 |
|
MAP LINKS CONTACT BOOKS GLOSSARY ECO SEARCH TOOLS FAQ NEWS GUEST BOOK
HOME CLUBS BANNERS BLOG VIRTUAL MUSEUM ARTICLES CAISSA FORUM STATS ABOUT
 | |||
 Chess Theory - MenuChess TheoryQuick introduction Current Chess TheoryNew Chess TheoryDynamic classification |
|
|
|
|
1o) The notion of «control» : Although respecting in this course rather scrupulously the traditional thought, expressed by Tarrasch and Steinitz, we move away from these Great Masters on technical points where the definitions of which they make use are either inadequately precise or in contradiction with the present use. It is in particular what occurs for the basic concept of «control». For a chessman we can simplify this formulation by saying that it controls a square provided that it can go there in only one move; on the other hand it is advisable to pay attention to the fact that a pawn does not control the square located directy before it, but the two side squares; precisely both contiguous squares located on the following rank (in the sens of its moving), like the latter one, just on the right and on the left of this one. See at this subject: (CCT III - Moving pawns, §B) 2o) The «initial position» or «start position» : In way of introduction, we take now an interest in the influence to «Have to play First»
from the point of view of «controlled» squares for each camp. We
start from the initial position, represented by the following
diagram
DIAG 1 : Initial Position: 3o) Initial Control of pieces : In this starting position, a good number of occupied squares moreover are «controlled» by friend pieces. But, in addition to occupied squares, each camp only «controls» 8 squares. White controls the 3th rank, whereas Black control the 6th rank. How does each piece intervene in this control? The answer is simple for the pawns:
TAB 1 : Chessmen Activity in the starting position :
As soon as White, using his right «to play in Fist», plays his first move a «unbalance»
takes place on the chessboard. For illustrating this fact let us
consider the most classical beginning, the «King's Pawwn Opening» :
DIAG 2 : Position after: 1.e4 : For methodological reasons we continue to take into account, from the point of view of «control», by a camp, only the squares nonoccupied by this one. While Black continues to «control» only 8 squares, White controls now 16 squares, There is no change from the point of view of pawns, excepted that now the e-pawn controls the squares d5 and f5, instead of squares d3 and f3. But this modest move of pawn has a decisive influence concerning pieces «activity» and more precisely the activity of each given «Chessman»;
in other words, the number of squares controlled by this one. It is
what express the following table:
TAB 2 : Activity of chessmen after: 1.e4 :
1o) The «Center» (Définition and role) : The notion of «center» is a fundamental concept of the chess game, whose importance, well known from long date, was never put in question, even if the perception of the role allotted to it has known many inflections in the course of time; as we besides will see it.
DIAG 3 : The center: d4, e4, d5, e5 2o) Central Pawns and Perfect center : 3o) Notion of «perfect» position : The concept of «perfect» position is typical of the classical vision and, in this respect, is rather out-of-date; they are positions, resulting from the opening, where one of both camps (for example White) developed as well as possible, preoccupying in particular to occupy the «center», while the adversary (thus Black) answered passively and neglected the «center». Here a beginning, leading to a White position which can, according to classical's criteria, be named «perfect»: (White perfect position)
DIAG 4 : White perfect position We may recognize that this position is a «perfect» one, because at the time of the first moves of the opening, White, without wasting time, knew to place their pieces on best possible squares; whereas Black played more passively and was worried neither their central pawns nor White aimings. In the present position if Black especially did not hold account of White's play, the reciprocal one is also true. In other terms: White played best moves «strategically» and without holding account of the Black's play; and thus not: «tactically», by integrating this last. Let us notice that the effective position of Bishops does not spoil the «perfect» character of the position. Thus, the King 's Bishop could as well be in b5, d3 or e2 and similarly the Queen 's Bishop in f4 or g5.
