Play Like a Grandmaster E-Book

A.A. Kotov

• Herausgeber: Batsford
• Kategorie: Lebensstil
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 323

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2014

Beschreibung

Alexander Kotov's trilogy, of which this is the second volume and now available in digital format for the first time, marks a landmark in chess literature. For the first time, a leading player managed to tackle the important elements of chess mastery in a methodical way which all chess players could understand, spiced with insight and colourful observation. Furthermore, his ideas and approach are as relevant to players today as they were when the books were first published. Alexander Kotov was one of the strongest players of the immediate post-war period, twice reaching the Candidates stage of the World Championship. He was also one of the leading Soviet trainers but is primarily remembered for his trilogy of classic works on chess coaching, of which Think Like a Grandmaster, one of the best-selling chess books of all time, was the first volume, and Play Like a Grandmaster the second.

Leseprobe

Play Like A Grandmaster

ALEXANDER KOTOV

Translated by Bernard Cafferty

Β Τ Batsford Ltd, London

Published by

Batsford

10 Southcombe Street

London W14 ORA@Batsford_Books

An imprint of Anova Books Company Ltd

Volume copyright © Batsford

The moral right of the author has been asserted.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.

First eBook publication 2014 ISBN 978 1 84994 170 9 Also available in paperback ISBN 978 0 71341 807 1

This book can be orderd direct from the publisher atwww.anovabooks.com, or try your local bookshop

Contents

Preface

PART ONE: POSITIONAL JUDGEMENT

The Three Fishes of Chess Mastery

A General Theory of the Middlegame

The Basic Postulates of Positional Play

Positional Assessment

The Elements in Practice

The Centre

The Clash of Elements

Learn From The World Champions

The Mind of a Grandmaster

How to Train

Exercises

PART TWO: PLANNING

Types of Plan

One-Stage Plans

Multi-Stage Plans

Learn From The World Champions

Practical Advice

The Mind of a Grandmaster

How to Train

Exercises

PART THREE: COMBINATIONAL VISION

Training Combinational Vision

Chessboard Drama

The Theory of Combinations

The Basic Themes

The Mind of a Grandmaster

Learn From The World Champions

Exercises

PART FOUR: CALCULATION AND PRACTICAL PLAY

The Calculation of Variations

Exercises

Time Trouble

The Three Fishes in Action

The Opening

The Endgame

Exercises

Final Words of Advice

Solutions to the Exercises

Index

Preface

Friends and reviewers of the author’s book Think like a Grandmaster took him to task for restricting his account to just one side of chess mastery—the calculation of variations. They felt that he had not touched upon much that was important and essential for a player who was aspiring to reach the top in chess.

Thus there originated the idea of this book Play like a Grandmaster which the author has been working on for some years. It is a continuation volume to Think like a Grandmaster, and deals with the most important aspect of chess wisdom, those laws and rules which have been developed by theoreticians of this ancient game of skill which includes elements of science, art and competitive sport. The book also contains the author’s personal observations and the results of his study of the achievements of his fellow grandmasters.

In order to make the book a real textbook for players who have already mastered the elements and have some experience of play under competitive conditions, it contains several unusual but very important and recurring sections.

The sections headed ‘Learn from the World Champions’ show how various problems are solved by the kings of chess.

Then we penetrate the depths of a grandmaster’s thought processes in the sections ‘The Mind of a Grandmaster”, in order to understand how he thinks and solves problems at the board, how his mind works.

Finally, ‘How to Train’ and ‘Exercises’ contain a description of methods of private study and training adopted by leading players in their time, as well as collections of relevant examples on various topics which will provide the reader with test material to work on by himself.

Will the reader of this book play like a grandmaster after he has worked through it carefully? It is hard to say; naturally this will depend partly on his natural gifts and his persistence in trying to achieve his objectives, as well as upon his personal qualities as a competitor. In any event the reader will certainly take a big step forward in his assimilation of chess theory, and will come to understand many fine points involved in thinking about his moves and in chess problem-solving. These are the factors which in the final analysis bring success in competitive play.

