eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
Each major opening is then detailed and analyzed with the emphasis on explanation that is easy to follow. Special attention is paid to traps — both the mistakes often made by amateurs, and the classic traps, such as Greco's and Tarrasch's. "Chess is a game of understanding and not of memory," says Znosko-Borovsky, and he promotes the reader's understanding of the openings by discussing purpose and plan frequently, as against memorization of moves. Those acquainted with Znosko-Borovsky's other books, How Not to Play Chess and The Art of Chess Combination will rediscover in this book Znosko-Borovsky's unique clarity, ease of style, and profundity.
"In the teaching of chess he may claim to have no superior." — Philip W. Sergeant.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780486158396 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Dover Publications |
| Publication date: | 04/02/2012 |
| Series: | Dover Chess |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 160 |
| File size: | 4 MB |
Read an Excerpt
How to Play the Chess Openings
By Eugene A. Znosko-Borovsky
Dover Publications, Inc.
Copyright © 1935 Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, Ltd.All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-486-15839-6
CHAPTER 1
A LITTLE HISTORY
"Chess is a game of understanding and not of memory." This maxim, with which I opened my brochure, How Not to Play Chess, has met with universal approval, and there is no reason for not applying it to the study of the openings! It is not, then, by memorising variations that we shall become proficient in playing openings, but by understanding their meaning, their purpose, and the general ideas and principles which are their foundation. However, we must not on this account ignore the acquisitions of the past; certain ideas, accumulated during the centuries, are still as valuable to-day as ever before.
It is always a good thing to survey the past, and in a treatise on chess, however small, the historical side has its importance. But let us be brief and not lose touch with essentials. Making a rapid survey of this history, and extracting from it the underlying principles which governed the treatment of the openings at various times, we are not a little surprised to realise that these principles do not contradict one another but, on the contrary, that each new principle links on to the older ones, completes them, widens the knowledge possessed before, and in close relation with it, helps forward the treatment of the openings.
There is no name more worthy to head a work on chess than that of Morphy, who embodies the very spirit of the game; and although he was no theoretician, we think of him when discussing the theory of the openings. For if others have taken a more prominent part in the elaboration of the first principles concerning the development of the pieces, we are indebted to him for a brilliant demonstration of them. His genius enabled him to realise clearly what others could but vaguely discern. Morphy's style was much in advance of the theory of his day, and he dominated all his contemporaries not only by his brilliant combinations, but also—and above all—by his characteristic way of dealing with the openings.
Of course there was then no coherent theory as we understand it now. There were then only scattered and isolated principles which helped the player in the opening. We can condense them all into a single one of first-rate importance, which was stated for the first time, apparently, by that great French player, de La Bourdonnais, and which still holds good to-day. We are speaking here of the necessity of developing the pieces as quickly as possible at the beginning of a game. Accordingly we begin with the two centre pawns, then we bring out the pieces one by one, we castle, etc., in preference to moving the same piece several times: but all to be done as rapidly as possible.
RULE I. RAPID DEVELOPMENT OF THE PIECES.
Formulated thus, the marked difference between this principle and the manner of treating the openings before Morphy's time is not quite evident. Even the fantastic gambits of the past were played with the object of hindering the enemy development. Nevertheless, the difference does exist. For in a gambit, where the purpose is an immediate attack, the development of the majority of the pieces is often neglected, for the player is determined to force checkmate with only two or three pieces in play. Morphy held the opposite view: he was always thinking, alike in attack and defence, of the development of all his pieces, so that he was always ahead of his opponent in concentrating larger forces on the most important part of the board. In these circumstances, he needed no brilliant combinations to give him victory: or, at least, their creation was greatly simplified on this account.
Little by little others followed his example: pieces were brought out just for the sake of rapid development, but without any definite object, while they were sometimes posted more by luck than by judgment. The general principle, with which all development must comply, had yet to be discovered.
RULE 2. OCCUPATION OF THE CENTRE.
Thanks to Steinitz, a new scheme came into being to supplement Morphy's ideas and to establish laws for the treatment of the openings. It was no longer a question of scattered rules, for a modern school was formed which gradually superseded the so-called classical school.
The precepts of this new school, based on quasi-scientific data, referred to the game as a whole, and the revolution in ideas, when applied to the openings, completely changed the character of them. The Gambits and the Giuoco Piano were replaced by the Ruy Lopez, the Queen's Pawn Game, the French Defence, etc. To illustrate the important position occupied by these openings, it is enough to recall that of over 200 games given in Dr. Tarrasch's famous book, Die moderne Schachpartie, in barely 40 were the older openings played. The remainder were the so-called modern openings.
