 |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
New Page
It is rather remarkable to see how Chess history follows faithfully the human history. Thus, it is on the edge between XIXth and XXth century, and more especially in the first decades of the century of all technological revolutions (of course we speak about the XXth century), that the "Noble Game" knew its more impressive revolution.
It is usual, in the evolution of human knowledge, that new ideas emerge without old concepts lose all their interest. In our opinion, such is the case with the Chess Theory: between the Classical Chess theory and the Hypermodern School of Chess theory. About this question, we will embrace a dialectical point of view. On the one hand there is a kind of continuity from a theory to the other one, but on the other hand some ideas are so different that it is judicious to speak about an epistemological break. This is for this reason that we study, in our General Chess Theory Lecture, the Classical theory before exploring hypermodern and more contemporary concepts, under the name of Modern Chess Theory. Anyway, for clarifying our lecture we begin with Nimzowisch's ideas and will add complementary concepts progressively in the course of our study. When we speak of theory in Chess we are equally confronted to the recurring duality between Tactics and Strategy. Usually we adopt first a strategical vision and, in complement, organize around this axis all needed tactical data. Nevertheless a full chapter (MCT V) will be dedicated to most typical and relevant tactical techniques. Well!... According to Aron Nimzowisch, Chess Strategy is essentially characterized by following basic features:
We need first to point out the strategical nature of main divergences between Classical and Modern points of view. Concerning Tactics it is obvious that material accumulated was greatly increased and perfected, but mainly in the continuity. The reason is obvious: a tactical problem is easily modelisable because it is localised on a little number of moves; in other words there is a Mathematical Model and we are able to prove what we affirm in this field. This way tactical data developped by Tarrash or other Chess players of the past are practically irrefutable and we have, at the present time, nothing relevant to add at this subject. With strategical patterns the situation is radically different and one may discuss the opportunity to make such or such a choice without ending! In this field experience, knowledge and intuition of the Chess Master are essential. Of course Chess Strategy is an intellectual framework, historical heritage of the Chess community as well as of all human beings. Chess Strategy may be structured by some theoretical models (but not, strictly speaking, Mathematical Models!). Therefore it is fully justified to consider the Chess Strategy as a Theory; but an unaccomplished theory where it will be always possible to find new ideas. At this subject, the best way to understand the particular role of Modern Chess Theory as well as its linking with previous Chess concepts, it may be usefull to remember main steps of evolution of Chess ideas. For more details see internal links:
Historically, and from the beginning, Chess was more or less a representation and a symbolization of social structure of each epoch. First western manuscripts and writings concerning Chess, at Greco's time or before, were mainly related to technical features and short games. The first Chess School in history was the famous Italian School(s) of Chess. In spite of a profusion of writings about the practice of Chess, during the Italian Renaissance and following centuries, it may be noticed that the "Italian Chess School" has not been seriously theorized and is mainly connected with practice and cultural heritage. Nevertheless, the Italian way of playing Chess may be characterized by the primordial role of combinations and tactics, involving brilliant sacrifices and the only objective to attack the opponent's King as soon as possible. The first Chess player in history which contested this vision and introduced significant strategical concepts was François André Denican Philidor ("Pawns are the soul of chess"). Philidor's ideas, clearly explained in his famous book «Analysis of the Game of Chess» the importance of following surprisingly "modern" Chess concepts: Philidor, quite rightly considered as the best Chess Player in the world during half a century (unofficial World Chess Champion) enjoyed a great prestige and his book knew a goodly success in particular in France, England, Netherlands, Germany and Russia. But, curiously the Italian concepts of Chess continued to be very popular in all Europe until the middle of the XIXth Century. Especially the Romantic School of Chess, incarnated by Adolf Anderssen, Paul Morphy and Henry Blackburne, was a kind of ultimate accomplishment of Italian ideas.
