THE OPENING
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 “lose a move” means to make a move which is not
essential to the attainment of a desired position. Thus the “loss
of a move” 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. ... 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. ... Castles
7. B-B4
At last a developing move.
7. ... R-K1
8. Q-QKt3
Another Queen’s move. The attack on the Bishop’s Pawn may be very
tempting, but must necessarily be incorrect--and 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.
---------------------------------------
8 | #R | | #B | #Q | #R | | #K | |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | #P | #P | #B | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | #Kt| | | #Kt| | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | ^B | | ^P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | ^P | ^Q | | | | | | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | | ^P | ^P | | | ^P | ^P | |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | ^Kt| ^B | | ^K | | ^Kt| ^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 15
Then, as in the present position, retribution comes swiftly.
8. ... P-Q4
White should have considered this move. It was obvious, since the
opening of the K file for the Rook is most dangerous, for the
White King.
9. BxP KtxB
Black could have played QxB at once.
10. QxKt QxQ
11. PxQ B-Kt5 double ch
12. K-Q1 R-K8 mate
A further example in which the loss of moves occurs, though not
so glaringly, is the following famous game, which Morphy played
against the Duke Karl of Brunswick and Count Isouard in the Royal
box at the Paris opera-house.
1. P-K4 P-K4
2. Kt-KB3 P-Q3
According to the principles set out above, Kt-QB3 would have been
better, since the text move shuts out the King’s Bishop.
3. P-Q4
Now the King’s Pawn is attacked twice. It would be bad to support
it with Kt-QB3, as White would exchange pawns and then Queens.
Black would thus forfeit his chance of castling and lose much
time in bringing the King into safety and the Rooks into play. P-
KB3, of course, is impossible, as it is not a developing move,
and moreover blocks the natural development of the King’s Knight.
Protecting the pawn with the Queen would also block other pieces,
and QKt-Q2 cannot be good, as it blocks the Queen’s Bishop.
Since it seems impossible to protect the King’s Pawn, the only
alternative would be to exchange it; indeed it is on the whole
the best course, although it allows a White piece to take up a
dominating position in the centre. Wishing to avoid this, Black
plays
3. ... B-Kt5
and, by pinning the opponent’s Knight, indirectly protects the
King’s Pawn. This manœuvre is, however, ill-advised, as Black is
forced to exchange the Bishop for the Knight. The Bishop will
have moved twice, the Knight only once, therefore White will have
gained a move for his development.
4. PxP BxKt
Should Black play PxP at once, White would exchange Queens,
release the pin, and win the pawn.
5. QxB PxP
6. B-QB4
White has now two pieces more in play than Black, instead of only
one, and the mobility of the White Queen, which Black himself has
brought out, begins to have a threatening effect on Black’s game.
6. ... Kt-KB3
7. Q-QKt3 Q-K2
Black cannot cover his King’s Bishop’s Pawn with Q-Q2 because 8.
QxP wins the Rook, whilst now Black could play 8. ... Q-Kt5ch in
reply, forcing the exchange of Queens. The text move, which is
forced, blocks the Bishop, and at the same time prevents the
development of the King’s Rook, all of which is the direct
consequence of the loss of one move.
8. Kt-B3
White rightly disdains the gain of the Knight’s Pawn, but
prevents the exchange of Queens in developing a piece. He proves
the superiority of his position much more convincingly in that
way. Black must now lose yet another move to protect his Knight’s
Pawn.
8. ... P-B3
9. B-KKt5 P-Kt4
Black must try to develop his Queen’s Knight at last. He cannot
play QKt-Q2 at once, since his Knight’s Pawn would again be
unprotected; therefore he plays the move in the text, probably
thinking that now White also must lose a move to withdraw his
Bishop. But in view of the fact that Black’s game is wholly
undeveloped, and that he plays practically several pieces down,
White sacrifices his Knight for two pawns: he foresees the
position which occurs a few moves later, when Black is hemmed in
on all sides.
10. KtxP PxKt
11. BxKtPch QKt-Q2
12. Castles QR R-Q1
This is the only piece available to cover Q2, for the King’s
Knight is pinned. White has another piece in reserve, his King’s
Rook, and against this Black is defenceless.
---------------------------------------
8 | | | | #R | #K | #B | |#R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | | | #Kt| #Q | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | | | | #Kt| | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | ^B | | | #P | | ^B | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | | | ^P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | ^Q | | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | ^P | | | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | | | ^K | ^R | | | | ^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 16
13. RxKt
compare Diag. 12.
13. ... RxR
14. R-Q1 Q-K3
This releases the King’s Knight. Now White could win by playing
BxKt and BxRch, but he prefers to end up with a magnificent
sacrifice.
15. BxRch KtxB
16. Q-Kt8ch!! KtxQ
17. R-Q8 mate
The final position shows in a striking manner how a few well-
developed pieces can be worth more than many undeveloped ones,
and the whole game is an example of the fatal consequences which
can follow the loss of a move, since it often leads to the
compulsory loss of further moves in the course of the game.
“This is the curse of every evil deed
That propagating still it brings forth evil.”
The logical sequence of the moves in this game, as pointed out in
the commentaries to it, is borne out by the curious coincidence
that I once had the opportunity of playing a game in exactly the
same sequence of moves, against a player to whom Morphy’s
“brilliancy” was unknown.
--------------------------
The leading principle of all opening moves is made clear by the
foregoing pages, namely, rapid development of pieces, and
consequently the avoidance of the loss of a move in any shape or
form.
Before treating of the various systems of openings, I will say a
few words on the principles of PAWN PLAY.
Each opening is characterised by a well-defined pawn formation,
and concurrently a certain method in the development of the
pieces. Naturally the formation of a pawn skeleton is not an
independent factor, but must be evolved with a view to
facilitating the favourable development of pieces. But when
considering the form of a pawn position and that of the pieces,
we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that pawn formation must
necessarily be the dominant consideration in our mind. Pawn
formation is of a more permanent character than that of the
pieces, in consequence of the latter’s greater mobility. When we
have made a rash move with a piece, to which our attacking
disposition may have tempted us, we may still have a chance of
retrieving the position by timely retreat. Once a pawn has moved
it cannot turn back, and only after the greatest deliberation
should we embark on changes in our pawn formation in order not to
disturb the balance of this “static element” of the game. But we
shall see that the pawn skeleton which was formed in the opening
often weathers the storm and stress of the middle game, and
frequently preserves its character right up to the end-game. I
will therefore make pawn formation my starting-point in an
attempt to show the way through the maze of the openings on the
basis of general strategical principles.
If our pawn skeleton is to promote the freedom of all the pieces,
we must not build it up with the narrow view of developing minor
pieces only, but must consider from the very first in which way
it will enable the Rooks to get into action. We can unite these
tendencies in making the CENTRE OF THE BOARD the main field of
action for all our forces. This means for both sides K4 and Q4,
and also in a lesser degree QB4 and KB4. We shall get a clear
insight into the positional advantage of having command of the
centre later on, when discussing the middle game. At present I
will only touch the subject in a general way, explaining it in an
elementary form, which will be sufficient to develop an
understanding for pawn strategy in the opening. In the course of
further deductions, after the grasp of this difficult stage of
the game has become stronger, I will go into details which will
allow the subject to be stated in a more precise form.
Placing the pieces in the centre is of value, because there they
have more mobility than near the edge, which, of course, limits
their range of action, and also because from the centre a
concentration of forces on a given point can generally be
effected in the quickest way.
In most cases two centre squares become inaccessible at once,
through the opponent placing one of his pawns in the centre;
therefore it would seem a good plan to lure that pawn away, and
this is rendered feasible by playing P-K4 or P-QB4 when the
opponent has a pawn on his Q4, and P-Q4 or P-KB4 when he has a
pawn on K4. In the following we will consider such manœuvres as
could apply either to White or Black, from the point of view of
White, to whom the initiative is, as pointed out above, a sort of
birth-right. Naturally, should White lose a move, as, for
instance, 1. P-K4, P-K4; 2. Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3; 3. P-QR3? the
position is reversed, and Black is bound to obtain the initiative
which is White’s birthright.
