The Appeal of Informant

A question was raised in social media: does anyone still use Informant? As the question was in response to me, having claimed that Informant is the chess periodical that I read more than any other, I took the question as a personal challenge. I like the books, but now am more likely to read them on my computer screen while jotting notes in the print edition.

In the early days of Chess Informant, it was a vital source of games for readers. It no longer serves that purpose. We can watch them as they are played and have several ways to access them after they finish. What, then, is the appeal of Informant today?

My first Informant was number 64. I acquired it as I was getting into correspondence chess after a brief effort two decades earlier. One of the games in that issue gave substance to the concept of flexibility.* That game helped my planning and positional judgement in a correspondence game that I won (see the game at "Playing by the Book"). Of course, there are many ways to get access to games that will help one play correspondence chess. That Informant did this for me may have been no more than coincidence. It was what I was using for study. Is there anything inherent in the publication that makes it more useful than other resources for such a purpose?

More recently in another correspondence game I had Black in the French Defense and was facing a frightening appearing pawn storm. We were still in book, so I did a search of my database containing all games published in Informant for the position before me. There were more than one hundred games. Over the course of the weekend, I played through all of these games on my computer screen. Our game diverged from the databases a couple of moves later, and yet ten moves later I was developing plans based on a game I had seen that weekend. My memory of the game had errors—I incorrectly remembered had been played by Viktor Kortschnoj. Even so, I went on to win. Of course, a search of ChessBase Mega that controlled by rating would have given me most of these games and more, along with the same benefits.

Less is More

Chess Informant's system of signs and language-less annotations contribute both to its appeal and limit its usefulness to many players. Chess players looking to improve often crave annotations expressed in words more than variations. These are vital for explaining concepts that must be absorbed in order to play well. However, words can distract as well.

When I was trying to improve as a C-Class player in the late-1990s and early 2000s, I became aware that my interior dialogue while playing tournament chess reflected a great deal of confusion. I did not lack ideas. Rather, I spent much of my thinking time on ideas that were unproductive. I examined lines that a master would immediately reject, but that seemed good to me. Learning the Informant system of signs and investing time reading through annotated games in that periodical helped me to quiet this internal dialogue. Chess analysis in Informant offers less, not more. Only critical lines at important moments are offered. The ideas that can be expressed through the system of signs are few, but they are important. If an idea cannot be expressed through these symbols, perhaps it should be discarded. Through the first decade of this century, my rating rose over 400 points. I was in my 40s. Informant was not the only tool that facilitated my rise, of course, but it was important. Several memorable successes are tied to Informant.

Informant today offers less in another way that maintains its appeal to me. It contains only quality games and analysis. Each Monday, Mark Crowther releases another issue of The Week in Chess with recent games from important tournaments. The last issue of 2022, number 1468, contained 7201 games. Number 1469, the first of 2023, set a record for quantity with 10,627 games. TWIC is a terrific resource and I keep my database of all TWIC more or less up-to-date. I don't know who, if anyone, succeeds in going through all of these games. Some selection is necessary. 

Informant culls a small sample from this mass of data, but every game merits attention. Usually the annotations are light, but some of the lines go deep. For a substantial number of games in each issue, several other recent games or game fragments are embedded in the annotations.

Aesthetics

Chess Informants are attractive books. Through something more than the first 100 issues, little changed on the cover except the colors. The design was spare, economical, and highlighted the global nature of chess culture. The "new Informants", however, each have a unique cover design. Sometimes these are colorful and whimsical. Sometimes the connection to chess is not explicit, such as the Spaghetti Western influenced cover of Informant 128 (see "Determination"). Sometimes, there is a puzzle quality to the cover. I won a copy of Chess Informant Paramount (a software package with Informants 1-123 and indices) by correctly identifying the image and context of the cover of Informant 125--the issue title was "Enigma" and the image was of part of the hardware used by the Bletchley Park codebreakers who cracked Nazi Germany's Enigma code. The most recent, CI 156 Mesmerized, has an image of the sky and clouds with shades of blue, orange, and white. It provokes the imagination.