It is interesting to understand the evolution of ideas relative to the «center», which really were in the heart of the debate between «Ancients» and «Modernes» (that it is usual to name «Hypermoderns» or «Neo-Romantics»), by adopting the traditional point of view here. We will follow for that with profit the ideas expressed by Tarrasch (Siegbert Tarrasch, «Traité pratique du jeu d'échecs» PAYOT/ECHECS, 1992, p.315) 1o) Take over the «center»! : Tarrasch express thus goals of the opening: «... while deploying chessmen, which is the essential goal of the opening, you can still associate to it the project to seize the center, to only occupy it with one or two Pawns. It is all the more important that, during the opening phase, the main combat is delivered in the center and equally, in the middle game, as soon as an attack is launched against the opponent's castling. The player who has Pawns in the center - ceteris paribus - carries off in the combat». Obtain a «perfect center» and maintain it is only possible if the opponent camp does not seek to intervene, at least directly. But if this last reacts immediately, as he can do it, better is worth to take note of this and act in consequence. It is well the Tarrasch's opinion and one can only follow him in this direction. Let us consider the White's point of view. If we refer to the traditional opening repertory it is usual to encounter one of the following beginnings:
DIAG 5 : Open game : 1.e4 e5 Here the move 2.d4 is problematic and runs up against the possibility of the capture en passant (in passing): 2...exd4. In this case, without giving up the moving of the d-pawn, it is advisable to prepare it, which returns already within the framework of «Openings» such as they will be introduced and studied in two next headings of this lecture (CCT VII - «Open and Closed positions»; CCT XI - «Classical openings»).
DIAG 6 : Close game: 1.d4 d5 Here similarly the move 2.e4 is problematic and runs up against the possibility of the capture en passant (in passing): 2...dxe4. In this case, without giving up the moving of the d-pawn it is advisable to prepare it, which returns again within the framework of «Openings». 2o) «Central Pawn» exchange : Again we follow closely the Tarrasch's reasoning (Siegbert Tarrasch, «Traité pratique du jeu d'échecs» PAYOT/ECHECS, 1992, p.316). «But it is a fault, when you firmly control the center with a Pawn, to exchange this one without need or advantage; you thus lose all the support in the center and the adversary which succeeds in maintaining one of his Pawns there takes the advantage. You also loses space, you are tightened on three ranks whereas the adversary orders four of them.» «The Pawn of the center occupies a strategic position at the border of the two enemy camps, border consisted in the fourth and fifth ranks, which one must defend by a pawn if it is attacked by a Pawn, but which one should never give up without combat.» Tarrasch specifies, in a already combative vision: «Each opening where a player gives up the center without need gets to an advantage for the adversary; all the goal and success of opening manoeuvres consists in seizing the center. If the one which is on the defensive is constrained to fall back from the center, any kind of attacks become possible; but if he succeeds in maintaining himself there he obstructs considerably the development even the launching of the majority of attacks.» Tarrasch pursues: «This is why moves e5xd4 and d5xe4 (or e4xd5 and d4xe5 ) are almost always bad when they are not obligatory.» 3o) Problematic of the «liberator move» : We continue this study in Tarrasch's company (Siegbert Tarrasch, «Traité pratique du jeu d'échecs» PAYOT/ECHECS, 1992, p.316). «The Pawn configuration e4 against d6, just as d4 against e6, is advantageous for White; balance can be restored, if there is no prevention, only if Black neutralizes the White central Pawn by d6-d5 («liberator move») possibly by f7-f5 («flank move») , or by e6-e5 («liberator move») or c7-c5 («flank move») .»
DIAG 7 : The Center Game: 1.e4 e5 In this position Tarrasch judges that there is not better Black counterpart that 4...d5 In fact, this move refutes the prematurate character of 2.d4?! and allows Black quite simply to «equalize», in other words to compensate the White's advantage to play first. On the other hand 4...d6?! is «weak» verily «doubtful», because it concedes to White an actual advantage, which may prove itself to be lasting.