Acknowledgment

The author gratefully acknowledges the work of Jonathan C. Shaw and Leslie J. Smart in proof-reading this book, and of John G. Nicholson for his re-arrangement and editing of the manuscript.

RGW

1 Positional Judgement

The Three Fishes of Chess Mastery

In order to become a grandmaster class player whose understanding of chess is superior to the thousands of ordinary players, you have to develop within yourself a large number of qualities, the qualities of an artistic creator, a calculating practitioner, a cold calm competitor. We shall try to tell vou about what a player needs in order to improve and perfect himself, and give advice on how to carry out regular training so that both your playing strength and style get better.

Of all the qualities of chess mastery three stand out, just as in the old myth the world stands on three fishes. The three fishes of chess mastery are positional judgement, an eye for combinations and the ability to analyse variations. Only when he has a perfect grasp of these three things can a player understand the position on the board in front of him, examine hidden combinative possibilities and work out all the necessary variations.

We consider it essential to start with the question of positional play. This is the basis of everything else. It is possible that because of your character you do not often play pretty combinative blows. There are players of even the highest standard in whose games the sparkle of combinative play is quite rare. On the other hand in every game you play, in every position you study, you have no choice but to analyse and assess the current situation and form the appropriate plans.

In order to provide the reader with a framework within which the fundamentals of positional play may be studied, we will first consider an important question which hitherto has not received the attention it deserves; namely, what are the basic types of struggle which arise in practical play?

A General Theory of the Middlegame

If a chess statistician were to try and satisfy his curiosity over which stage of the game proved decisive in the majority of cases, he would certainly come to the conclusion that it is the middlegame that provides the mose decisive stage. This is quite understandable, since the opening is the stage when your forces are mobilized, and the endgame is the time when advantages achieved earlier are realized, while the middlegame is the time when we have the basic clash of the forces, when the basic question, who is to win, is settled.

That is why it would seem that chess theoreticians should devote the maximum attention to the general laws of the middlegame. Alas, this is far from being the case. There are very many books devoted to the huge mass of possible opening variations, and a fair number of books on the endgame, but far less attention is paid to the systematic study of the basic part of the game.

Why is this? One reason is that experienced grandmasters do not have the time to devote to the difficult task of describing typical middlegame methods and considerations, and this work tends to fall to people who have not played in top class events and who therefore lack the requisite deep study of this question.

Apart from collections of combinative examples there are few books extant on the middlegame which can be wholeheartedly recommended.

What we now undertake is an attempt to fill this gap in chess literature, to describe the rules and considerations which a grandmaster bears in mind during a tournament game.

First of all we have to distinguish the different sorts of struggles which can arise. Let us consider two contrasting examples from grandmaster play.

Euwe-Alekhine, 19th game, match 1937.

1 d4 f62 c4 e6 3 c3 b4 4 f3 e4 5 c2 d5 6 e3 c5 7 d3 f6 8 cd ed 9 dc c5 10 0-0 c6 11 e4! e7 12 e5 g4 13 el b4 14 b5+ f8 15 e2 c5 16 d1 f5(1)

We can see that from the start the players have been making threats, their pieces have made raids into the enemy camp by crossing the fourth rank. It is a stiff fight getting tenser with each move.

It would be bad to accept the sacrificed piece. After 19 hg hg 20 h4 g3 21 ×f5 gf+ 22 ×f2 ×f2+ 23 ×f2 hl + 24 ×h1 ×f2 25 f1 White should win, but Black has the stronger move 20 . . . e4 with a very unpleasant attack.

Black could have played 20 . . . hg transposing to the previous variation, but Alekhine considered the text stronger.

Not the strongest. 22 d2 was better with the following variations:–

I 22 . . . ×b5 23 ×e4 de 24 ×e4

II 22 ... hg 23 ×e4 de 24 b4!

