Читать книгу The Strategy of Chess - Edward Lasker - Страница 7

Table of Contents

The mental development of the chess player is a gradual struggle from a state of chaos to a clear conception of the game. The period required for such development largely depends upon the special gifts the learner may possess, but in the main the question of methods predominates. Most beginners do not trouble very much about any particular plan in their study of chess, but as soon as they have learnt the moves, rush into the turmoil of practical play. It is self-evident that their prospects under such conditions cannot be very bright. The play of a beginner is planless, because he has too many plans, and the capacity for subordinating all his combinations to one leading idea is non-existent. Yet it cannot be denied upon investigation that a certain kind of method is to be found in the play of all beginners, and seems to come to them quite naturally. At first the pawns are pushed forward frantically, because there is no appreciation of the power and value of the pieces. Conscious of the inferiority of the pawns, the beginner does not conclude that it must be advantageous to employ the greater power of the pieces, but is chiefly concerned with attacking the opposing pieces with his pawns in the hope of capturing them. His aim is not to develop his own forces, but to weaken those of his opponent. His combinations are made in the hope that his adversary may not see through them, nor does he trouble much about his opponent’s intentions. When most of his pawns are gone, then only do his pieces get their chance. He has a great liking for the Queen and the Knight, the former because of her tremendous mobility, the latter on account of his peculiar step, which seems particularly adapted to take the enemy by surprise. When watching beginners you will frequently observe numberless moves by a peripatetic Queen, reckless incursions by a Knight into the enemy’s camp, and when the other pieces join in the fray, combination follows combination in bewildering sequence and fantastic chaos. Captures of pieces are planned, mating nets are woven, perhaps with two pieces, against a King’s position, where five pieces are available for defence. This unsteadiness in the first childish stages of development makes it very difficult for the beginner to get a general view of the board. Yet the surprises which each move brings afford him great enjoyment.

A few dozen such games are by no means wasted. After certain particular dispositions of pieces have proved his undoing, the beginner will develop the perception of threats. He sees dangers one or two moves ahead, and thereby reaches the second stage in his development.

His combinations will become more and more sound, he will learn to value his forces more correctly, and therefore to husband his pieces and even his pawns with greater care. In this second stage his strength will increase steadily, but, and this is the drawback, only as far as his power of combination is concerned. Unless a player be exceptionally gifted, he will only learn after years of practice, if at all, what may be termed “positional play.” For that, it is necessary to know how to open a game so as to lay the foundation for a favourable middle game, and how to treat a middle game, without losing sight of the possibilities of the end-game. It is hopeless to try to memorise the various openings which analysis have proved correct, for this empirical method fails as soon as the opponent swerves from the recognised lines of play. One must learn to recognise the characteristics of sound play. They apply to all and any position, and the underlying principles must be propounded in a manner generally applicable. And this brings me to the substance of my subject, round which I will endeavour to build up a system compatible with common sense and logic.

Before I proceed to develop my theme, I shall set down a number of elementary rules which will facilitate the understanding of such simple combinations as occur at every step in chess.

* * * * *

If we ignore the comparatively small proportion of games in which the mating of the opponent’s King is accomplished on a full board, we can describe a normal, average game of chess in the following way. Both sides will employ their available forces more or less advantageously to execute attacking and defensive manœuvres which should gradually lead to exchanges. If one side or the other emerges from the conflict with some material gain, it will generally be possible to force a mate in the end-game, whilst if both sides have succeeded by careful play to preserve equality of material, a draw will generally ensue.

It will be found a little later that a single pawn may suffice, with some few exceptions, to achieve a victory, and we shall adopt the following leading principle for all combinations, viz. loss of material must be avoided, even if only a pawn It is a good habit to look upon every pawn as a prospective Queen. This has a sobering influence on premature and impetuous plans of attack.

On the other hand, victory is often brought about by a timely sacrifice of material.

But in such cases the sacrificing of material has its compensation in some particular advantage of position. As principles of position are difficult for beginners to grasp, I propose to defer their consideration for the present and to devote my attention first to such combinations as involve questions of material. Let us master a simple device that makes most combinations easy both for attack and defence. It amounts merely to a matter of elementary arithmetic, and if the beginner neglects it, he will soon be at a material disadvantage.

Diagram 4 may serve as an example :

Diag. 4.

It is Black’s move, and we will suppose he wishes to play P—K 4. A beginner will probably calculate thus : I push on my pawn, he takes with his pawn, my Knight takes, so does his, then my Bishop takes, and so on. This is quite wrong, and means waste of time and energy.

When the beginner considers a third or fourth move in such a combination, he will already have forgotten which pieces he intended to play in the first moves. The calculation is perfectly simple upon the following lines : I play P—K 4, then my pawn is attacked by a pawn and two Knights, a Bishop and two Rooks, six times in all. It is supported by a Bishop, two Knights, two Rooks and a Queen, six times in all. Therefore I can play P—K 4, provided the six units captured at K 4 are not of greater value than the six white units which are recaptured. In the present instance both sides lose a pawn, two Knights, two Rooks, and a Bishop, and there is no material loss. This established, he can embark on the advance of the K P without any fear.

Therefore: in any combination which includes a number of exchanges on one square, all you have to do is to count the number of attacking and defending units, and to compare their relative values ; the latter must never be forgotten. If Black were to play Kt × P in the following position, because the pawn at K 5 is attacked three times, and only supported twice, it would be an obvious miscalculation, for the value of the defending pieces is smaller.¹

Diag.5.