*The notion of flexibility as an important strategic principle entered my thinking more soundly when I read Dan Heisman, Elements of Positional Evaluation, rev. ed. (1999) several years later, but the foundation was built by productive study of Informant 64.

Howard Staunton

On the Origin of Good Moves Reading Log*

In The Chess-Player's Handbook (1847), Howard Staunton asserts, "in chess, as in modern warfare, one of the most important strategems is the art of gaining time upon the enemy" (48-49). This assertion could well be considered central to the foundation of the articulation of positional chess, but Staunton does not get such credit.

Time served as a "factor" in Siegbert Tarrasch's articulation of what many have taken to be a continuation of William Steinitz's modern theory. He stated, "Force, Space and Time work together at every move" (The Game of Chess [1935], 231). Later, pawn structure was added to Tarrasch's formulation, and these became the essence of "development" (see "Principle of Development: Early History"). These were the factors that I learned in my youth, and then found anew as I was returning to chess after about a decade of minimal play, and read some of Yasser Seirawan's exceptional "Winning" series published by Microsoft Press in the 1990s. I recall Wesley So telling Seirawan during one of the Wijk aan Zee broadcasts that these texts gave him his foundation.

Time remains vital to Dan Heisman's nearly iconoclastic Elements of Positional Evaluation, rev. ed. (1999), where he lists mobility, flexibility, vulnerability, center control, piece coordination, time, and speed. Heisman considers notions of space, pawn structure, and development as "pseudo-elements". In Heisman's brief synopsis of the history of positional theory, he claims that after Andre Danican Philidor, the next contribution to theory was the play of Paul Morphy, skipping over Staunton.

Who mentions time prior to Staunton? Research might reveal that it was Giaochino Greco, although I cannot point to a passage in his manuscripts where this is the case. I do vaguely recall the concept articulated in some annotations by William Lewis, and Staunton was certainly familiar with the works of Lewis. Following this assertion concerning time, Staunton suggests the relevance of the art of warfare for chess with reference to Traité de Grand Tactique (1805) by Antoine-Henri Jomini, who served under Napoleon as well as other leadership capacities elsewhere in Europe. Staunton's lessons from Jomini, the art of war:

...consisted in the proper application of three combinations--first, the art of disposing the lines of operation in the most advantageous manner; secondly, in a skillful concentration of the forces with the greatest possible rapidity upon the most important point of the enemy's line of operations; and thirdly, that of combining the simultaneous employment of this accumulated force upon the position in which it is directed. (49)

Staunton implies that the application of these principles of war to the game of chess ought to be self-explanatory. Perhaps this failure of elaboration is what excludes him from narratives of the development of chess theory. But, if so, why does Steinitz get so much credit? The Modern Chess Instructor (1889) is even more paltry in its elaboration of principles of positional play.

Willy Hendriks, On the Origin of Good Moves (2020) does not elevate Staunton's reputation as a theorist in his short chapter, which concentrates on the second match between Staunton and Pierre de Saint-Amant (76-88). He does, however, claim that Staunton's contribution to the development of chess skill among those who followed him were manifested in three ways. The first is the role of newspaper columns.

In the quiz that begins the chapter, Hendriks presents this position and an intriguing question.

White to move

His question is derived from a challenge that Staunton offered to his opponent in a battle of analysis in chess periodicals, Le Palamède edited by Saint-Amant and Chess Player’s Chronicle by Staunton. Would you be willing to take the Black side in a series of six games? How much would you be willing to bet on the outcome?

Saint-Amant asserted that Black has an attack and a clearly superior position. Staunton disagreed. Staunton did lose the game, but Hendriks suggests that his loss was due to a subsequent tactical adventure that led no where.

