Chess Strategy - Edward Lasker (icecream ebook reader .txt) π
- Author: Edward Lasker
- Performer: 0486205282
Book online Β«Chess Strategy - Edward Lasker (icecream ebook reader .txt) πΒ». Author Edward Lasker
In bringing the teachings of this book under the collective heading βChess Strategy,β it was not in any way my intention to draw anything like an exact parallel between the manoeuvres on the chess-board and military operations in actual warfare. In trying to seek such analogies there is great danger of being led astray, and little likelihood of gaining knowledge that might be of use in practical play. Plain common-sense will give us all we need, without our being influenced by those tactical and strategical considerations that have been found useful in war.
The following definition may not be out of place: Strategy sets down the whole of the problems which must be solved in war, in order to attain the ultimate result aimed at; tactics solve such problems in various ways, and according to the conditions prevailing in the particular case. Sound strategy, when setting the task, must never lose sight of tactical practicability, and only a thorough knowledge of tactical resources makes correct strategy possible.
Now we shall not under any circumstances, as unfortunately even great chess masters have done, seek in outward similarities justification for transferring to chess the teachings of the strategy and tactics of war. It sounds pretty enough to say: Chess is a game of warβthe various pieces represent the various kinds of forces: the pawns represent the infantry, the Knights take the place of cavalry, the Rooks do the work of heavy artillery, sweeping broad lines; the different ways in which the pieces move find a parallel in the topography of the theatre of war, in that the various battle-fields are more or less easy of access. But it is quite unjustifiable to assign to the Knights the functions of scouts, and to say that Rooks should stay in the background, as heavy artillery, and so on. Such pronouncements would not have the slightest practical value. What we take from the science of warfare is merely the definition. In each game the strategy of chess should set us the tasks which must be accomplished (in order to mate the opponentβs King), and tactics point the way in which it is possible to solve such problems. Correct chess strategy will only set such tasks as are tactically possible, and, if we wish to expound the principles of chess strategy, we cannot exclude chess tactics from the field of our observations. If here and there the results of our deliberations bear some analogy to actual warfare, we may certainly give way to a kind of aesthetic satisfaction in that our own occupation has some parallel in real life, but we must never fashion our principles in accordance with such fortuitous circumstances.
Having surveyed the problems we have to solve, we can now plunge into our subject.
In the first chapter, when considering special cases in elementary combinations, we have already noticed the important part played in each skirmish by the balance between the attacking and defending units. Speaking quite generally, common-sense will tell us that, in all operations on the chess-board, the main consideration for the defence will be to maintain that balance, and that there is only justification for an attack when it is possible to concentrate more forces on the strategic point than can be mustered by the defence. However, one very important point must not be neglected, though I did not touch upon it when discussing elementary combinations for fear of complicating matters for beginners: the balance between the contending forces is by no means established by their numerical equality. A paramount factor is the mobility of such forces, and as soon as it is no longer one of the elementary cases of capture and recapture described previously, this factor must be taken into account in order to decide, on a general survey, whether there is a sufficient defence to an impending attack, or whether oneβs own intended attack is likely to prevail. That mobility is the first and foremost consideration should be self-evident, since the relative value of the pieces can only make itself felt by their greater or lesser mobility.
Except in certain positions, which are brought about by some particular array of the pieces, the intrinsic value of a Rook is greater than that of a Bishop, because it can command all the squares on the board, whilst a Bishop is tied to its own colour; Knight and Bishop are considered equivalent, because the Knightβs advantage in being able to act on all the squares of either colour is balanced by the fact that the Bishop can sweep long diagonals. Two Bishops are, generally speaking, of greater value than two Knights, because together they also act on all the squares, and their command of long diagonals is a clear advantage. The whole of this valuation, however, comes to nought when the pieces are hindered in their mobility by the peculiarity of any particular position.
We will consider one instance from end-game play, and one from the openings.
In Diagram 13, White derives no advantage from being
βββββββββββββ
8 | | | | | | | | |
|βββββββββββββ|
7 | | | | | | | #K | |
|βββββββββββββ|
6 | | #P | | | | #P | | |
|βββββββββββββ|
5 | #P | | #P | | #P | ^P | #P | |
|βββββββββββββ|
4 | ^P | | ^P | #Kt| ^P | | | |
|βββββββββββββ|
3 | | ^P | | ^R | | | ^P | ^K |
|βββββββββββββ|
2 | | | | | | | | |
|βββββββββββββ|
1 | | | | | | | | |
βββββββββββββ
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 13
the exchange to the good, for the Rook has no file which could be used to break into the Black camp.