III 22 . . . e6 23 b4 ×b4 24 ×d5 ×d2 (or 24 . . . ×b5 25 ×b4 ×b4 26 ×b4 ×g5 27 f4) 25 e7+ g8 26 b6 ×e1 27 ×a8 c3 28 e1 ×c5 29 e1

IV 22 . . . e6 23 b4 d4 24 ×e4 de 25 c4 ×g5 26 ×g5 ×f2+ 27 f1 hg 28 g6+

Not 22 . . . ×b5 23 ×b5 hg 24 g3 h5 25 c3 ×e3 26 fe! winning.

The only move, since if 23 . . . ×b5 24 b5 ×b5 25 ×c5 h5 26 ×e4 de 27 ×e4 and White keeps the pawn on e5.

It is clear that the position is not too nice for White, but taking the bishop is not the best line. Euwe considers that White would be able to defend the position after 24 ×c5 ×c5 25 d3 e6 26 e3 ×d3 27 ×c5+ ×c5 28 e2 ×h4 29 cl.

A serious mistake. 25 . . . e6 26 g6+! was also wrong. The only defence was 25 . . . ×c5 26 ×c5+ ×c5 27 Xc5 ×b5 and Black can hold the endgame.

26 . . . ×e5 would lose to 27 ×c5 ×g5 28 e6+! with an attack on the black king.

A decisive mistake. White would win after 28 e6 ×c6 29 g6+ g8 30 e7+, or 28 . . . ×b5 29 e7+ g8 30 b5. He could also continue the attack by 28 e3. Now Black gets a draw by some fine moves.

Or 29 e3 ×h4 30 ×d4 h5 31 f1 h1 + 32 e2 g3+

With the threat of repetition of moves. . . e2+,f1 f4 gl c2+ etc.

A dubious attempt to play for a win. He should force the draw by repetition.

After 35 fg Black gets the advantage by 35 . . . e2+ 36 f1 (36 f2? c3+ winning the exchange) 36 . . . ×g3+ 37 g1 f5

A final slip. After 37 c8+ e7 38 c7+ e6 39 c4+ d5 40 ×a7 the chances would favour White. Now it is a draw.

37 ... ×a6

38 ×f4 ×a2 39 b4 g6 40 b7 g7 41 f3 g5 42 b4 g6 43 b5 f5 44 b6 a3+ 45 f2 a6 46 b8 b3 47 b7 g7 48 a8 ×b7 49 ×a6 ½–½

What happened in this game? We did not see any deep strategic plans or long range manoeuvring. From the very start the opposing forces flung themselves into a close order conflict and rained threats on the opponent’s bastions. The whole game consists of sharp variations in which sacrifice followed sacrifice, and each tactical stroke met with a counter blow from the other side.

Quite a different type of game now follows.

1 d4 f6 2 c4 g6 3 c3 g7 4 e4 0–0 5 f3 d6 6 e2 e5 7 0–0 bd7 8 el c6 9 fl e8 10 d5 c5 11 g3 f8 12 a3 g4 13 h4 a6 14 d2 h5 15 h3 fB (2)

Taimanov–Geller, Candidates Tournament, Zurich 1953

Here the opposing pieces are a certain distance from each other, and there is no question of getting the sort of hand to hand tactical battle such as we saw in the previous game, at least for the moment. White quietly prepares to open files on the Q-side.

This show of activity is out of place. Black should continue to manoeuvre with his pieces within his own camp while waiting to see what White will undertake.

Now White has a nice game alternating play on the b or f files as he chooses.

Black has been successful at defending himself on the Q-side so Taimanov now transfers his attention to the K-side.

With the simple threat of g2, then ×d7 and mate by f6+ h1 and h8 or h8.

Now the outcome will be decided by this entry to the 7th rank. Note how effortlessly White has increased his advantage.

35 . . . ×b7

36 ×b7 g8 37 ×d7 ×d7 38 g4 g5 39 ×d7 f5 40 ef b8 and Black resigned. 1–0.