Everybody is well aware now of the principles of the new school, for the whole game is steeped in them. But though its doctrines—the first real doctrines of chess—were brought to such perfection by experts like Tarrasch, Rubinstein and Schlechter, they were at first far from satisfactory. Their strangeness sometimes provoked an opposition which seems to us quite a natural one. Did not their inventor, the great Steinitz, himself play K—K2 in the opening of a game? Did he never, as White, play his Knight to KR3 or defend a gambit by making a sortie with his Queen to KB3? But all this is recorded in history. Nowadays, without even thinking about the modern school—so deeply are its ideas rooted in our minds—we are acquainted with its principles right from the importance of the centre and of open lines and the need of occupying them with the appropriate pieces down to the ideas of strong and weak squares, of isolated and doubled pawns, etc. One of these principles, that no pawn advance should be made without very good reason, has often been criticised—it is even now accused of robbing the game of its life and brilliance. For Steinitz, the pawns formed the skeleton of the game, and he never went so far as to declare, as did that first positional player, Philidor, that the pawns are the soul of the game of chess.
As regards the opening, then, the most important principle is the occupation of the centre. From it all others depend—it must govern the whole of our tactics. The centre is the very basis of the game.
It is clear now what is meant by the idea of developing the pieces. The legacy of the 19th century to us is that great truth: "Develop the pieces as rapidly as possible in order to occupy the centre."
RULE 3. THE GENERAL PLAN.
The 20th century, although still young, has not been behindhand in bringing forward its own scientific contribution and for this we are indebted to Capablanca. Like Morphy, a practical player, first and foremost, he is no theoretician, but the upheaval he has made in the theory of the openings and in the game generally can be compared, in its importance and fruitfulness, to the revolution brought about by Steinitz.
In his book, Die neuen Ideen im Schachspiel, Réti writes about him at length and recounts how, in a game he (Réti) played in consultation with Capablanca, the latter refused to make a plausible move—the best according to classical tradition—and made instead another of which Réti had not even dreamt, so unnatural was it. It involved the moving of an already developed piece a second time against all the classical principles of good development.
Réti's instance is not very convincing, for, as it turned out, Capablanca had only taken advantage of a tactical possibility offered him. But Réti was quite right in saying that Capablanca had initiated a new method of treating the openings, and this new formula, called by its followers "dynamic," has given rise to all the modern ideas of mobility.
Capablanca did not deny the principles of Morphy and of the new school, but submitted them to the test of a general plan, of a game of massed pieces, of a game directed towards a single goal from its very first moves. It is not sufficient to bring out the pieces rapidly, to group them round the centre, or to place them on central squares. The essential is to develop them in accordance with a general plan. There are on the board good squares—strong squares—and they must be occupied: but most important of all, the value of a square depends on the correlation of the pieces. It is not enough, therefore, to occupy a strong square as such (because if this were so, there would be an end of openings for they would be played always in the same way), but we must occupy a square which becomes important owing to the relative position of the pieces.
Thus we may delay bringing a piece into play so that we may post it, later, on a really important square where it will actively co-operate with the other pieces. Henceforth, it is action which counts; it is the mobility of the pieces which is important, because by it the value of a square is changed. A square may be strong without necessarily offering scope for the action of pieces occupying it. In the positional game one is content with the possession of strong squares and the game progresses in bounds, so to speak, from one strong position to another, at the same time leaving no weaknesses. Nowadays, on the other hand, the value of a post is subordinated to the degree of mobility and the scope it offers to the pieces.
The ultra-modern "dynamic" game succeeds the "static" positional game.
The importance of this new principle is already evident. The rapid development (Morphy) and the occupation of the centre (Steinitz) appear to us as purely mechanical beside this new law, which introduces the general idea, the idea present right from the opening.
Thus Alekhine affirmed that there was no reason for dividing the game into the opening, the middle game and the end-game, for a game of chess is a complete thing, bound by the same rules at each stage of its duration and having in view a single object. The unity of the game, essential for logical play and for the development of chess ideas, was discovered.
This gave birth to another tendency characterised by the refusal, for a time, of immediate conflict, by the desire of postponing a premature hand-to-hand combat. This tendency, which is closely connected to Capablanca's "dynamic" idea, has been, just as was Steinitz's positional game, the target for severe criticism on the part of lovers of the brilliant game, the game of combinations, for, according to them, it shows in the players a fear of the open struggle and an unconfessed desire for a peaceful draw.
However, all the regular openings, in which the centre is controlled as quickly as possible, often lead to rapid exchanges which simplify the game and lessen the chances of victory. Sometimes even the occupation of the centre becomes either impossible or valueless. So it appeared to be wiser to avoid immediate contact of the pieces in the early stages of the game and to post them circumspectly on central squares where they could not be exchanged and from which they could not be driven away.