The pawn moves mentioned above also have the tendency of giving
the Rooks an opportunity for action. A Rook standing behind an
advanced pawn may support its further advance, or, if the pawn
should be exchanged, might get an open file.
The damage we wish to inflict on our opponent we must, of course,
try to avoid ourselves. Thus we will not easily give up a centre
pawn unless we can obtain some other advantage in doing so. This
advantage may be, that in exchanging the centre pawn we open up
lines of attack for our pieces, or that we are able to place one
of our pieces in a commanding position in the centre of the
board.
The following example may serve as an illustration. Supposing
White plays after
1. P-Q4 P-Q4
2. P-QB4
His aim is to tempt Black’s centre pawn away and to make his QB4
and K4 accessible for his own forces. Black might be justified in
taking the pawn, if he really could hold the pawn thus gained. We
shall show later on that this is not so, and that White can win
it back easily and advantageously. Therefore Black is more
likely to play 2. P-K3. Not 2. ... Kt-KB3; for after 3. PxP,
KtxP; 4. P-K4 would open White’s game and drive the Knight away
at once, gaining a move. Supposing, however, Black plays 2. ...
B-B4; should White now think mechanically, “I will take his
centre pawn and consequently have the better game,” his deduction
would be wrong. For after exchanging his Bishop for the Knight,
which otherwise would drive his Queen away, Black brings the
latter into a dominating square in the centre.
---------------------------------------
8 | #R | #Kt| | #Q | #K | #B | #Kt| #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | #P | | #P | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | | #P | | #B | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | ^P | ^P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | | | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | | | ^P | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | ^Kt| ^B | ^Q | ^K | ^B | ^Kt| ^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 17.
3. PxP BxKt
4. RxB QxP
Black’s Queen cannot easily be driven away from her commanding
position, particularly as White must lose a move to save his QRP.
Meanwhile Black gains time for concentrating his forces for an
attack which wins the Queen’s Pawn.
5. P-QKt3 Kt-QB3
6. P-K3 Castles QR
7. Kt-B3 P-K4
and wins the QP, or
5. P-QR3 Kt-QB3
6. P-K3 Castles QR
and P-K4 is again a threat hard for white to meet.
This position shows, that to bring one’s opponent’s centre pawn
away and to keep one’s own, does not under all circumstances mean
the command of the centre, but that the opening up of files and
diagonals for one’s pieces towards the centre is an important
moment in the fight for positional advantage.
Considerations of this kind will help to improve our judgment in
many of the various openings treated in the following pages.
We will class the openings in this way:
A. White 1. P-K4.
(a) Black 1. P-K4
(b) Black 1. Any other move
B. White 1. P-Q4.
(a) Black 1. P-Q4
(b) Black 1. Any other move
C. White 1. Any other move
We shall find that openings classed under C generally lead to
positions treated under A and B.
A. We have already come to the conclusion that after 1. P-K4, P-
K4 White does well to try to force the exchange of Black’s centre
pawn on Q4 or KB4, and that Black will try to counteract this,
unless by allowing the exchange he gets a chance of exerting
pressure in the centre by means of his pieces.
We will first see what happens when White undertakes the advance
in question on his second move. Superficially the difference
between 2. PQ4 and 2. P-KB4 is that in the first case the pawn
thus advanced is covered, while in the second it is not. An
opening in which a pawn sacrifice is offered, is called a
“gambit”; 2. P-KB4 is therefore a gambit.
2. P-Q4 is only a gambit if after 2. ... PxP White does not
recapture the pawn. Nevertheless this opening has been called the
“centre gambit,” and though the denomination is not correct we
will adhere to it, as it is in general use.
A very considerable difference between the centre gambit and the
King’s gambit lies in the fact that in the former acceptance is
compulsory, whilst in the second it may be declined.
For: 2. P-Q4 threatens to take the King’s Pawn. To defend it by
means of 2. ... P-Q3 is unwise, since White exchanges pawns and
then Queens, by which Black loses his chance of castling and
impedes the development of his Rooks. 2. ... Kt-QB3 is also bad,
since after 3. PxP, KtxP; 4 P-KB4, White drives the Knight away,
gaining a strong hold on the centre, and Black has no
compensation for giving up his centre pawn. It may be mentioned
here that after 2. ... Kt-QB3, 3. P-Q5 would be a useless move,
as to begin with it would be inconsequent, since P-Q4 was played
in order to clear the centre, and moreover it would block up a
diagonal which could be most useful to the King’s Bishop.
We conclude now that Black cannot hold his pawn at K4. He must
relinquish the centre by 2. ... PxP. He will now either attempt
to bring away White’s King’s Pawn by advancing his own QP to Q4,
or try to utilise the King’s file, which was opened by his second
move, and operate against White’s KP. The Rooks are indicated for
this task. We shall refer to the execution of these plans later
on.
In the King’s gambit, White’s attempt to bring away Black’s
King’s Pawn may be safely ignored.
The move 2. P-KB4 does not threaten to take the King’s Pawn, as
Black would win White’s KP by Q-R5ch. Black can therefore develop
in security with 2. ... B-B4, and if then White prevents the Q
check by Kt-KB3, there is no objection to Black protecting his
King’s Pawn with P-Q3, as the King’s Bishop is already developed.
After 4. B-B4, Black has still no need to protect his KP with Kt-
QB3, but can play Kt-KB3 first, because after 5. PxP, PxP; 6.
KtxP would be answered by 6. ... Q-Q5 winning a piece. Black
keeps the upper hand in these early encounters because he has
made a developing move with a piece, whilst White has played a
pawn move which is useless for the purpose of development.
---------------------------------------
8 | #R | | | #Q | #K | | | #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | #P | | | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | #Kt| #P | | #Kt| | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | #B | | #P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | ^B | | ^P | ^P | #B | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | | ^Kt| ^P | | ^Kt| | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | ^P | | | | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | | ^B | ^Q | ^K | | | ^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 18.
Diagram 18 shows the position which results from the following
plausible moves:
2. P-KB4 B-B4
3. Kt-KB3 P-Q3
4. B-B4 Kt-KB3
5. P-Q3 Kt-B3
6. Kt-B3 B-KKt5
If White wishes to castle on the K side, which must have been his
intention when playing 2. P-KB4, he will have to play Kt-QR4 and
KtxB.
Though this is of no disadvantage to Black, he could avoid the
exchange of his KB by playing 2. ... P-QR3 instead of B-KKt5. If
then White plays P-B5 in order to hinder the development of
Black’s QB and to bring out his own, the pressure on Black’s KP
is relieved permanently, and sooner or later Black will break
through on the Q file, as his QP is no longer needed at Q3 for
the support of the centre pawn.
A different pawn formation is the result if White enforces the
exchange of Black’s centre pawn at once. This he can do by
playing P-Q4, e.g.:
2. P-KB4 B-B4 or 4. P-B3 Kt-KB3
3. Kt-KB3 P-Q3 5. P-Q4 PxQP
4. P-Q4 PxQP 6. PxP B-Kt3
5. KtxP
Here Black can get an early advantage by attacking White’s KP,
taking possession of the K file after castling on the K side.
All things considered, the student should in my opinion decline
the gambit, as in doing so he can get an easy and satisfactory
development. The treatment of the “King’s Gambit accepted,” which
aims at holding the gambit pawn, is most difficult and leads
early in the game to such complications as none but an expert can
hope to master.
[Footnote: As an example of the difficult play which ensues when
Black defends the pawn in the King’s Gambit, I give the latest
variation of an attack introduced by Professor I. L. Rice, and
called the “Rice Gambit”:
1. P-K4, P-K4; 2. P-KB4, PxP; 3. Kt-KB3, P-KKt4; 4. P-KR4, P-Kt5;
5. Kt-K5, Kt-KB3; 6. B-B4, P-Q4; 7. PxP, B-Q3; 8. Castles! BxKt;
9. R-K1, Q-K2; 10. P-B3, Kt-R4; 11. P-Q4, Kt-Q2; 12. PxB, KtxP;
13. P-QKt3, Castles; 14. B-R3, Kt-B6ch!; 15. PxKt, QxP; 16. R-K5!
B-B4!!; 17. Kt-Q2! Q-Kt6ch; 18. K-B1, Q-R7; 19. BxR, P-Kt6; 20.
