinated even the development of chessmen to it.»
1o) Lasting influence of the Italian school : It is undeniable that the Italian School deeply marked the practice of chess and this until the Middle of the Nineteenth Century, then giving rise to the brilliant romantic School, so magnificently represented by players such as A. Anderson and P. Morphy. The new rules available, concerning in particular, like already indicated, the displacement of Queen and Insane, transformed a slow game into a much faster one. For this reason, instead of firstly aiming to win a piece, it became possible to attack, as fast as possible, the opponen's King. We may summarize succinctly as follows the Concepts of the Italian School: As very precisely Pachman notices it: «These attacks were effective, already only by the fact that principles of a good defense were still ignored. Defense consisted in very primitive bases: immediate threats were to be move aside, and it was necessary to liquidate each piece whose the adversary, in the fire of the action, neglected the defense.» 2o) Philidor, Staunton and some others : At the hands of the brilliant Italian School few opinions expressed. In addition to Philidor, it is necessary to quote here the great English player H. Staunton. We can regard Philidor and Staunton as the les pioneers of the «positional play». Without being able to speak about School, the point of view of these two great chess players and those, very rare, which could perceive their message, can be summarized as follows: Positional play principles: It is advisable to specify that, in addition to Staunton, Philidor had some brilliant successors, in particular in France and England. We must, at least name the French Louis Charles Mahé de la Bourdonnais, Pierre Saint-Amant and the English Mac Donnell. Saint-Amant, born in 1800, became very young one accustomed of the Café de la Régence. He became one of the best chess players of his time and his hour of glory corresponded to his victory over Staunton, at the time of the match which took place in London in 1843. But he lost the revenge match in Paris the same year. In connection with Staunton let us quote this remark of Nicolas Giffard and Alain Biénabe («Le Guide des Echecs, Traité complet» ROBERT LAFFONT, 1993, p.358): «If Staunton put his stamp on the middle of the XIXth century, that is especially due to his talent of theorist and analyst. Bobby Fischer had even qualified him of stronger analyst of all times.» 3o) The meritorious synthesis operated by Steinitz and Tarrasch : These historical preliminaries, very reduced in truth, were essential for better measuring the importance and the difficulty of the synthesis operated by Steinitz and Tarrasch. We present their ideas now, such as they reached us and continue to influence our practice of playing. We will examine this symthetic vision while referring to the best source we have: Siegbert Tarrasch - «Traité pratique du jeu d'échecs» PAYOT/ECHECS, 1992, p.297 and the followings
According to Tarrasch, it is easy to recognize, in a Chess game, three fundamental contituents: «material», «space» and «time»... This three basic elements are linked and influence clearly one another. 1o) The three basic constituents of the Chess game : The Chess game, according to Siegbert Tarrasch, is based on the three following constituents: «Forces», «Time» and «Space». 2o) Material Forces (chess pieces) : In a game each camp owns a basic material constituted of chess pieces; at the beginning, 16 pieces (8 pawns and 8 chessmen) in each camp. This material has a real value because the only way you may act (i.e. express you will) in a game is by playing one of your pieces. Nevertheless, this value is relative, not absolute. Actually the goal of a game is to checkmate the opponent's King and not to compile an impressive material!... Also it is frequently interesting to sacrifice some material, in order to gain other advantages. Tarrasch insists on the particular value of each piece.
DIAG 1 : Control of the d-file Let us continue with Tarrasch. Rooks being unable to move in diagonal lines must be driven in zigzags, following itinaries whose Tarrasch gives some examples: (Siegbert Tarrasch : «Traité pratique du jeu d'échecs», PAYOT/ECHECS, 1992, p.299) «... to lead it (the Rook) in front of its own pawns and to launch it to the attack of opponent's castling, for example:»
DIAG 2 : The White's King side Rook «or - deployment very effective, elegant and diverting for the adversary, for example:»
DIAG 3 : The White's Queen side Rook «or also, in a very refined way:»
DIAG 4 : The Black's King side Rook Tarrasch continues thus: «When these displacements in zigzags are carried out it always should be wondered whether the first (or eighth) rank remainders sufficiently protected, because if it is not thus, the Rook usually cannot return any more enough quickly to defend it.» Tarrasch points out here the importance of setting in contact both Rooks of the same camp and especially of their "doubling" on an open file (question about which we will have the occasion to return).
DIAG 5 : The Bishop b1 and the Rook g1 And Tarrasch pursues his thesis: «Also the constitution of such a triangle against one of these attacks, launched on an open file or diagonal, constitutes the best defense.» «The Bishop is the piece which can be most easily imprisoned, even taken by the opponent's Pawns... It is necessary to remember the fundamental and obvious principle ordering to preserve at all chessmen their complete freedom of movement. However one sins very often against this principle. The type of a voluntary caging of a Bishop arises» this way:
DIAG 6 : The type of a voluntary «The King side Bishop is the best piece for attacking. During the opening it is frequently directed in c4 towards the f7-square, initially the weakest point of the enemy position, because it is defended only by the King.»
