Chess Strategy by Edward Lasker (ebook reader with highlight function .TXT) 📖

CHAPTER VI THE MIDDLE GAME GENERAL REMARKS

HAVING now a fair knowledge of the end-game, we should be in a position to appreciate how the middle game should be conducted. We must throughout maintain a favourable pawn formation, in view of the end-game which might be forced on us by exchanges. On the other hand, as soon as we have gained an advantage sufficient to secure the victory in the end-game, we must ourselves, by the exchange of pieces, try to reduce the position to one of the typical elementary cases which we have discussed. Now it will invariably be found that beginners are unwilling to make these essential exchanges. This is explained by the attraction which combinations involving the action of many pieces have for them. They assume that exchanges, particularly of the Queens, make the games dull. Such ideas only prove that the beginner has not grasped the nature of chess, the essence of which is stern logic and uncompromising conclusions, and this demands the shortest and clearest way leading to a mate. To the strong player, able to play logically, logic will always be inseparable from beauty in chess.

To play logically means to subordinate all combinations to a leading plan of campaign, but there is difficulty in finding the latter. An unsound scheme, even if worked out to its logical conclusion, can of course be of no value. All the same it is better than no plan at all. And in time one gains by experience, and develops a sort of instinct for rejecting from the large number of possible operations all those which, properly countered, cannot bring any advantage.

Beside practical play, which is essential in order to gain this instinct, a methodical theoretical instruction is of inestimable value, and accelerates the development of the student’s mind. Now the instruction I wish to give in the THEORY of chess will not take the form of an ANALYSIS, brought up right into the middle game, of the various openings, tested and found correct in master play. Such collections erroneously bear the title of “Theory of the Openings,” and are, besides, quite useless at this stage, since they only embody the results of ANALYSIS.

It is first necessary to ascertain a few leading principles, which can be taught in a most simple manner, by the exercise of common sense, rather than by applying oneself to the study of long-winded analysis. The student will no longer need to discover time-worn maxims in the light of his own weary experience, and on the other hand, these principles will help him to understand analysis, and to keep clearly before his mind’s eye the common and principal lines of play, of which he might easily lose sight in the labyrinth of suggested variations.

I propose to show the application of such principles to master play, and this will give us a further opportunity of deeper study, both of the rules set out in the first part for conducting the opening correctly, and of the end-game principles, which should be well considered.

I have made the pawn skeleton with its attendant grouping of pieces the main consideration in the study of the opening; now in the investigation of the problems of the middle game, I will start from the TRANSFORMATION which the pawn skeleton has to undergo in the course of further operations. In my opinion this is the best starting-point for the choice of effective manoeuvres of the different pieces.

Before we are able to evolve a practical scheme we must have under consideration the following important points: How do we know if an attack is likely to succeed? In other words: On what point should I concentrate the attack? It should be clear to all that it is of no possible use to direct an attack on anything that can move away. Yet beginners frequently infringe this obvious rule, and I have often witnessed manoeuvres such as these (Diagram 90):

–––––––––––––

8 | #R | | #B | #Q | | #R | #K | |

|–––––––––––––|

7 | #P | #P | #P | | | #P | #P | #P |

|–––––––––––––|

6 | | | #Kt| #P | | #Kt| | |

|–––––––––––––|

5 | | | #B | | #P | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

4 | | | ^B | | ^P | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

3 | | | ^Kt| ^P | | ^Kt| | |

|–––––––––––––|

2 | ^P | ^P | ^P | | | ^P | ^P | ^P |

|–––––––––––––|

1 | ^R | | ^B | ^Q | | ^R | ^K | |

–––––––––––––

A B C D E F G H

 

Diag. 90

1. P-QR3, 2. P-QKt4, and then, after the B has retired to his Kt3 even, 3. R-QKt1, 4. P-QR4, 5. P-R5. Meanwhile Black will have played P-QR3, to make a loophole for his B at R2, and what is the result? The Black Bishop is as effectual at R2 as at B4, but White has advanced his pawns, and weakened them, as they are now more liable to attack. Moreover, White has used up five moves to achieve his aim, whilst Black only needed three. Therefore Black has gained two moves, which he can use for the development of his pieces.

Diagram 91 illustrates another mistake frequently made in the choice of an objective, and one which can utterly spoil the whole game, even in its earliest stage. Black has to

–––––––––––––

8 | #R | | #B | #Q | #K | #B | #Kt| #R |

|–––––––––––––|

7 | #P | #P | #P | #P | | #P | #P | #P |

|–––––––––––––|

6 | | | | | | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

5 | | | | | | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

4 | | | | ^Q | ^P | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

3 | | | | | | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

2 | ^P | ^P | ^P | | | ^P | ^P | ^P |

|–––––––––––––|

1 | ^R | ^Kt| ^B | | ^K | ^B | | ^R |

–––––––––––––

A B C D E F G H

 

Diag. 91

move, and his game is somewhat hindered by the dominating position of the White Queen. The latter prevents the Bishop from occupying a desirable square at his QB4, and also makes the liberating move P-Q4 impossible. Therefore it would seem desirable to drive the Queen away. But this should only be done if it is not attended by some further disadvantage.

Now the average player is not particularly fastidious in his methods. The Queen irritates him, therefore the Queen must be repelled one way or the other. He would probably try P-QB4. The result is that the Queen selects another good square, for instance at K3 or QR4, but Black has not improved matters, for he still can play neither B-B4 nor P-Q4. On the other hand, irredeemable harm has been done, inasmuch as the Black QP now remains “backward.” The attack on the Queen by P-QB4 must consequently be rejected. Sallies such as these, in which short-lived attacks are made by pawns upon pieces, are always of doubtful value. They must unquestionably be avoided if they break up the pawn skeleton, which is formed in the opening, and confine the mobility of the pieces.

Also with regard to manoeuvres of PIECES, intended solely to drive away an opposing piece, it is obviously essential that the attacking pieces in effecting their purpose should not be made to stray too far afield, lest they become out of play.

I shall delay dealing with the features underlying good forms of attack, both by pieces and pawns, until I have treated of the choice of an objective.

From what we have already expounded, it is clear that the subject of an attack should be incapable of evasion. Should it, in the course of attack, be desired to prevent a PIECE from being moved, that can only be effected by means of a “pin.” A PAWN, however, can be held in place either by occupying the square immediately in front of it, or by controlling the latter with more forces than the opponent can bring to bear upon it.

–––––––––––––

8 | | | | #R | | | #K | |

|–––––––––––––|

7 | | | #Q | #R | #B | #P | #P | #P |

|–––––––––––––|

6 | #P | #P | | #P | | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

5 | | | #P | | | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

4 | | | ^P | | ^P | ^B | | |

|–––––––––––––|

3 | | ^P | | ^R | | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

2 | ^P | | | ^Q | | ^P | ^P | ^P |

|–––––––––––––|

1 | | | | ^R | | | ^K | |

–––––––––––––

A B C D E F G H

 

Diag. 92

The last two diagrams exemplify this. If in Diagram 91 Black makes the mistake of playing P-QB4 as suggested, the backward QP becomes a welcome objective for White’s attack. White can keep that pawn back by playing P-Q B4 as soon as it threatens to advance, after which he would develop quietly, double his Rooks, and bring the Q and QB to bear in a concentrated attack on Q6. A position not unlike that in Diagram 92 will result ultimately, in which Black defends the pawn as many times as it is attacked, but in which White can bring up his KP to the attack, as the QP cannot move away, whilst Black has no further defensive move at his disposal. Play against a backward pawn nearly always develops on these lines, and is even easier when there is no defending B of the same colour