What strikes you when working through this game? The answer must be the absence of a tactical clash. For a very long time there were just strategical manoeuvres and re-forming ranks. Moreover there were practically no variations to consider as you can see from the notes to the game. When playing such a game an experienced grandmaster would never start working out variations. He would weigh up one or two short lines and that’s it! In such positions general considerations prevail:– where should a certain piece be transferred to, how to stop some particular action by the opponent. Finally which piece to exchange, which one to keep on the board.

Hence we can draw a simple and clear conclusion. There are two main types of position, and resulting from that, two different kinds of struggle. In the one case we get a constant clash of pieces mixing it in tricky patterns, with tactical blows, traps, sometimes unexpected and shattering moves. In the other case it is quite different. The respective armies stand at a distance from each other, the battles are restricted to reconnaissance and minor sorties into the enemy position. The thrust of the attacking side is prepared slowly with the aid of piece regrouping and ‘insignificant’ pawn advances. We may call positions of the first type combinative-tactical, of the second type manoeuvring-strategical.

We have distinguished two types of position according to the presence or absence of sharp contact, critical moments and threats of ‘explosions’: corresponding to this twofold division we get a marked difference in the working of the grandmaster’s mind in each case. In the first case the player is always tensed up as he constantly examines complicated variations, takes account of tactical blows and tries to foresee and forestall deeply hidden, unexpected moves and traps. Little attention is given to general considerations since the player can hardly spare time for these in view of the time limit, and it is hardly necessary to bear them in mind in such positions. Sometimes he might just make some such general comment to himself as ‘it would be nice to get a battery against f2 by c5 and b6’, or ‘watch out all the time for that open h-file’, or ‘try and get rid of that powerful bishop of his at e4’. However these are just short verbal orders to oneself, a formulation of the general ideas resulting from analysis. Obviously there are no such things as deep general plans, regroupings, manoeuvres. Concrete analysis, working out tactical strokes, spotting traps, anticipating cunning or surprising ‘explosions’—that is what is called for in positions of the first type.

So in the first case the mind is kept on tenterhooks, and works in accordance with the slogan ‘keep a close watch’; whereas in the second case the work of the mind is marked by calm, comparative slowness and the absence of nervousness. What is there to get excited about, when there can be no violent explosions, no unforeseen tactical strokes or tricky traps? The mind is occupied with formulating plans for regrouping and moving about with the pieces with the almost total absence of variations. Only at certain specific moments do tactics come to the surface, causing the grandmaster to work out a few variations before reverting again to general considerations.

We shall revert later to the question of the mind of a grandmaster, but I ask the reader to read carefully through these lines and grasp firmly the difference in thought patterns. This point is very important in clarifying the rules for thinking about moves and handling your clock properly. If you make plans in sharp tactical positions, you can easily fall into a trap that figs in the calculations you failed to make. Vice versa, if you are going to calculate variations in positions where you should be thinking about general planning, you will waste precious time and will not get the right orientation. So let us commit firmly to memory the fact that the mind of a grandmaster is principally occupied, in combinative-tactical positions, with the calculation of variations; in manoeuvring-strategical positions, with the formulation of general plans and considerations.

The two games we have just looked at are extreme examples of the types of struggle which can arise. To bring out the difference between them even more graphically, we shall try to indicate their course by a schematic diagram. On the diagram below we have the depiction of the Euwe–Alekhine game, a wavy line full of zig-zags (No. 1). Then in No. 2 we get an idea of the course of the Taimanov–Geller game, a simple straight line.

However in tournament play there are other types of game which have a mixed content. One such may start in the sharp combinative manner but then settle down into a calm course. Such a ‘calm after the storm’ is seen in the next game and we depict it in No. 3.

1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 c3 de 4 ×e4 d7 5 f3 gf6 6 ×f6+ ×f6 7 e5 f5 8 c3 e6

A well-known variation of the Caro–Kann which normally leads to quiet play, but young players can find means of conjuring up terrific complications.

Pieces on both sides are en prise. Clearly a case of a combinative-tactical struggle, abounding in unexpected strokes and cunning traps.

The position becomes even more complicated, particularly after Black’s strong reply.