It is right that we let Tarrasch conclude this heading of which he is almost entirely the author. (Siegbert Tarrasch, «Traité pratique du jeu d'échecs» PAYOT/ECHECS, 1992, p.318 à 320). Here we are, more than ever, at the heart of the debate between «Ancients» and «Moderns»! ... And the latter will have soon the floor (MCT - The Modern Chess Theory). 1o) The «Rectilinear Strategy» : In addition to the principles presented before, Tarrasch defends the following ideas, on which we will return more lengthily in the continuation of our lecture. i) This one playing White (and this way playing first) must take the initiative. ii) The «initiative» must result in carrying out an offensive. iii) One who holds the «initiative» must in theory refuse all «gambit» (i.e. pawn sacrifice) offers to him by the other side. iv) On the other hand, the «player in second» (that means this one which plays Black), or more generally the player who does not have the «initiative», can very validly launch himself into a «gambit». v) One should not have a pawn moreover at the detriment of the position. 2o) Schools battle with the «Rectilinear Strategy» : «They are primarily principles of a rectilinear strategy founded on my experience. These rules present many exceptions and they are sometimes contradictory...» «You will have usually weigh by "yes, but..." the advantages and disadvantages of a move and, in this evaluation, the judgment matured by experience and study will play the first role.» The Tarrasch's conclusion shows a great self-effacement: not only he recognizes with his theory some limits, some cases of nonapplication, but also (what is more serious from a logical point of view) certain inner contradictions which it will be necessary well to reconsider. In addition let us note, on the way, the term «judgment» promised to so brilliant future (NCT VII - Judgment and plan). «One can also adopt a completely different strategy, one can reject all principles stated above and issue that it is the reverse which is true. One can prefer before everything material advantages while saying oneself: "I want to have a pawn moreover, I will defend myself with tenacity and skill and if I do not make a fault of tactics, I will certainly win.» «One can proclaim: "No Pawn in the center, because they can be attacked there and I will have to defend them. I like much more to leave them with my adversary and to attack them myself.» We reach the final Tarrasch's burning standpoint: how do not recognize there the passion - initially! - perhaps marked of one ounce of irritation, of anger... and of sectarianism also. «I hold all these attitudes for errors but - it is a quetion of constitution and character - much will refuse the rectilinear strategy for its opposite. In fact, very recently was created a school which preaches to hold in reserve the central pawns. But, and it is very significant, the strongest players such as the current world champion Alekhine, former champions Capablanca and Lasker, as well as Bogoljubow, are not members of it.» «It has been already more than one century that some people applied, in the" fianchetto ", this supposedly new idea, but it was quickly given up because the central Pawns of the adversary were far too impeding. And if the other player adopts to him as this petty and coward strategy and holds in reserve his own central pawns what does occur? There is no combat since the two armies do not make contact! It is what shows the terrible following game which was played in Mährisch-Ostrau, in the 1923 tournament. I will conceal by decency the names both players.» 3o) Illustrative game: «The Terrible game» : It is not difficult to uncover the authors of this «chess disaster» and to reinstitute the end of the game:
Reti, Richard - Gruenfeld, Ernst
DIAG 8 : Reti, Richard - Gruenfeld, Ernst Such is the position on which Tarrasch stops to give his severe opinion on this game; this one continues as follows:
DIAG 9 : Reti, Richard - Gruenfeld, Ernst Do we have to consider that there was no combat or that two adversaries, of equal force, neutralized one another? ... It is according to! Oh ! Osons le dire ! ... One can even see there an enormous masquerade!... A provocation ... A great frame up «anti-Tarrasch» ! *** CLASSICAL CHESS THEORY :
*** FOR PLEASANT SURFING AROUND THIS SITE:
*** FOR DISCOVERING WHO WE ARE:
******** ©-«Chess-Theory.com»-2004-2009 ******** |
 |