RULE 4. CONTROL OF THE CENTRE.
This brings us to a new idea which gives a wider meaning to the occupation of the centre. Occupation of the centre no longer means merely placing our pieces there but keeping the centre under control so that our opponent is not allowed to occupy it, while we reserve for ourselves the opportunity to do so efficaciously at a given moment. What is true for the centre is also true for any other squares.
The mechanical game of the past gives way to the game of relative values: both squares and pieces vary in importance. Everything is set in motion and the materialistic side of the game is subordinated to ideas. An unchanging table of values for the pieces, e.g. Queen=10, Rook=5, etc., has no longer any meaning. It is no longer a question of posting the strongest pieces rapidly on the strongest squares, but of keeping those squares under control and of manœuvring the pieces accordingly. It is the same with moves; a move is weak if it does not form part of a line of play; a move which is apparently weak may prove strong if it leads up to a series of manœuvres and is justified by the result. Thus chess loses any mechanical aspect; the mind dominates it; the game of understanding has become a game of intellect expressing itself as a work of art.
It is with the idea of initiating you into this new art that I am going to explain the various openings to you. For do not they, like the rudiments of music or the first lessons in drawing, present the most difficulty?
CHAPTER 2CLASSIFICATION OF THE OPENINGS
The idea of the centre, as we have seen in the foregoing explanation, is at the base of all the openings. Its occupation is of primary importance at the beginning of a game. The reasons for this are already well known and, without lingering for long over this matter, we will just briefly recall them to mind.
The centre is important because every piece is stronger the nearer it is to it. A Knight in the corner of a board has only two moves at its disposal, while in the centre it has eight. Further, the central squares are most important because they are equidistant from all corners of the board, so that in commanding the centre, the whole board is also commanded; at an opportune moment, any piece, posted at the centre, can be easily brought into attack or defence, while, if placed in the corners, it will lose considerable time in crossing the board. It may happen that in the course of a game one wing becomes the theatre of operations and consequently more important than the centre. In the opening, however, the centre is always more important, because the game has taken no definite direction, and one must be prepared for action from all sides at any time.
However, this occupation of the centre assumes a different character with each opening. If you choose an ultra-modern opening, you make use of the ultra-modern ideas on the observation of the centre. In this case you will put out of your mind all ideas of an immediate and tentative occupation of the centre. Similarly if you play an open game, you will be inspired by the classical ideas of the theory of the openings, and you must not introduce methods which are far removed from them. It is a question of style as much as of logic.
Above all, you must grasp the general idea of an opening in order to be able to use it freely afterwards and to find moves which are in accordance with it. On the basis of the fundamental ideas of the various openings we can classify the openings into four groups:—
1. The Open Game (1. P—K4, P—K4). The establishment of a King-centre2 by both White and Black.
2. The Close Game (1. P—Q4, P—Q4). The establishment of a Queen-centre2 by both White and Black.
3. The Half-Open Game (1. P—K4, Black making any move other than 1..... P—K4). The establishment by Black of a Queen-centre in opposition to White's King-centre.
4. The Modern Openings ((a ) 1. P—Q4, Black making any move other than 1..... P—Q4; (b ) White makes any move other than 1. P—K4 or 1. P—Q4). In the first case Black refuses the immediate occupation of the centre in reply to White's establishment of a Queen-centre; in the second both players abstain from occupying the centre.
It must not be thought that all other moves are bad and lead to an unavoidable loss. The most ridiculous moves can be made without necessarily bringing about defeat. In a consultation game, that great master Tchigorin played 1. P—QR4 and 2. P—R5—and even then won the game. But that is an exception, and it is preferable at first to follow the natural course of the openings so that later on one may allow oneself to make experiments.
In the analysis of each separate group, we shall attempt to find in it the directive ideas and the line of play they involve, and when we pass on to the study of each opening in a group, we shall be able to distinguish its characteristics. When engaged in a game, the player will do just the opposite. The idea that he wants to develop will dictate to him the opening to choose.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from How to Play the Chess Openings by Eugene A. Znosko-Borovsky. Copyright © 1935 Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, Ltd.. Excerpted by permission of Dover Publications, Inc..
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Contents
DOVER BOOKS ON CHESS,Title Page,
Copyright Page,
INTRODUCTION,
A LITTLE HISTORY,
CLASSIFICATION OF THE OPENINGS,
FIRST GROUP,
SECOND GROUP,
THIRD GROUP,
FOURTH GROUP,