B-B5, P-Kt7ch; 21. K-K1, Q-R5ch; 22. K-K2, Kt-Kt6ch; 23. K-B2,
Kt-K5ch; 24. KxP, B-R6ch; 25. K-R1, K-R1; 26. KtxKt, R-KKt1; 27.
R-Kt5, with interesting possibilities.
Numberless interesting variations are possible, but their
discussion does not lie within the scope of this work. They will
be found in books treating of the analysis of the openings.]
It is therefore unwise for the beginner to accept the gambit,
unless there be a chance of compensation for the disappearance of
his centre pawn, by forcing the exchange of White’s centre pawn
as well. The following line of play would fulfil this condition:
1. P-K4, P-K4; 2. P-KB4, PxP; 3. Kt-KB3, Kt-KB3; 4. Kt-B3, P-Q4!
Black thereby abandons the gambit pawn.
On principle, and when he has the choice, the beginner should
give preference to simple and clear development in the opening,
rather than to the gain of a pawn, when this involves difficult
and intricate play. This principle must also guide us in other
openings.
A good example is to be found in the so-called “Danish gambit,”
[Footnote: The names of the various openings, which I mention for
the sake of completeness, are generally derived from towns or
countries in which they were first extensively played and
analysed.] which will lead us back to those openings in which
White plays P-Q4 on his second move. After 2. P-Q4, PxP, White
has the option of sacrificing two pawns to obtain a very rapid
development 3. P-QB3, PxP; 4. B-QB4, PxP; 5. QBxP. It may now be
just possible for Black to avoid the many threats which White can
bring to bear with his beautifully placed forces, perhaps by
giving back one or both of the pawns gained. But this question
can only be of interest to us if there is no opportunity of
adopting a simple line of development at the outset. As it is,
this opportunity is not wanting. All that Black needs to do is to
push on his Queen’s Pawn as soon as possible, thus freeing his
own Queen’s Bishop.
2. P-Q4 PxP
3. P-QB3 P-Q4
---------------------------------------
8 | #R | #Kt| #B | #Q | #K | #B |#Kt | #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | #P | | | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | | #P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | | #P | ^P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | | ^P | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | | | | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | ^Kt| ^B | ^Q | ^K | ^B | ^Kt| ^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diagram 19.
After 4. KPxP, QxP, Black’s position is at least as easy of
development as White’s. In the position set out in Diagram 19,
White cannot play P-K5, because Black wins a pawn by PxP without
hindering his own development in the least. The equalising power
of Black’s P-Q4 in all KP openings where White has played P-Q4
can be noticed in many variations. I shall now give a few typical
examples, which will show the line of play that can be adopted in
many similar cases, and which can often be evolved one from the
other by altering the order of the moves.
I. CENTRE GAMBIT
2. P-Q4 PxP
3. QxP Kt-QB3
4. Q-K3 Kt-B3
5. Kt-QB3 B-K2
6. B-Q2 P-Q4!
II. KING’S BISHOP’S OPENING
2. P-Q4 PxP
3. B-QB4 Kt-KB3
4. P-K5 P-Q4!
III. SCOTCH GAMBIT
2. Kt-KB3 Kt-QB3
3. P-Q4 PxP
4. B-B4 Kt-B3 4. P-B3 P-Q4!
5. P-K5 P-Q4!
IV. SCOTCH GAME
2. Kt-KB3 Kt-QB3
3. P-Q4 PxP
4. KtxP Kt-B3
5. Kt-QB3 B-Kt5
6. KtxKt KtPxKt
7. B-Q3 P-Q4!
In no case should Black forfeit his chance of playing P-Q4. It is
tempting after 2. P-Q4, PxP; 3. Kt-KB3 to cover the pawn at Q5 by
P-QB4, but in that case White would sacrifice a pawn by P-QB3, by
this means opening the Queen’s file for himself, and so
preventing Black from ever playing P-Q4. Thus, for the loss of a
pawn, White has a paramount advantage in position.
For after 4. ... PxP, 5. KtxP (Diagram 20) White has developed
both Knights, and his Bishops are free, whilst Black has none of
his pieces out. P-Q3 must also be played in order to mobilise the
Queen’s Bishop, leaving K2 as the only square for the King’s
Bishop; finally the “backward” pawn [Footnote: A pawn is said to
be “backward,” when it cannot move into cover by another pawn.]
at Q3 is open to constant attacks and is difficult to defend.
---------------------------------------
8 | #R | #Kt| #B | #Q | #K | #B | #Kt| #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | | #P | | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | #P | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | | | ^P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | | ^Kt| | | ^Kt| | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | | | | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | | ^B | ^Q | ^K | ^B | | ^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 20
The best plan for Black is to decline the doubtful gift of the
pawn and to bring about one of the positions, as sketched above,
in which, by playing P-Q4 early in the game, Black is sure of the
free development of all his forces.
Black is able to play P-Q4 early in all such openings, where
White does not force the defensive move P-Q3 by attacking Black’s
King’s Pawn. For instance, in the King’s gambit, since the move
2. P-KB4 does not threaten PxP, Black can reply at once by 2. ...
P-Q4 (Falkbeer Counter Gambit). After 3. PxQP, P-K5 (to permit of
Kt-KB3, which at present is not feasible on account of 4. PxP);
4. P-Q3, PxP; 5. QxP, White is a pawn ahead, but his Queen
obstructs his KB; therefore Black has better developing chances
and should be able to win the pawn back at the very least.
A second example is the Vienna game, which proceeds as follows:
2. Kt-QB3 Kt-KB3
3. P-B4 P-Q4 (Diagram 21)
If White plays 4. PxQP, Black can play P-K5, as in the Falkbeer
gambit mentioned just now. In answer to 4. PxKP, on the other
hand, Black can play KtxP without having the slightest difficulty
with his development. For instance,
5. Kt-KB3 B-K2
6. P-Q4 P-KB3
7. B-Q3 KtxKt
8. PxKt Castles
9. Castles Kt-B3 or B-KKt5
and Black also will soon have an open file for his Rook, with no
disadvantage in position.
---------------------------------------
8 | #R |#Kt | #B | #Q | #K | #B | | #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | #P | | | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | | | |#Kt | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | | #P | #P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | | | ^P | ^P | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | |^Kt | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P |^P | ^P | ^P | | | ^P | ^P |
---------------------------------------
1 | ^R | | ^B | ^Q | ^K | ^B |^Kt | ^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 21.
There is, however, one opening in which Black has the utmost
difficulty in preventing White from getting a positional
advantage in the centre. It is called the Ruy Lopez, and is held
by many to be the strongest opening for White. The initial moves
are: 1. P-K4, P-K4; 2. Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3; 3. B-Kt5. With this move
White at once attacks the Black KP, though indirectly, by
threatening to exchange the B for the Kt. To make the capture
effective, however, White must first protect his own King’s Pawn,
which would otherwise be lost after 4. BxKt, QPxB; 5. KtxP, Q-
Q5!. At first, therefore, Black need not provide against the
threatened exchange.
I shall treat at some length the various defences from which
Black can choose, and in studying this most important King’s side
opening, we shall have occasion to note many points of general
interest for operations in the centre.
Broadly speaking, two entirely different systems of defence can
be distinguished: either Black will try to maintain his centre
pawn, or else, giving up the centre, try to gain some other
advantage as compensation.
Black can only maintain his centre pawn if he can prevent his QKt
from being exchanged. As is readily seen, White can attack
Black’s KP a second time with P-Q4, whilst after Black’s P-Q3 any
other defensive move would hinder development. These
considerations lead to the first main line of defence in which
Black plays 3. ... P-QR3. After 4. B-R4 Black has the option of
releasing the pin by playing P-QKt4 at some opportune moment. If
White elects to exchange his Bishop for the Kt forthwith, he can
remove the Black centre pawn after 4. ... QPxB by playing 5. P-
Q4, but the exchange of the B for the Kt gives Black a free
development and in consequence a good game. (Compare note to move
4 in Game No. 12.)