Chess would be an easy game if all combinations could be tested and probed exhaustively by the mathematical process just shown. But we shall find that the complications met with are extremely varied. To give the beginner an idea of this, I will mention a few of the more frequent examples. It will be seen that the calculation may be, and very frequently is, upset by one of the pieces involved being exchanged or sacrificed. An example of this is found in Diagram 6 ; Kt × P fails on account of R × B ; this leaves the Knight unprotected, and White wins two pieces for his Rook. Neither can the Bishop capture on K 5 because of R × Kt, leaving the Bishop unprotected, after which B × Kt does not retrieve the situation because the Rook recaptures from B 6.

Diag. 6.

Diag.7.

A second important case, in which our simple calculation is of no avail, occurs in a position where one of the defending pieces is forced away by a threat,the evasion of which is more important than the capture of the unit it defends. In Diagram 7, for instance, Black may not play Kt × P, because White, by playing P—Q 6, would force the Bishop to Kt 4 or B 1, to prevent the pawn from Queening and the Knight would be lost. A further example of the same type is given in Diagram 8. Here a peculiar mating threat, which occurs not infrequently in practical play, keeps the Black Queen tied to her K P 2 and unavailable for the protection of the B at B 1.

Diag. 8.

White wins as follows :

1 Kt × B, Kt × Kt; 2 R × Kt, Q × R; 3 Kt—B 7, ch K—Kt 1; 4 Kt—R 6 double ch, K—R 1; 5 Q—Kt 8 ch, R × Q; 6 Kt—B 7 mate.

We will now go a step further and turn from “acute” combinations to such combinations as are, as it were, impending. Here, too, I urgently recommend beginners (advanced players do it as a matter of course) to proceed by way of simple arithmetical calculations, but, instead of enumerating the attacking and defending pieces, to count the number of possibilities of attack and defence.

Let us consider a few typical examples. In Diagram 9, if Black plays P—Q 5, he must first have probed the position in the following way. The pawn at Q 5 is attacked once and supported once to start with, and can be attacked by three more White units in three more moves (1 R—Q 1, 2 R (B 2)—Q 2, 3 B—B 2) Black can also mobilise three more units for the defence in the same number of moves (1 Kt—B 4 or K 3, 2 B—Kt 2, 3 R—Q 1). There is, consequently, no immediate danger, nor is there anything to fear for some time to come, as White has no other piece which could attack the pawn for the fifth time.

Diag.9.

It would be obviously wrong to move the pawn to Q? after White’s R—Q 1, because White could bring another two pieces to bear on the P, the other Rook and the Knight, whilst Black has only one more piece available for the defence, namely, his Rook.

The following examples show typical positions, in which simple calculation is complicated by side issues.

In Diagram 10, the point of attack, namely, the Black Knight at K B 3, can be supported by as many Black units as White can bring up for the attack, but the defensive efficiency of one of Black’s pieces is illusory, because it can be taken by a White piece. The plan would be as follows : White threatens Black’s Knight for the third time with Kt—K 4, and Black must reply Q Kt—Q 2, because covering with R—K 3 would cost the “exchange,” as will appear from a comparison of the value of the pieces concerned. The “exchange” is, however, lost for Black on the next move, because White’s further attack on the Knight by Q—B 3 forces the Rook to defend on K 3, where it gets into the diagonal of the Bishop, which at present is masked by White’s Knight. The sequel would be 3 Q Kt × Kt ch, R × Kt (not B × Kt on account of B × R winning a whole Rook), 4 B × R, and so on.

Diag. 10.

A similar case is shown in Diagram 11.

Diag. 11.

Here, too, there is a flaw in the simple calculation, because the defending units are not secure. Beginners should devote special attention to this position, which is in practice of frequent occurrence.

It can be easily perceived that the Bishop cannot capture the pawn at B 7 on account of P—Q R 3. But to take with the Knight would also be an error, because Black would then keep chasing away the covering Bishop.

1 P—Kt 4 ; 2 B—Q 6, K—B 3 ; 3 Kt—K 8, B—B 2 ; and wins one of the pieces.

Finally, one more example, in which one of the defending pieces being pinned makes simple calculation impracticable.

In Diagram 12 it seems at first sight as if Black could play Kt × P : although White can pin the Knight with R—K 1 and then attack it once more with his Knight, Black would appear to have sufficient protection available, with his Kt and B. White has no time to double Rooks, because if he does so, after his R—K 2 Black would play the King away from his file and allow the Knight to escape.

Diag. 12.

But White can, by a simple sacrifice, bring the slumbering R at R 1 into sudden action :

1...Kt × P; 2 R—K 1, B—B 4; 3 Kt—B 3, Kt—Q 3; 4 R × Kt, Kt × R ; 5 R—K 1, and White wins two pieces for his Rook.

These illustrations will be sufficient to give the beginner an understanding of economy of calculation in all kinds of combinations. His power of combining will grow speedily on this basis, and thrive in the fire of practical experience. Where an opponent is missing, the gap must be filled by reference to such books as treat of the science of combination and give examples taken from actual play.

1. It is difficult to compare the relative value of the different pieces, as so much depends on the peculiarities of each position, but, generally speaking, minor pieces, Bishop and Knight, are reckoned as equal ; the Rook as equal to a minor piece and one or two pawns (to have a Rook against a minor piece, is to be the “exchange‘ ahead). The Queen is equal to two Rooks or three minor pieces.