Karpov-A. Zaitscv Kuibyshev 1970

Have you ever seen such a position for the king with all the pieces still on the board and only eighteen moves made? The position is most complex, and naturally no general considerations can help a player to iind his way in such great complications. You simply must work out variations, and both sides have to make the great effort to seek the best line lor each side by means of analysis of the many possibilities.

This apparently threatening move loses the game, whereas there was a variation which would continue the attack and lead to victory—20 . . . e5! 21 ×g3 e5+ 22 e3 0–0 23 h3 ad8 24 d2 e4! 25 ×e4 d5+ 26 c3 c5+ 27 c4 d4+ . This is not easy to find as is shown by the fact that such an excellent tactician as the late Alexander Zaitsev missed it.

The white king now feels safe after his risky expedition to the centre under the eyes of the enemy pieces. Note that the character of the play now changes, and the rest of the game is a typical manoeuvring-strategical one.

Let us assess the resulting position. White’s pawn formation is better. He has no weak pawns while the pawn at c5 is isolated. There are also weak white squares in Black’s position and this with White hav ing a bishop on that colour. White’s rooks are better mobilised, and the knight occupies a passive post at d7. All this indicates a positional advantage for White, and Karpov starts to exploit this in a methodical way without hurrying. The play changes character from complex clashes to quiet ‘reasoned’ manoeuvres.

Obviously not 29 . . . ×f3 30 f5 and the knight will be lost.

‘Pile up on the weak pawn c5!’ White’s advantage becomes clearer. Note however that all this takes place without any clash of the pieces; it is all quite peaceful.

A sacrifice of desperation. The e5 pawn cannot be held and Black tries to complicate matters by giving up the exchange, but without success.

and White won without any real trouble exploiting his material advantage.

Now examine a game in which the two parts came in the reverse order— the quiet part first, the complications later.

Such an exchange in the centre normally leads to stabilization of the position there, and to a consequent calming of the play. White will castle short and then advance with his pawns on the Q-side. Black normally restricts himself to slow manoeuvres on the K-side.

A typical preparation in such positions for advancing b4 and a4, after which White will aim to weaken the c6 pawn and open lines on the Q-side.

Another well-known device, transferring the knight to c5 from where it will press on Black’s position on the Q-side.

Intending to treble the major pieces on the c-file. Note how quiet it is, with no tactics in sight.

An important strategical device in such positions. White advances this pawn to h5 and exchanges on g6. That rules out a subsequent f6 by Black, since Black would not be prepared to weaken his g6 square further. Then the white knight will establish himself on e5.

Kotov–Ragozin USSR Championship 1949

A sharp change in the course of events. As if at a sudden signal the game moves into tactical complications. If Black replies 27 . . . c5 then 28 dc! e5 (28 . . . be 29 ×c5) 29 cb ×c3 30 ba!! ×c2 31 ×c2! and wins.

This simply leaves Black a pawn down, but the position remains tense.

The queen is given up for two rooks, but White had to calculate accurately the combinative possibilities which arise.

It looks as if Black has tricked his opponent by this unexpected move, but White had taken it into account and a sacrifice of the exchange follows.

This forces win of the queen or mate.

If we examine our earlier schematic diagram, we will see that the outline course of this game is shown in No.4.

Why have we made such a distinction? We wish to illustrate the nature of a grandmaster’s thinking process during a game, and how the rhythm of this thinking changes in accordance with the nature of the position which lies in front of him. So we have established one of the major features that guides a grandmaster. If he faces a combinative-tactical position, he deals with it by working out variations, using general considerations only at certain rare moments. In manocuvring-strategical positions he restricts himself to general considerations, though here too he has recourse at times to short analysis of variations. Finally he has the flexibility to change from one approach to another as appropriate.

Now what do general considerations consist of? We now devote a great deal of attention to this vital question which lies at the bottom of all positional play.

The Basic Postulates of Positional Play

The level of development of positional sense depends on many factors. Most of all it is shown in the ability of a player by dint of natural ability to determine swiftly, at one swoop, the main characteristics of a position. Chess history knows many examples of the ability to sniff out the essence of a position without the player having to trouble himself with wearisome analytical effort. Such cases reveal a real natural gift.