Diagram 22 reproduces a typical position in this defence. The
more usual continuation for White is 4. B-R4, Kt-B3;
---------------------------------------
8 | #R | | #B | #Q | #K | | | #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | | | #P | | #B | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | #P | |#Kt | #P | |#Kt | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | #P | | | #P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | | | ^P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | ^B | | | |^Kt | | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | ^P | ^P | | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R |^Kt | ^B | ^Q | ^R | | ^K | |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 22.
5. Castles; he does not trouble to protect his KP as its capture
would allow his Rook an open file on which to act against the
opposing King (compare Games Nos. 14 and 17) 5. ... B-K2. Now
Black can capture the KP without much risk, as the Bishop is on
the King’s file. 6. R-K1, White covers his pawn, and thereby
threatens to win a pawn by BxKt. Therefore Black must not delay
playing 6. ... P-QKt4.
After 7. B-Kt3, P-Q3; (Diagram 22) White cannot yet execute the
manœuvre which underlies the whole tendency of the Ruy Lopez,
namely P-Q4, maintaining the pressure in the centre, because
after KtxQP, 9. KtxKt, PxKt; 10. QxP? White loses a piece
through 10. ... P-B4, etc. It is therefore necessary to play P-
QB3 first. White could also obtain a rapid development by Kt-B3,
P-Q3, B-K3 or Kt5, but this arrangement is not popular, because
Black can play Kt-QR4 and exchange the valuable KB. The pawn at
QB3 supports an advance in the centre, and also provides a
retreat for the KB. The QKt can be developed in this way: Kt-Q2-
B1-Kt3 or K3. Black, however, must try to round off his pawn
position on the Queen’s side, by moving his QBP into line.
Black’s pawns at K4 and QB4 then exert a pressure on White’s Q4.
And this pressure threatens to be reinforced by B-Kt5. From these
considerations the following development seems to be natural: 8.
P-B3, Kt-QR4; 9. B-B2, P-B4; 10. P-Q4, Q-B2 (to support the KP);
it leads to the position in Diagram 23.
---------------------------------------
8 | #R | | #B | | #K | | | #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | | | #Q | | #B | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | #P | | | #P | |#Kt | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 |#Kt | #P | #P | | #P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | | ^P | ^P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | | ^P | | |^Kt | | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | ^B | | | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R |^Kt | ^B | ^Q | ^R | | ^K | |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 23.
11. P-KR3
One of the few instances in which this pawn move is justified.
It deprives Black’s QB of its only good square, and saves the
K Kt, the co-operation of which is urgently needed in the centre.
This system of opening will receive more exhaustive treatment
under the heading of “Middle Game.” (Compare Game No. 12.)
In the second main line of defence, of which I shall treat now,
Black renounces the maintenance of his KP, and makes an attempt
to find compensation by attacking White’s King’s Pawn. The King’s
file, opened by the disappearance of the Black pawn, offers
opportunities for that purpose. After the first few moves we
arrive at the following position, which
---------------------------------------
8 | #R | | | #Q | | #R | #K | |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | #P | #B | #B | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | |#Kt | #P | |#Kt | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | ^B | | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | |^Kt | ^P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | |^Kt | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | ^P | | | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | | ^B | ^Q | ^R | | ^K | |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 24.
may be reached thus: 3. B-Kt5, P-Q3; 4. P-Q4, B-Q2; 5. Kt-B3, Kt-
B3; 6. Castles, B-K2; 7. R-K1, PxP; 8. KtxP, Castles. The
exchange on the seventh move is compulsory, because the loss of a
pawn after BxKt is in effect threatened, now that the White KP is
supported by the Rook.
Black’s intention of exerting pressure on the KP is now difficult
of execution, because his pieces are very cramped and hinder one
another in a restricted area. The KB in particular cannot be
brought into action without great difficulty, for instance by: R-
K1, B-KB1, P-KKt3, and B-Kt2. It is therefore advisable for
White to develop his QB at Kt2 instead of at Kt5, in order not to
give Black a chance of exchanging his troublesome Bishop. (In a
game Bernstein-Emanuel Lasker, Moscow, 1914, there happened 9.
BxKt, PxB; 10. B-Kt5, P-KR3; 11. B-R4, Kt-R2; 12. BxB, QxB with a
good game for Black.)
The defence has a totally different trend, if Black gives up his
own KP, but captures the White KP at once. I have already pointed
out that White would not mind his KP being taken, in view of the
attack on the open King’s file. Let us now consider in which way
this attack can be planned. There are two essentially different
lines, according to whether Black interpolates P-QR3 or not.
After 3. B-Kt5, Kt-B3; 4. Castles, KtxP; 5. R-K1, Black gets out
of it comfortably by playing Kt-Q3, B-K2 and Castles, and White
cannot permanently prevent Black’s game from being freed by the
advance of the QP. P-Q4 for White on the fifth move is therefore
stronger. Black cannot very well exchange the pawns, leaving the
King’s file quite exposed, and must submit to White playing PxP,
maintaining the pawn at K5 and preventing Black’s P-Q4 for some
time to come.
The opening might continue in this way: 5. P-Q4, B-K2; 6. Q-K2,
Kt-Q3; 7. BxKt, KtPxB (to make room for the Kt); 8. PxP, Kt-Kt2
(Diagram 25).
---------------------------------------
8 | #R | | #B | #Q | #K | | | #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #Kt| #P | #P | #B | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | #P | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | | | ^P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | | | | | ^Kt| | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | ^P | | ^Q | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | ^Kt| ^B | | | ^R | ^K | |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 25
The whole of the manœuvres now centre round Black’s endeavours
to force his P-Q4, and White’s attempt to prevent it. Black
ultimately gains his point, as will be seen, but at the expense
of such disadvantages in the pawn position that it is
questionable whether the whole variation (called the Rio de
Janeiro Defence) is playable.
9. Kt-B3, Castles; 10. R-K1, Kt-B4 (the Knight is to be posted at
K3 to bring the White KKt away from his Q4, whence he prevents
the advance of Black’s QP by attacking QB6); 11. Kt-Q4, Kt-K3;
12. B-K3, KtxKt; 13. BxKt, P-B4; 14. B-K3, P-Q4; 15. PxP e.p.,
BxP. This is the critical position in the Rio de Janeiro
defence. Black has succeeded in eliminating the White centre
pawn, and sweeps long diagonals with his Bishops, but the
advantage cannot be maintained. White exchanges the Bishop at Q6,
and there remains a backward pawn, which Black will hardly be
able to hold permanently. In practice it has been shown that the
end-game should be won by White in spite of Bishops of opposite
colours, as Black’s pawn at his QB4 is difficult to defend.
16. Kt-K4, B-Kt2; 17. KtxB (not BxP because of BxB; 18. KtxB, BxP
followed by Q-Kt4ch), PxKt; 18. Q R-Q1 and P-QB4.
The game is much more favourable for Black if he first plays 3.
... P-QR3, and retains the option of driving the White KB away by
P-QKt4, after which P-Q4 can be enforced very soon. 3. B-Kt5, P-
QR3; 4. B-R4, Kt-B3; 5. Castles, KtxP; 6. P-Q4, P-QKt4; 7. B-Kt3,
P-Q4; 8. PxP, B-K3, 9. P-B3.
Now Black’s pieces are more mobile, and that is the reason why
this system of defence is becoming more popular than any other.
On the other hand, it cannot be denied that Black’s pawn
formation on the Q side is weak, and that his centre is less
secure. Whilst White has a pawn firmly posted in the centre,
Black has a Knight there which will soon be driven away. White’s
Q4, the basis of his centre, is entirely in his hands, whilst
Black’s Q4 is exposed to a steady pressure by the White pieces.
Finally Black’s QKt is unfavourably placed, obstructing as it
does the QBP and preventing its falling into line with its
fellows.
