GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CHESS STRATEGY
In bringing the teachings of this book under the collective
heading “Chess Strategy,” it was not in any way my intention to
draw anything like an exact parallel between the manœuvres 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 war--the 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 opponent’s 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 one’s 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 Knight’s
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
---------------------------------------
8 | | | | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | | | | | | | #K | |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | #P | | | | #P | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | #P | | #P | | #P | ^P | #P | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | ^P | | ^P | #Kt| ^P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | ^P | | ^R | | | ^P | ^K |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | | | | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | | | | | | | | |
---------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------
8 | | | #K | #R | | #B | | #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | | #B | | | #Q | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | #P | #P | | #P | | | #Kt| |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | #P | ^P | #P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | ^P | | ^P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | ^P | ^Kt| | ^B | ^Kt| ^P | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | | | ^Q | | ^P | ^K | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | | | | ^R | | | |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 14
White will assail the Black King’s 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.