Yet the main thing that develops positional judgement, that perfects it and makes it many-sided, is detailed analytical work, sensible tournament practice, a self-critical attitude to your games and a rooting out of all the defects in your play. Τ his is the only way to learn to analyse chess positions and to assess them properly. Mastery only comes after you have a wide experience of studying a mass of chess positions, when all the laws and devices employed by the grandmasters have become your favoured weapons too.

Positional sense is like the thread that leads you through the labyrinth in your tense struggle at the board from the first opening move to the final stroke in the endgame. When people come to say about you that you have a good positional sense, you will be able to consider yourself a well-rounded and promising player.

We shall now try to state in a systematic way all the postulates and rules of middlegame play that have been worked out by theoreticians over the long history of chess. They might appear elementary to the discriminating reader. Why bother to repeat what has long been known? Believe me, for all my long practical experience of play and writing, I have found it far from easy to reduce to a common denominator all that has been expressed so far in chess history. Moreover what is elementary? When I pose this question I call to mind Mikhail Tal. The ex-world champion has often commented that he regularly watches the chess lessons on TV meant for lower rated players. His idea is that the repetition of the elements can never do any harm, but rather polishes up the grandmaster’s thoughts.

For greater clarity we shall try to express the concepts of middlegame theory in short exactly formulated points.

1. In chess only the attacker wins.

Of course there are cases where it is the defender who has the point marked up for him in the tournament table, but this is only when his opponent exceeds the time limit or makes a bad mistake—overlooks mate, or loses a lot of material. Moreover, if one follows strict logic, even after this loss of material the game could be played out to mate and in this case the final victory goes to the former defender who in the later stages, after his opponent’s mistake, is transformed into the attacker.

The question then arises, which of the two players has the right to attack. Before the time of the first world champion Wilhelm Steinitz, who is the creator of modern chess theory, it was held that the more talented player attacked. Steinitz put it quite differently. The talent and playing strength of a chess player was a secondary consideration.

2. The right to attack is enjoyed by that player who has the better position.

If your position is inferior, even though you are a genius, you do better not to think of attacking, since such an attempt can only worsen your position.

3. The side with the advantage has not only the right but also the duty to attack, otherwise he runs the risk of losing his advantage.

This is another postulate of Steinitz, and practice knows very many examples confirming it. How often has temporising, missing the appropriate moment to press, losing a few tempi, led to the loss of advantage, often of great advantage? Attack is the effective means in chess, it is the way to victory.

Where does this leave the defender? Here too Steinitz has wise advice to give.

4. The defender must be prepared to defend, and to make concessions.

That means that the defender must try to repulse the attacker’s blows, anticipate his intentions. Later theoreticians have added the rider to Steinitz that the defender must not leave out of his calculations the possibility of a counter strike, the chance to go over to counter-attack at the appropriate time. Defence thus means subjecting yourself for a time to the will of your opponent. From that comes the well-known fact that it is a lot harder to defend than to attack.

Then the question arises, what means of attack are at the disposal of a player, and what should be chosen as the object of attack?

5. The means of attack in chess are twofold, combinative and strategical.

As we have seen, attacks may develop with or without immediate contact between the forces.

Which method is appropriate? The answer is best indicated by the nature of the position you are dealing with. Often it depends on the nature of the opening you have chosen, on the style of the players, but the decisive say lies with the position. No temperament no matter how passionate can produce an ‘explosion’ in a stabilized position, and attempts to do this can only rebound upon the instigator.

Finally the question arises, where should the attack be made, and the answer is clear:

6. The attack must be directed at the opponent’s weakest spot.

This almost goes without saying. Who would be foolish enough to attack a position at its strongest point? ‘Why attack a lion when there is a lamb in the field?’ The grandmaster seeks to direct his attack against the weakest, most sensitive, spot in the enemy fortifications.