Diagram 26 shows the position after 9. P-B3. The latter move
prevents the exchange of the B after Black’s Kt-R4, an exchange
which would allow Black to round up his pawn formation with P-
QB4. The experts are not yet agreed as to the best continuation
for Black in this critical position. To be considered are the
moves B-QB4, B-K2 and Kt-B4. B-K2 is preferred nowadays to B-
QB4, as QB4 should be kept free for the KKt in case the latter is
driven from his dominating position, e.g. 10. R-K1 and 11. Q Kt-
Q2. For if in that case Black exchanges the Knights, he only
furthers White’s development without doing anything towards
strengthening his Q4.
If Black covers the Knight with P-B4, White plays PxP e.p. and
Kt-Kt5, rids himself of Black’s QB, and thereby weakens Black’s
QP still more.
Kt-B4 would therefore seem to be the best choice, as the QB
becomes mobile again after White’s B-B2, nor can White
---------------------------------------
8 | #R | | | #Q | #K | #B | | #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | | | #P | | | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | #P | |#Kt | | #B | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | #P | | #P | ^P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | | |#Kt | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | ^B | ^P | | |^Kt | | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | | | | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R |^Kt | ^B | ^Q | | ^R | ^K | |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 26.
play P-Q4 as yet. The position in the diagram therefore leads to
the following variations:
A. 9. ... B-K2; 10. R-K1, Castles; 11. QKt-Q2, Kt-B4; 12. B-B2,
B-KKt5. This manœuvre was introduced by Em. Lasker (Petrograd,
1909. For further particulars see Game No. 15).
B. 9. ... Kt-B4; 10. QKt-Q2, P-Q5 (Capablanca-Em. Lasker,
Petrograd, 1914); or 9. ... B-K2; 10. R-K1, Castles; 11. QKt-Q2,
Kt-B4; 12. B-B2, P-Q5 (Em. Lasker-Tarrasch, Petrograd, 1914).
Capablanca believes that the early advance of P-Q5 can be refuted
by Kt-K4, e.g. 9. ... B-K2; 10. QKt-Q2, Kt-B4; 11. B-B2, P-Q5;
12. Kt-K4, PxP; 13. KtxKt, BxKt; 14. B-K4, Q-Q2; 15. Q-B2 or PxP.
The openings as sketched out up to this point give a sufficiently
clear idea of the possibilities of combining sound development
with an attempt to capture the centre after the opening moves 1.
P-K4, P-K4. In most cases, Black’s centre pawn being open to
attack by White’s P-Q4, we find an early break-up of the centre,
and concurrently the opening of the Ks or Qs file for the Rooks.
That is why games opened in this fashion have been classed very
generally as “open,” whilst all the other openings are called
“close games.” Lately the distinction has been abandoned, and
very rightly, since in the latter openings, too, the centre can
be cleared occasionally. We attain typical close positions when
Black does not play 1. ... P-K4 in answer to 1. P-K4, but
relinquishes all claim on his K4 and takes possession of his Q4
instead, leaving White the option of interlocking the pawns in
the centre with P-K5.
On principle it does not seem advisable for Black to play P-Q4 on
the first move in reply to 1. P-K4. Although White’s centre pawn
disappears after 2. PxP, QxP, Black loses a move through 3. Kt-
QB3, and his Queen has no place from which it cannot be driven
away very soon, unless it be at Q1. This, however, would amount
to an admission of the inferiority of the whole of Black’s plan.
There are two moves which deserve consideration as a preliminary
to P-Q4, namely, 1. ... P-K3 (French Defence)
---------------------------------------
8 | #R |#Kt |#B | #Q | #K | #B |#Kt | #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | #P | | | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | | | #P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | | #P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | | ^P | ^P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | | | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | ^P | | | ^P | ^P |^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R |^Kt | ^B | ^Q | ^K | ^B |^Kt |^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 27
and P-QB3 (Caro-Kann defence). After 2. P-Q4, P-Q4, we attain the
positions set out in the Diagrams 27 and 28, to which we must
devote a good deal of attention.
These openings are worthy of study as being especially
interesting examples of the struggle for the centre.
As early as the third move, White has to take an important
decision. Is he to play P-K5 and prevent the opening of
---------------------------------------
8 | #R | #Kt| #B | #Q | #K | #B | #Kt| #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | | | #P | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | #P | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | | #P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | | ^P | ^P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | | | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | ^P | | | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | ^Kt| ^B | ^Q | ^K | ^B | ^Kt| ^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 28
the K or Q file for a long time to come, or should he proceed to
develop his pieces, and leave Black the option of anticipating
the blocking of the centre by playing PxP himself?
I shall first turn my attention to those games in which White
plays P-K5, starting with the French Defence, after which the
Caro-Kann Defence will be easily understood.
The position which ensues in the centre after 1. P-K4, P-K3; 2.
P-Q4, P-Q4; 3. P-K5, divides the board diagonally, and it is easy
to recognise roughly the main lines of play which will govern the
game. White has more scope on the King’s side, where his pieces
will have greater mobility, and prospects of attack. Black’s
chances are on the Queen’s side. Both sides will have to advance
more pawns in order to obtain openings for their Rooks, and use
them for the attack, since they have no future on the K and Q
files, as was the case in the openings mentioned hitherto.
The obvious moves to this end are: for White the advance of the
KBP, for Black that of the QBP and sometimes even of the QKtP,
that is when the QBP has not been exchanged for the opposing QP,
but has pushed on to B5.
In Diagrams 29 and 30 we see the chains of pawns formed by these
manœuvres.
White’s pawn attack is more dangerous than Black’s,
---------------------------------------
8 | | | | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | | | | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | | | #P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | #P | #P | ^P | ^P | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | | ^P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | | | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | ^P | | | | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | | | | | | | | |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 29
because it involves a direct assault on the King. And we shall
see that Black will usually be compelled to suspend operations on
the Queen’s side temporarily, to ward off the storm by the
---------------------------------------
8 | | | | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | | | | | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | | | #P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | | #P | ^P | ^P | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | #P | #P | ^P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | | ^P | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | | | | | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | | | | | | | | |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 30
White Pawns on the King’s side. He will attempt this either by P-
KB3 attacking White’s centre or by P-KB4 preventing White from
playing P-B5. In the latter case White can only make a breach in
the Black barrier by playing P-KKt4 as well. These manœuvres
result in the pawn formations given in Diagrams 31 and 32.
---------------------------------------
8 | | | | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | | | | | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | | | #P | #P | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | #P | #P | ^P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | | ^P | | ^P | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | | ^P | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | | | | | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | | | | | | | | |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 31
We must now turn to the development of the pieces corresponding
to these pawn skeletons. If White plays P-K5
---------------------------------------
8 | | | | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | | | | | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | | | #P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | #P | #P | ^P | #P | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | | ^P | | ^P | ^P | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | | ^P | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | | | | | | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | | | | | | | | |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 32
on his third move, he prevents the Black KKt from reaching KB3,
whence he might have moved to Q2. This is a desirable position,
from which he could support the advance of P-QB4. But the Knight
has other chances of development, to KR3 and B4, whence he can
take his share in the attack on the White Pawn at Q4. In
consequence White must postpone P-KB4 in order not to intercept
the action of the QB on R6. Now, in that case White’s Pawn at his
K5 has not sufficient support against the attack by Black’s P-KB3
(Diagram 31), and the latter move gives Black the advantage. The
two main variations illustrative of these considerations are:
I
3. P-K5 P-QB4
4. P-QB3 Kt-QB3
5. P-KB4 PxP
6. PxP Q-Kt3
7. Kt-KB3 Kt-R3
II
3. P-K5 P-QB4
4. P-QB3 Kt-QB3
5. Kt-B3 P-B3
In both cases the initiative falls to Black, in the first through
the attack on White’s Q4, the mainstay of White’s centre; in the
second through attack on White’s K5, the White centre itself. We
must therefore consider White’s advance of P-K5 on the third move
as premature. Let us now find out whether it is advantageous to
effect the same subsequently. A developing move can be
interpolated, e.g. 3. Kt-QB3, Kt-KB3. If White plays P-K5 now he
gains time for his advance of P-KB4, as Black’s Knight must
retreat. On the other hand he cannot now maintain his pawn at Q4,
as he has blocked his QBP. We arrive at the following plan of
development:
3. Kt-QB3 Kt-KB3
4. P-K5 KKt-Q2
5. P-B4 P-QB4
6. PxP Kt-QB3
If Black were to play BxP at once, White could play Q-Kt4 with an
attack on the Knight’s Pawn. That is the object of Black’s
waiting move. White must either play 7. Kt-B3, which prevents his
Q-Kt4, or 7. B-Q3, after which Black would take the pawn on B4
with his Knight, getting rid of the White Bishop. 7. Q-Kt4 at
once would be answered by P-B4.