DIAG 7 : The White Bishop in c4 aiming «After the castling of the adversary it (the Bishop) threatens the h7-square, from d3 and is often used as a base in a mating combination.»
DIAG 8 : The White Bishop in d3
DIAG 9 : A White Knight supported About the Knight, in the beginnig of a game, Tarrasch still specifies: «In this phase it should not, if possible, carry out that only one displacement to pass on the third (or sixth) rank, from where it can already throw glances in the enemy camp.»
1o) Space: Number of rank occupied by each camp : «Space» is the second ingredient of a chess game; in spite of the fact that this space is reduced to the chessboard, it embodies a very significant piece of data, as it is easy to see through many concrete examples. You may interpret the significance of «space» by using both concepts of «occupation» and «control». In the start position, at the beginning of a game, each Army (White and Black) occupies two ranks and controls a third one. In fact, all chessmen, except the four Knights, are unable to control other squares that those occupied by friend pieces.
DIAG 10 : At the beginning of a Tarrasch defends with strength the idea whereby a harmonious development cannot be carried out satisfactorily without a gain of space. But his analysis is even deeper as we will see it: (Siegbert Tarrasch, «Traité pratique du jeu d'échecs», PAYOT/ECHECS, 1992, p.304 â 307). 2o) Space and Development : «In the initial position pieces of each camp are concentrated on two ranks but actually each camp dominates four (Such is not our opinion! According to us this is three!), of them, the White camp the four first and the Black one the four last. It is rightly that each player, as of the first mode, deals with the four ranks which return to him, while quickly sending a Pawn and soon chessmens on the fourth, because more one has of space, the more one is free in his play, the more it is easy to deploy its army. Conversely, it is a disadvantage for a player to be limited to three ranks. Of course that cannot arrive that if he made faults, for example after the moves:»
DIAG 11 : A typical White's advance «In this situation White has a higher space. He occupied four ranks, Black only three, and the fifth one is free. In all similar cases it is always necessary to try to conserve the space which Black lost by playing 3... exd4» We remain in the company of Tarrasch best interpreter of the Classical thought. (Siegbert Tarrasch : «Traité pratique du jeu d'échecs», PAYOT/ECHECS, 1992, p.305) 3o) Space and Pieces radiance : «Inside the space that you lay out it is necessary to place your pieces in a manner enabling them to take part most effectively as well in the attack as in the defense and also, as far as possible, in points (squares) where they cannot be threatened and which they can occupy permanently.» 4o) Time: Interactions between «Forces, Space and Time» : Let us consider, for beginning, the following example of interaction between «Forces», «Space» and «Time»:
DIAG 12 : An example of interaction
We find personally at the Tarrasch's conclusion a surprising modernity: «The judicious use of space or, in other words, the adequate arrangement of all pieces, is the most important thing in a chess game, greater, in certain connections, than the forces themselves, than the numerical superiority. We very often access to the victory by removing a decisive position by some material sacrifice, it is a triumph of the Spirit on the Matter.» Ideas expressed by Tarrasch, in this part of his treaty deserve perhaps more attention than we have allowed to them. Such is, in any case, our opinion; and curiously some of them will be revisited through the «New Chess Theory» which we develop in parallel to the present statement. (NCT - New Chess Theory). 1o) Best use of the right of playing : «It is always necessary to make the best use of his right to play. In other words you should not lose any move. It is what Black would do if, after 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4, they answered by 2... Nb8, they would have lost the two blows. You see nothing also evident in a real game, but many similar moves. It is the case if Black, instead of playing his Knight twice, advance the Pawns a6 and h6. There is not there material loss of time since the two deployments remain marked on the chessboard, they were not completely lost as in the preceding case of the Knight. But, in the spirit of this phase of play, for the effectiveness of the opening, they are as much to say without worth and one can perfectly qualify them wastes of time. They contribute of nothing, in fact, with the deployment of chessmen, which constitutes the goal of the opening.» 2o) Priority at minor pieces : «During this one (Tarrasch always speak about the opening) each move must be devoted to this deployment, if possible, by quickly pushing at least the most necessary Pawns and by deploying minor pieces.» 3o) The superiority by saving time : «It is well necessary to take care not to support the deployment of the adversary by making him gift of one or more times. As for forces and space, you have to try to preserve the equality in time and, when it is possible, to secure a superiority. The ideal is to save times or to oblige the adversary to lose some.» 4o) Translation of saving time in space and force : «As it is seen time plays an important role in the chess game. If we play well, saved times cannot be wasted any more and result finally by profits in space and force, it is the law of the conservation of force on the 64 squares! (Time = Force). The player who operates with an advance of time ends by winning. Only one time is often decisive in the endgame, making it possible to a player to lead his pawn to be promoting in a Queen, whereas that of his adversary arrives only at the next to last square.» 5o) Force, Space & Time: Final conclusion : We reach now a brilliant conclusion: Beautiful final assertion... What to say moreover in truth? *** CLASSICAL CHESS THEORY :
*** FOR PLEASANT SURFING AROUND THIS SITE:
*** FOR DISCOVERING WHO WE ARE:
******** ©-«Chess-Theory.com»-2004-2008 ******** |
 |