In Diagram 14, the numerical equality of forces will not save Black, because bad development reduces the mobility of his pieces to such an extent that he has no resources with which he can parry the impending attack.
βββββββββββββ
8 | | | #K | #R | | #B | | #R |
|βββββββββββββ|
7 | | #B | | | #Q | #P | #P | #P |
|βββββββββββββ|
6 | #P | #P | | #P | | | #Kt| |
|βββββββββββββ|
5 | | | #P | ^P | #P | | | |
|βββββββββββββ|
4 | | | ^P | | ^P | | | |
|βββββββββββββ|
3 | | ^P | ^Kt| | ^B | ^Kt| ^P | |
|βββββββββββββ|
2 | ^P | | | ^Q | | ^P | ^K | ^P |
|βββββββββββββ|
1 | ^R | | | | ^R | | | |
βββββββββββββ
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 14
White will assail the Black Kingβs position on the Queen side, and Black is unable to concentrate his forces quickly enough for the defence of the jeopardised entrenchments. Let us therefore bear in mind that the mobility of the pieces is the deciding factor of their efficiency, and that mobility is the highest criterion by which to judge the merits (or demerits) of their operations.
We will now consider this principle in its application to the three stages of play, namely, the opening, the middle-game, and the ending.
The only pieces available on the first move are the Knights. In order to develop other pieces as well, it is necessary to move pawns first, and such pawn moves will be best as give an outlet to as many pieces as possible. For quick development is of the utmost importance, and he who succeeds first in placing all his pieces, from their initial awkward positions, to such places as give them command of the greatest possible number of squares, has the better chance of concentrating a superior force on some important point.
It follows that White, having the first move, is, so to speak, always morally justified in attacking, whilst Black should assume the defensive. It is a step in the right direction, to appreciate the truth of this proposition. Unfortunately most beginners fail to realise it, and so pave the way, from the first, to the loss of the game.
There are not many developing pawn moves to choose from. Apparently from the point of view of quick development only P-K4 and P-Q4 need be considered, since they free both Bishop and Queen, whilst other pawn moves liberate one piece only. Generally speaking it is only required to move two or three pawns to allow all pieces to be developed, and it is good, on principle, to make only such pawn moves in the opening, which are necessary for the development of pieces. To play other pawns really means the loss of a move. To βlose a moveβ means to make a move which is not essential to the attainment of a desired position. Thus the βloss of a moveβ results also from playing a piece to a given square in more moves than necessary.
I shall now give a few games showing the far-reaching consequences of losing moves. The first one is a typical though glaring example, which is very instructive and came to my notice some time ago:
1. P-K4 P-K4
2. P-Q4 PxP
3. QxP Kt-QB3
4. Q-K3 Kt-B3
5. P-KR3?
I will not discuss the system of development adopted by White in his first four moves. The last move, however, can at once be recognised as faulty. It is the loss of a move such as occurs in the vast majority of games played by beginners. It was unnecessary to prevent KKt-Kt5, since the Knight could not hold that square permanently. In any case B-K2 would have had the same effect, and developed a piece at the same time.
5. β¦ B-K2
6. P-QR3??
This, of course, is very bad. The consequences of this loss of a second move are swift and deadly.
6. β¦ Castles
7. B-B4
At last a developing move.
7. β¦ R-K1
8. Q-QKt3
Another Queenβs move. The attack on the Bishopβs Pawn may be very tempting, but must necessarily be incorrectβand why? Because White is much behind with his development. It is useless to analyse any kind of attack in face of this fact. The beginner finds it hard to get used to this way of thinking. He prefers to try to unravel a long string of variations and combinations, in which he will mostly lose his bearings. Even stronger players obstruct their own powers by refusing to see the value of judging a position on general merits. They lose valuable time in thinking out endless variations, to maintain positions which could be proved valueless by general and logical deductions.
βββββββββββββ
8 | #R | | #B | #Q | #R | | #K | |
|βββββββββββββ|
7 | #P | #P | #P | #P | #B | #P | #P | #P |
|βββββββββββββ|
6 | | | #Kt| | | #Kt| | |
|βββββββββββββ|
5 | | | | | | | | |
|βββββββββββββ|
4 | | | ^B | | ^P | | | |
|βββββββββββββ|
3 | ^P | ^Q | | | | | | ^P |
|βββββββββββββ|
2 | | ^P | ^P | | | ^P | ^P | |
|βββββββββββββ|
1 | ^R | ^Kt| ^B | | ^K | | ^Kt| ^R |
βββββββββββββ
A
Comments (0)