7. Kt-B3 BxP
8. B-Q3 P-B4
Black cannot castle yet, on account of the following threat,
which I give in full because it occurs frequently in practice:
8. ... Castles; 9. BxPch, KxB; 10. Kt-Kt5ch, K-Kt1: 11. Q-R5, R-
K1; 12. QxPch; 13. Q-R5ch; 14. Q-R7ch; 15. Q-R8ch; 16. QxP mate.
---------------------------------------
8 | #R | | #B | #Q | #K | | | #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | | #Kt| | | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | #Kt| | #P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | #B | #P | ^P | #P | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | | | | ^P | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | | ^Kt| ^B | | ^Kt| | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | ^P | | | | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | | ^B | ^Q | ^K | | | ^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 33
The position in the diagram seems favourable to Black as White
cannot castle for some time.
For that reason another line of play has come to the fore in
which White exchanges his inactive QB for Black’s troublesome KB.
3. Kt-QB3 Kt-KB3
4. B-Kt5 B-K2
5. P-K5 KKt-Q2
6. BxB QxB
---------------------------------------
8 | #R | #Kt|#B | | #K | | | #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | #P | #Kt| #Q | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | | | #P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | | #P | ^P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | | ^P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | | ^Kt| | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | ^P | | | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | | | ^Q | ^K | ^B | ^Kt| ^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 34
White has now the choice of two lines of development. He can
either prepare for P-QB3 to support his QP. or he can develop his
King’s side, holding the P at K5 only
I
7. Kt-Kt5 Kt-Kt3
8. P-QB3 P-QR3
9. Kt-QR3 P-QB4
10. P-KB4 Kt-B3
11. Kt-B2 Castles
12. Kt-B3 B-Q2
13. B-Q3 P-B4
The sacrifice BxPch, as mentioned above, was threatened.
14. Castles Kt-R5
15. R-Kt1 P-QKt4
If White does not wish to lose so many moves with his Kt, he can
effect the intended protection of his QP as follows:
7. Q-Q2 P-QR3
not P-QB4 at once, because of Kt-Kt5.
8. Kt-Q1 P-QB4
9. P-QB3
II
7. P-B4 Castles
8. Kt-B3 P-QB4
9. B-Q3 P-B4
10. Castles Kt-QB3
and so on.
In both cases White has an easy development, whilst Black has no
convenient square for his Queen’s Bishop.
To avoid this drawback Rubinstein has evolved the following
variation, in which provision is made from the first for the
freedom of action of the Queen’s Bishop:
3. Kt-QB3 Kt-KB3
4. B-Kt5 PxP
to open the diagonal for the Bishop at QKt2, e.g.:
5. KtxP QKt-Q2
6. Kt-KB3 B-K2
followed by P-QKt3 and B-Kt2.
We will now leave the French defence and turn our attention to
the Caro-Kann, of which the initial position was shown in Diagram
28. Here also we find two essentially different systems of
development, according to whether White plays P-K5 or gives Black
the option of exchanging pawns by 3. Kt-QB3. In the first case a
very noticeable difference from the French defence is, that Black
can bring out his Queen’s Bishop. Here the process of development
may be:
3. P-K5 B-B4
4. B-Q3 BxB
Not B-Kt3, because White could play P-K6! and paralyse the whole
of Black’s game by preventing his playing the King’s Pawn.
5. QxB P-K3
6. Kt-K2 or KR3
Through this the move P-KB4, which fits into this pawn formation,
is kept in reserve.
While White’s development is easy and natural, Black has
difficulty in finding good places for his King’s side pieces.
The game can proceed generally speaking on the lines of the
French defence. Only Black can hardly attack White’s centre with
P-B3, since the Pawn at K3 would be weak in the absence of the
Queen’s Bishop. On the other hand, Black would be a move behind
with an attack on the Queen’s side, since to reach QB4 his pawn
would have made two moves instead of one as in the French
defence. A certain compensation lies in the fact that White’s
attacking King’s Bishop has been exchanged.
In practical play it has nevertheless been shown that White’s
attack is more likely to succeed, and for this reason a variation
introduced by Niemzowitsch has been tried several times; it aims
at the exchange of Queens in order to weaken and retard White’s
threatened attack, and to gain time for Queen’s side operations.
6. ... Q-Kt3
7. Castles Q-R3 or Kt4
But after 8. Kt-B4, QxQ; 9. KtxQ, White is so much ahead with his
development that Black’s chance of equalising the game would seem
questionable.
If White plays Kt-KR3 on his sixth move, he foils at once Black’s
attempt of forcing an exchange of Queens, as he could play 8. Q-
KKt3.
On the whole we can conclude that in the Caro-Kann defence White
obtains a good game by 3. P-K5.
A line of play which used to be in vogue, namely, 3. Kt-QB3, PxP;
4. KtxP, Kt-B3; 5. KtxKtch, KPxKt or KtPxKt, gives Black an even
chance, for although he loses his centre pawn he obtains a good
development, and later in the game he has opportunities of
exercising pressure on White’s QP through his open Q file.
Except the French defence and the Caro-Kann, there is no game in
which an irregular reply to White’s 1. P-K4 necessitates any
special considerations either in development of pieces or pawn
formation. In all such cases it is sufficient to maintain the
pawn centre and to occupy such squares with the pieces, whence
they cannot be driven away with the loss of a move. Just one
example: If Black plays 1. ... P-QB4 (Sicilian defence), White
will not play his King’s Bishop to B4, because Black can reply P-
K3, and gain a move by P-Q4.
B. Let us now consider the openings in which the first move is 1.
P-Q4 on either side. Here the centre cannot be cleared as early
as in the openings beginning with 1. P-K4, P-K4. The advance of
a second centre pawn, which there led to a clearance, is not
feasible in this case. White does not command his K4, and for
some time to come he will be unable to advance the K pawn beyond
K3. In consequence the K file does not seem a likely opening for
the Rooks, and another file must be found for them. The
conclusions arrived at for Black in the French defence hold good
for both sides in the opening now under consideration, and
accordingly the QB file is that most advantageous for the Rooks.
The advance of the QBP strikes at the opposing centre, and, that
being of paramount importance, the Queen’s Knight must not be
developed at B3 before the QBP has been pushed on. Another
development might be conceivable for the Rooks; viz. on the KB
file, and also the KKt or KR file; here, as we shall see, an
occasion may arise for storming the opposing King’s side by a
pawn attack. But in this case, too, although it seems unnecessary
to play the QBP, it is advisable to develop the Knight via Q2, as
there is a constant threat of the QB file being forced open
subsequently by the opposing forces.
We will start with the games in which the QB Pawns are played in
the earliest stages of the opening, so that the pawn skeleton in
Diagram 35 forms the basis of development. The sequence of moves
is of moment, because the advance of the KP, whether forced or
not, determines the possibility of bringing out the Q Bishops.
The simplest process of development based on Diagram 35 is the
following, in which both sides block up the QB.