Wilhelm Steinitz (1836 - 1900) was the first Official World Chess champion. His great merit is to have proved the superiority of positional style of play, characterized by a strategical vision of the game, involving a quick but harmonious development, the priority given to long-term manoeuvring, plan and judgment, instead of privileging short-time attacks, threats and traps. Steinitz defended vigorously his ideas and wrote much on this subject. Siegbert Tarrasch (1862 - 1934) was equally one of the greatest Chess players of this time and an eminent Chess writer. In his writings he defends and develops Wilhelm Steinitz's ideas, but also completes them by his own conceiving. Regardless, Steinitz and Tarrasch are considered as founders of the Classical Chess Theory and spokesperson of the Orthodoxy in Chess. The Positional style of play Chess, advocated by Steinitz and Tarrasch, had a significant success and was practiced by greatest Chess players from the end of the XIXth Century to the beginning of the XXth Century, as Emanuel Lasker, José Raúl Capablanca, Alexander Alekhine and many others. More earlier, in the middle of the XIXth Century, it is obvious that the great English Chess Master Howard Staunton was a follower of this kind of play and did not ignore nothing at this subject.
Exactly as in Sciences and all other field of the knowledge, our understanding of the Chess game increases gradually, step by step, and includes today all the Historical Chess heritage, without any exclusion. Greco's brilliant combinations and traps, Philidor's precepts concerning the good use of chess pawns, Italian and Romantic Chess styles, Steinitz's positional play as well as Hypermodern concepts are present in our minds and influence today our way of playing Chess. Such is the continuity! On the other hand it is true that hypermodern ideas of Aron Nimzovich, Richard Reti, Ksawery Tartakover, Gyula Breyer and Hans Kmoch have been revolutionary and have represented an authentic episthemological break, in the meaning of Gaston Bachelard. The introduction of this new ideas brought on an historical struggle between partisans of Orthodoxy and those of Hypermodernism. This was first a rebellion against Steinitz and Tarrasch's dogmatism, but it is clear that we cannot reduce this event to such a conjunctural aspect. We dedicate a great part of our lecture on Modern Chess Theory to a close investigation into the specific contribution of Hypermodern Chess School. Nevertheless, it is useful to point out right now some characteristic features of Hypermodern theory:
As certainly you know, the choice of an Opening is widely revealing of the style of a chess player. During last centuries a few number of openings have been in fashion, changing with the time. They was the exact reflection of the conception that chess player of each period had of the way to play Chess. As a consequence, evolution of chess openings through the time was in perfect conformity with change in chess concepts. Since the Portuguese Master Pedro Damiano, Italian Masters Giovanni Leonardo di Bona, Giulio Cesare Polerio, Gioachino Greco and the Spanish Master Ruy López de Segura until the middle of the XIXth Century, it was believed that the strongest White's first move is: 1.e4 and the strongest Black's reply is: 1...e5. Resulting games are said: Open Games. The most famous are the Giuoco Piano (mainly tactical), the Ruy Lopez (more strategic) and the King's Gambit (archetypal romantic game!). Singularly, Giuoco Piano (Italian Game) [C53], [C54]: 1.e4 e5, 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d3 (or 5.d4) is the archetype of Classical way of playing Chess. Importance of the Center ( e4, d4, e5, d5 squares ) is universally recognized since a very long time; But, in the Opening, there are schematically three ways to take into account the Center:
Of course the reality is more complicated. For example many ways to take into account the center may be used simultaneously, in the same opening, as you can see in the Catalan Opening [E01] to [E09]: 1.d4 Nf6, 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 mixing three types: 1°) Occupation (1.d4), 2°) Lateral Control (2.c4), 3°) By far Control (3.c4, 4.Bg2):
Hypermodern Openings are mainly Wing Games. It is, in particular, the case of three Indian Defenses: Nimzo-Indian, Queen's Indian and King's Indian. As an illustration, let us have a look at the Nimzo-Indian Defense [E20] to [E59]: 1.d4 Nf6, 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 Control of central d5 & e4-squares is in the heart of the discussion in the Nimzo-Indian, as you can read in «Chess Master vs. Chess Amateur» by Max Euwe and Walter Meiden:
*** MODERN CHESS THEORY :
The Chess-Theory Banner for Exchange
************ If you like music, you may choose now a fine background Music:
*** FOR PLEASANT SURFING AROUND THIS SITE:
*** FOR DISCOVERING WHO WE ARE:
******** ©-«Chess-Theory.com»-2004-2009 ******** |
 |