So we see how many difficult problems pose themselves to the grandmaster in the micldlegame. Should he attack or defend? To answer this he has to establish whether he or the opponent has the advantage, but that is not all. Even when you have settled the first question and established who has the right and correspondingly the duty to attack, you have to seek out the opponent’s most vulnerable spot. The procedure to determine these questions is termed positional assessment, and we shall now consider this important topic in depth.

Positional Assessment

The player who wishes to improve, who wants to win in competitive play, must develop his ability to assess positions, and on that basis to work out plans for what comes next.

This work of analysis can be compared to that of a chemist who is trying to determine the nature of a substance. Once upon a time the process was carried out in rough and ready fashion by visual inspection. Then Mendeleyev discovered the periodic table of elements and after that the chemist merely had to break down the substance into its constituent elements in order to determine the exact nature of the substance before him.

That is the way chess players work now. About a century and a half ago the best players of the time solved their problems by visual inspection on the basis of their experience. There was no scientific method about this, but then came Steinitz’s theory. Thereby the player gained a basis for rational analysis suitable for solving whatever problems were posed, no matter how intricate the position. Steinitz taught players most of all to split the position into its elements. Naturally they do not all play the same role in a given position, they do not have the same importance. Once he has worked out the relationship of the elements to each other, the player moves on to the process of synthesis which is known in chess as the general assessment.

When he has carried out the synthesis, has assessed the position, the grandmaster proceeds to the next step, when he draws up his plan for what follows. We shall deal with this later, and restrict ourselves to the statement that every plan is intimately linked with assessment. The analysis and assessment enables the player to find the weak point in the enemy camp, after which his thoughts will naturally be directed towards exploiting this weakness with the aid of a deeply thought out plan of campaign which takes account of the slightest nuances of the given position.

In defining the elements there is no perfect agreement amongst chess theorists. Each writer has his own list. It seems to us that the following ‘Mendeleyev table of chess elements will be sufficient to cover all those smaller parts out of which the analysis of a position is made up.

Table of Elements

Permanent Advantages

1. Material advantage.

2. Poor opponent’s king position.

3. Passed pawns.

4. Weak pawns (of opponent).

5. Weak squares (of opponent)

6. Weak colour complexes (of opponent).

7. Fewer pawn islands.

8. Strong pawn centre.

9. The advantage of two bishops.

10. Control of a file.

11. Control of a diagonal.

12. Control of a rank.

Temporary Advantages

1. Poor position of opponent’s piece.

2. Lack of harmony in opponent’s piece placing.

3. Advantage in development.

4. Piece pressure in the centre.

5. Advantage in space.

We have already spoken of Steinitz’s view that a win should not be played for if there is no confidence that the position contains some advantage or other. The question then arises, what does this advantage consist of? Steinitz gives the detailed and concrete reply, ‘An advantage can consist of one large advantage, or a number of small advantages.’ He then adds the important guide to further action: ‘The task of the positional player is systematically to accumulate slight advantages and try to convert temporary advantages into permanent ones, otherwise the player with the better position runs the risk of losing it.’

This is a valuable piece of advice, stressing that elements vary not just in their importance but in the length of their lifetime. Some are long term or permanent, others are temporary and either change (becoming greater or smaller) or disappear altogether.

If we are a sound pawn up, or if the opponent’ K-side is seriously weakened, then we enjoy a long term advantage. If, however, we have a lead in development or there is a badly placed piece in the enemy camp, then this is a short term advantage and can easily be dissipated in the subsequent play. Of course it is not possible to draw a fixed line between the twelve elements which we have defined as permanent and the five we give as temporary. For example an open file or diagonal can be closed by means of an exchange of pawns and material inequality can be restored to equality, but the division we have made is a sufficiently good guide in our judgement and decision taking processes.

This is the appropriate place to sum up Steinitz’s positional rules in the form of short laconic summaries such as we encounter in mathematics, physics and other exact sciences. It is a matter of some surprise that no-one has done this before. We suggest the following form of words for them.

Steinitz‘s Four Rules.