---------------------------------------
8 | #R | #Kt| #B | #Q | #K | #B | #Kt| #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | | | | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | | | #P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | #P | #P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | ^P | ^P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | | | | ^P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | | | | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | ^Kt| ^B | ^Q | ^K | ^B | ^Kt| ^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 35
2. P-K3 P-K3
3. Kt-KB3 Kt-KB3
4. P-B4 P-B4
5. Kt-B3 Kt-B3
6. B-Q3 B-Q3
7. Castles. Castles
The only useful square for the QB’s on either side is now at Kt2,
and 8. P-QKt3, P-QKt3 are indicated. To play P-QKt3 before
castling is very dangerous, because Black can play PxQP and pin
the White QKt with B-Kt5, forcing B-Q2, when B-Kt2 was the move
intended, e.g. 6. P-QKt3, BPxP; 7. KPxP, B-Kt5; 8. B-Kt2, Kt-K5;
9. Q-B2, Q-R4; 10. R-QB1, QxP.
In order not to relinquish the square at QKt4 to Black, White can
also try the following manœuvre:
6. PxBP BxP
7. P-QR3 Castles
8. P-QKt4 B-Q3
9. B-Kt2
If Black imitates White’s moves, viz. 9. ... PxP; 10. BxP, P-QR3;
11. Castles, P-QKt4; 12. B-Q3, B-Kt2, the result is the
symmetrical position in Diagram 36.
---------------------------------------
8 | #R | | | #Q | | #R | #K | |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | | #B | | | | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | #P | | #Kt| #B | #P | #Kt| | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | #P | | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | ^P | | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | ^P | | ^Kt| ^B | ^P | ^Kt| | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | | ^B | | | | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | | | ^Q | | ^R | ^K | |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 36
When treating of the middle game, we shall find that even in this
apparently fully equalised position the influence of the first
move is still at work.
In order to obtain a more thorough understanding of the Queen’s
Pawn game, we must now turn our attention very closely to the
opening moves. Already on the second move White can play 2. P-QB4
and turn the game into a Queen’s gambit, which Black can either
accept or decline. Black would be justified in playing 2. ...
PxP, and so furthering White’s object of getting his (Black’s)
Queen’s Pawn away, if he could permanently hold the gambit pawn,
or if the giving up of the square at Q4 fits into a reasoned
system of development. The latter was, for instance, the case in
the play leading to the position shown in the Diagram 36. But
Black is well advised to wait until White has moved the King’s
Bishop before taking the pawn on his QB5. This forces the Bishop
to move twice, and Black regains the move he lost in his
development, when he played PxP.
It would be quite incorrect to try to hold the pawn by P-QKt4 as
follows:
2. P-QB4 PxP
3. Kt-KB3 Kt-KB3
4. P-K3 P-QKt4
5. P-QR4
---------------------------------------
8 | #R | #Kt| #B | #Q | #K | #B | | #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | | #P | | #P | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | | | | #Kt| | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | #P | | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | ^P | | #P | ^P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | | | | ^P | ^Kt| | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | | ^P | | | | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | ^Kt| ^B | ^Q | ^K | ^B | | ^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 37
If now Black answers PxP, White simply plays BxP and the P at R5
is lost very soon. If Black plays instead: 5. ... P-B3, White
wins back his pawn with 6. P-QKt3, PxKt P; 7. PxP, PxP; 8. BxPch
by QxP, and moreover is much ahead with his development.
These considerations point to the conclusion that after 2. P-QB4
there is no inducement for Black to take the pawn. On the
contrary, he will cover his centre pawn, which White wishes to
tempt away, either with P-K3 or P-QB3. The attempt to develop the
Queen’s Bishop before playing P-K3 is not to be recommended,
because the Q Kt’s pawn remains unprotected and open to an
immediate attack by 3. Q-Kt3. Of the two remaining replies, 2.
... P-K3 and 2. ... P-QB3, I will first discuss the former, as
being the more natural of the two, since P-QB3 does not fit into
the scheme for opening the QB file for the Rooks. White, on the
other hand, can bring out his QB before playing P-K3, in this
way:
2. P-QB4, P-K3; 3. Kt-QB3, Kt-KB3; 4. B-Kt5, and the game might
proceed as follows: 4. ... Q Kt-Q2. (Diagram 38.)
No fault can be found with this move, although it blocks the
Bishop, since the latter can only be developed effectively at
Kt2. Moreover, the Knight at Q2 supports the projected P-B4.
White cannot win a pawn now with 5. PxP, PxP; 6. KtxP, because of
KtxKt; 7. BxQ, B-Kt5ch. Therefore 5. P-K3 must be played first,
and after B-K2; 6. Kt-B3, Castles; 7. R-B1, P-QKt3; 8. PxP, PxP;
9. B-Q3, B-Kt2, all the pieces have found rational development.
---------------------------------------
8 | #R | | #B | #Q | #K | #B | | #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | #P |#Kt | | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | | | #P |#Kt | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | | #P | | | ^B | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | ^P | ^P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | |^Kt | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | | | ^P | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | | | ^Q | ^K | ^B |^Kt | ^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 38
Quite a different system of opening ensues, when Black does not
delay pushing the P to QB4 until after his pieces are developed,
but makes the advance on his third move.
Here Black has the advantage of being able to avoid the pinning
of his Knight by the opposing QB.
2. P-QB4 P-K3
3. Kt-QB3 P-QB4
4. Kt-B3 Kt-QB3!
Now Black threatens QPxP with an attack on White’s Queen’s Pawn.
If White plays P-K3 we get the position mentioned in connection
with Diagram 35. If he wishes to bring out his QB first, he must
anticipate Black’s threat by BPxP.
After
5. BPxP KPxP
the third of the typical main positions in the Queen’s gambit
ensues, and is given in Diagram 39. Two continuations must now be
considered. White can either develop his KB at Kt2, and
concentrate on the Black QP, which is somewhat weak, or he can
place the KB on one of the available squares between B1 and R6.
In the first instance, the KP need not be played at all, and the
QB
---------------------------------------
8 | #R | | #B | #Q | #K | #B |#Kt | #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | | | | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | |#Kt | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | #P | #P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | | ^P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | |^Kt | | |^Kt | | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | | | ^P | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | | ^B | ^Q | ^K | ^B | | ^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 39
retains the option of developing at Kt5, B4, and even K3. In the
second, where the K must make room for the KB, White must decide
at once between B-B4 or Kt5, and only B4 can be seriously
considered on account of
6. B-Kt5 B-K2
7. BxB KtxB
which only furthers Black’s development. White would only be
justified in this course if he could now win a pawn with 8. PxP,
but Black would win it back and have the superior game after
8. ... P-Q5
9. Kt-K4 Castles
followed by B-B4 and Q-R4ch. The correct move in this variation
is consequently 6. B-B4, and a possible continuation would be:
Kt-KB3; 7. P-K3, B-K3; 8. R-QB1 or B-QKt5 or B-Q3.
With this we will close the discussion of the variations
initiated by 2. P-QB4, P-K3, and study the reply 2. ... P-QB3.
The first question which arises in our mind is: Which file will
Black be able to utilise for his Rooks? An attempt to free the
King’s file through P-K4 is conceivable. But White can prevent
this by simply playing Kt-KB3.
Two other possibilities present themselves: after playing P-K3,
Kt-B3 and QKt-Q2, Black could steer into a line similar to the
Queen’s gambit accepted with PxP and P-QB4, or he could keep the
centre closed with P-KB4 and Kt-B3, with the intention of playing
Kt-K5 and using the KB file for activating his Rook via KB3.
Diagram 40 gives the position reached after:
3. Kt-KB3 P-K3
4. P-K3 Kt-KB4
5. Kt-K5 Kt-B3
---------------------------------------
8 | #R |#Kt | #B | #Q | #K | #B | | #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | | | | | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | #P | | #P |#Kt | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | | #P |^Kt | #P | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | ^P | ^P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | | | | ^P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | | | | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R |^Kt | ^B | ^Q | ^K | ^B | | ^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 40
White would not accomplish much with 6. P-KB4. The more or less
symmetrical lineup of the pieces would most likely lead to a draw
after Black properly prepares freeing his hemmed-in Bishop with
P-QKt3 and B-Kt2. A better plan would be 6. P-B3, preventing Kt-
K5 and preparing the eventual advance of the King’s Pawn to K4.
In reply to 6. ... , QKt-Q2 White would then rather play 7. Kt-Q3
than exchange Knights, as after this exchange it would not be too
difficult for Black to bring his Bishop into play on the King’s
wing via K1. Both of White’s Bishops would be best placed on Kt2.
This “Stonewall” opening can also be played by White, who is then
a move to the good in the variation just shown. But this opening
has practically disappeared from modern tournament games, simply
because the QB cannot easily be brought into play.
The following variation is reminiscent of the “Stonewall” in the
formation of the centre pawns. White develops his Queen’s side
just as Black did in the opening shown in connection with Diagram
38.
2. Kt-KB3 P-QB4
3. P-K3 Kt-QB3
4. B-Q3 Kt-B3
5. P-QKt3 P-K3
6. B-Kt2 B-Q3
7. QKt-Q2 PxP
8. PxP Castles
---------------------------------------
8 | #R | | #B | #Q | | #R | #K | |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | | | | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | #Kt| #B | #P | #Kt| | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | | #P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | | ^P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | ^P | | ^B | | ^Kt| | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^B | ^P | ^Kt| | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | | | ^Q | ^K | | | ^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H
Diag. 41
White can now settle his Knight at K5, and initiate a violent
King’s side attack after castling, by P-KB4, Q-B3, which could be
continued with P-KKt4, K-R1, R-KKt1, and so on. Once the position
in Diagram 41 has been reached, Black’s resources against the
dangerous onslaught of the White forces are scanty. Yet he can
retaliate, not by making the simplest and most obvious developing
moves, as mentioned before, but in the following way:
If White plays 5. P-QKt3 before castling, Black exchanges pawns
and checks with the Queen. Now White has the disagreeable choice
between B-Q2 and P-B3. The former must be bad, being contrary to
the plan of development as intended by P-QKt3. The latter blocks
the very diagonal on which the Bishop was meant to operate.
White can open up the diagonal by playing P-QB4 after castling,
nor would it really imply the loss of a move to have played the
BP twice, since Black must move his Queen again from R4, where
she has no future. But in any case there remains the disadvantage
that White was forced to play the BP, whilst before he had the
option of withholding its advance until a more opportune moment.
Another possible subtlety in Black’s sequence of developing moves
would be to withhold the advance of his KP until White has played
P-QKt3, and then to play the QB to Kt5. For, as I have already
remarked, the objection to developing Black’s Queen’s Bishop lies
in White’s threat to attack Black’s QKtP with Q-Kt3. That
possibility disappears after P-QKt3.
Before bringing the discussion of the Queen’s Pawn opening to a
close, I may remark that in tournaments it has become usual for
White not to play P-QB4 at once, but to play Kt-KB3 as a
preliminary, in order to avoid the complications of the Queen’s
counter gambit: 2. P-QB4, P-K4.
If White plays 3. PxKP, Black’s reply is P-Q5, and the obvious
move 4. P-K3 fails on account of the following pretty
combination: B--Kt5ch; 5. B--Q2, PxP; 6. BxB, PxPch; 7. K-K2,
PxKtch!!; 8. RxKt, B-Kt5ch, etc.
Instead of 4. P-K3, White should play P-KKt3 and develop his KB
at Kt2. Black could now try to regain his pawn with Kt-K2-Kt3,
but he can also sacrifice a pawn by P-KB3, with a view to rapid
development.
It now only remains for us to discover whether Black has any
other answer to P-Q4 which would necessitate close analysis on
White’s part.
Here must be mentioned: 1. ... Kt-KB3, 1. ... P-QB4, and 1. ...
P-KB4. The former move prepares P-Q3, followed by P-K4. In this
opening there is no reason why White should play P-QB4, as there
is no prospect of opening the QB file for the Rooks. Furthermore,
Black has relinquished the square Q4 and made K4 the basis of
operations. It will be more advisable to prevent Black from
playing P-K4 as far as this can be achieved in conformity with a
logical development, e.g. 1. P-Q4, Kt-KB3; 2. Kt-KB3. Not 2. Kt-
QB3, because Black could then lead into the Queen’s gambit by
playing P-Q4 and P-QB4, after which White has the disadvantage of
not being able to open the QB file. 2. ... P-Q3; 3. B-B4, QKt-Q2;
4. P-K3. Now Black can only enforce P-K4 after P-B3 and QB2.
Meanwhile White mobilises all his pieces, whilst Black’s QB
remains blocked and the Kt must remain at Q2 to cover the KP. If,
on the other hand, Black exchanges pawns in order to free the
Knight, there is no Black centre left.
With regard to the second irregular reply to 1. P-Q4, namely, 1.
... P-QB4, two ways are open to White. One is to turn the opening
into an ordinary Queen’s gambit by playing P-K3, on which Black
can play P-Q4. The second is to play 2. P-Q5. Black will then
develop his King’s side with P-KKt3 and B-Kt2. The Bishop is well
posted here, and can frequently take up an attacking position at
K4 or Q5. (See Game No. 45, Rubinstein v. Spielmann.)
If White plays 2. PxP, we have after 2. ... P-K3 a Queen’s gambit
accepted by White, and, as pointed out before, this line of play
is not commendable.
The last of the three irregular answers mentioned above: 1. ...
P-KB4 leads to two entirely different plans, according to the
second move chosen by White.
White can confine himself to a simple development such as: Kt-
KB3, B-Kt5, P-K3, QKt-Q2 (Kt-B3 would only be good if preceded by
P-B4, because Black would again lead into a Queen’s gambit with
P-Q4 and P-QB4). The other possibility is the following: in view
of the fact that 1. ... P-KB4 does absolutely nothing to aid
development, White can initiate a violent attack by giving up his
King’s Pawn (P-K4) and thus accelerate his own development. The
play might be as follows: 2. ... PxP; 3. Kt-QB3, Kt-KB3; 4. B-
KKt5, P-B3 (P-Q4? 5. BxKt followed by Q-R5ch); 5. P-B3. If Black
takes the pawn he lays himself open to an attack hard to meet. It
seems best to play 5. ... P-K6, which calls back the White QB and
leaves White’s BP as a hindrance to the development of the KKt.
IRREGULAR OPENINGS
Many openings in which neither P-K4 nor P-Q4 is the first move
lead to well-known positions by a simple transposition of moves.
For instance, a Queen’s gambit may well have the following
opening moves: 1. P-QB4, Kt-KB3; 2. Kt-KB3, P-K3; 3. Kt-B3, P-B4;
4. P-K3, P-Q4; 5. P-Q4, or a French defence these: 1. Kt-QB3, P-
Q4; 2. P-Q4, Kt-KB3; 3. B-Kt5, P-K3; 4. P-K4.
There are, of course, systems of opening which deviate absolutely
from those which have been proved sound and are in general use,
and it is those openings that puzzle the beginner most of all. He
says: What is the good of learning correct openings, if my
opponent plays incorrectly and wins all the same? This line of
thought is wrong from its inception. The student is not supposed
to “learn” openings by heart, but to UNDERSTAND how the general
principles of Chess Strategy are applied to any opening. Such
knowledge can never be obtained from a tabulated analysis, but
can only be arrived at by the application of common sense. If a
player succeeds in winning in spite of an inferior opening, it
only proves that subsequently he has played a stronger game than
his opponent, who, after playing the opening according to the
book, did not know how to proceed further. And herein lies the
weakness, and not in the absence of knowledge of the analysis of
openings. The latter is rated far too highly. Any player will
hold his own in the opening, as soon as he has grasped the real
meaning of those principles which I cannot repeat often enough,
viz.: 1st, quick development of pieces and avoidance of lost
moves; 2nd, the maintenance of a pawn centre, hampering the
development of the opposing forces, and the avoidance of pawn
moves that do not contribute to the development of pieces.
How to conduct the middle game and end-game is not entirely a
matter of deduction from such general rules. In order to play the
end-game correctly, one must know certain things and positions
which arise from and may be said to be peculiar to the purely
arbitrary rules of chess. The same applies to the middle game, as
in most cases it must be played with a view to the end-game which
ensues, unless there be a chance of mating the opponent before.
The student should have, therefore, a knowledge of the end-game
before he can hope to be able to conduct the middle game
efficiently. For this reason I have decided to treat of the end-
game first.