1. The right to attack belongs only to that side which has a positional advantage, and this not just a right, but also a duty, otherwise there is the risk of losing the advantage. The attack is to be directed against the weakest spot in the enemy position.

2. The defending side must be prepared to defend and to make concessions.

3. In level positions the two sides manoeuvre, trying to tilt the balance of the position, each in his own favour. With correct play by both sides, level positions keep on leading to further level positions.

4. The advantage may consist of a large advantage in one form or element only, or of a number of small advantages. The task of the positional player is to accumulate small advantages and to try to turn these small advantages into permanent ones.

These four rules of Steinitz can be of great help and serve as a guiding thread for every player in his positional battles. However we should point out straight away the harm that arises if these rules are turned into strict dogmas: The Russian school, while recognizing the importance of Steinitz’s teachings and the usefulness of his rules, always favours a concrete approach to assessment of a position with due regard for dynamic features.

One other practical point. We have enumerated seventeen elements of a chess position, but during actual play a player would not find it too easy to consider each of the seventeen at every point. The grandmaster is helped out of this dilemma by the fact that usually not all the elements apply to a given position. There might well be only five to seven of them relevant.

We recommend the following approach; as a rule consider a restricted number of grouped elements. The following is a grouping of elements that has been proved most useful in practice:–

1. Weak squares and pawns.

2. Open lines.

3. The centre and space.

4. Piece position.

The last named consists of such factors as king position, development, harmony of position, and the bad placing of one piece.

So in practice we need consider these four only, with the proviso that if we discern some other element, say the two bishops, then we add this to our assessment.

The Elements in Practice

Let us now take practical examples from actual play in which analysis and assessment were carried out. Normally there is a mixture of factors involved, an advantage in one element may be compensated for by the opponent enjoying an advantage in another element. All this has to be weighed up, comparing the significance of each element. However it may also be the case that one of the elements suddenly assumes decisive significance and confers a clear advantage. We shall start with such positions.

Weak Squares

Weak squares can be defined in essence as those squares which cannot be protected by pawns. Of course from a practical point of view we have a wider concept depending a great deal on the actual position: thus a square can sometimes be considered weak even when it can be protected by a pawn, but only with a serious weakening of position.

In assessing any position a grandmaster is bound to take account of weak squares, both his own and those in the enemy camp. Moreover it is often the case that he starts his assessments from here: a number of weak squares, or even a single weak square, can be the outstanding feature of the position. A piece that gets established on this weak point spreads confusion in the defence and decides the issue.

Botvinnik–Flohr, Moscow, 1936.

Even a first glance at diagram 6 will show that all other weak squares and other positional factors recede into the background by comparison with the gaping ‘hole’ at d6. Obviously a knight established there will play a decisive role, and Botvinnik plays to get his knight to the square he has prepared for it.

Relying on the beautiful knight at d6 White makes a Q-side thrust.

The knight must be removed, but now White gets an advanced protected passed pawn, another great positional trump.

White misses a tactical stroke and thus makes his win more difficult. By playing his king first to g1 he could follow his plan without allowing any tactical tricks.

The point is that taking this pawn either on b5 or on b6 en passant would lose material to a discovered check.

Flohr in his turn goes wrong. 46 . . . a7 would put up a stiffer fight, though after 47 ab a2 48 b2 cb+ 49 h3 the united passed pawns would guarantee a white victory.

48h3 cb 49 c7+ g8 50 d7 f8 51 d6 h6 52 ×e6+ h7 53 e8 b3 54 ×a8 ×a8 55 ab d8 56 ×b3 ×d7 57 b6 1–0.

Weak Pawns

There are many types of weak pawns: backward pawns, isolated pawns, doubled pawns, pawns far advanced and as a result cut off from contact with ‘base’. All are spoken of as weak pawns, even though for the moment there is adequate protection from the pieces. After all the pieces might go away, leaving the pawn to its fate.

A pawn can be proved to be weak, however, only when it can be attacked. The reader should take particular note of the following comments by Bronstein when talking about the position of diagram 7, which arises in a well-known variation of the King’s Indian Defence.