Edward Winter wrote about the controversy in "Staunton v. Saint-Amant", Chess Notes 5709 (10 August 2008). This article forms the source for annotations to this game in ChessBase Mega2020. Hendriks develops his narrative of the word wars through the work of Nick Pope at Chess Archaeology. The emergence of chess columns in newspapers, and then specialized chess magazines, in the first half of the nineteenth century, Hendriks asserts, began to improve the level of chess skill. Staunton's Chess Player's Chronicle is prominent among them, as was Le Palamède. Staunton's second contribution is found in his books. Then, in 1851, Staunton organized the first international chess tournament.

Hendriks core argument in the chapter disputes an assertion of Harry Golombek that the quality of play in the Staunton -- Saint-Amant matches was "much superior" to the McDonnell -- De Labourdonnais matches (77). Hendriks shows that there was an abundance of errors in the latter, as there had been the previous decade when the top French player met the top British player.

Hendriks' exercises at the start of the chapter and his analysis of the games from which they were derived sent me into the databases to play through with some rapidity all 27 games from the two matches. To be honest, I found that exercise to be a chore. Aside from a few interesting endgames, the play of neither gentleman inspired me. On the Origin of Good Moves extracts the most interesting moments. My criticism of the chapter is that Hendriks only vaguely references the fact that the match he focused on was the second between the two men. His assertions that Staunton was clearly the superior player should not overlook Saint-Amant's victory in the much shorter first match.

*See "On the Origin: Reading Journal".

Five Days to Better Chess

Five Days to Better Chess: Essential Tools was published a few days ago. What is this book about? Who is the audience?

This book offers content and process. This process is for all chess enthusiasts who seek to improve their own game, or who help others to do so. The content aims principally at developing players up to average club strength (Elo 1400-1600). Will it lift you to this level in five days? No. It was noted by a critic on Facebook that a title like "five days to..." cheapens content by promising what no book can deliver. Maybe I could have called it "five steps ..." instead? Better is not best. Improvement is a journey; this book offers a map.

The process mapped in Five Days to Better Chess is neither original nor the norm in chess training. The process is rooted in the experience of watching players of all levels fail to demonstrate basic skills. This process begins at the end of the game and works from there towards the beginning. That is, it starts with checkmate. First, there are elementary checkmates with a few pieces against a lone king. Chess Fundamentals (1921) by Jose R. Capablanca begins the same way. From elementary checkmates, Capablanca moves to simple pawn endings, then middlegame positions, and finally general opening principles. He then repeats the sequence from endings, through middlegames to openings. In Chess Fundamentals, this sequence repeats a third time, then the book contains illustrative games.

Five Days to Better Chess advocates this repeating process, but the book is structured in five units: checkmates, endings, middlegames, openings, and great games. The first four units each begin with relatively elementary skills and build towards more complex. The plan is for readers to read part of each unit and then go through the book again, reading other parts.

The beginning of the checkmate unit illuminates this structure:

How do you become better at checkmate? Skill at execution of checkmate is your tool box for finishing the game. Your tools are 1) mastery of elementary checkmates with heavy pieces, 2) experience with minor piece checkmates, 3) recognition of common checkmate patterns, and 4) calculation skill.

Among the patterns are a list of 37 checkmate configurations, a section on the varieties of corridor checkmates, some work on the weakness of f7/f2 designed to steer players away from attempting scholar's checkmate. Legall's pseudo-sacrifice is offered as a better effort to trap the unwary. Finally, there is a section on the classic bishop sacrifice (Bxh7+) that highlights defensive resources.

Several instructive portions in each of the first three units offer a small number of exercises. Each of the first three also have forty exercises that conclude the unit. For strong class players (above 1600), these 120 exercises could offer a quick warm-up before tackling tougher problems. For those under 1400, they may prove challenging. The exercises offer a range from quick and easy, and thus within reach of those new to the game, to a few with instructive nuances that cause stronger players to pause and calculate.

When I was studying Byrne -- Fischer 1956--the "Game of the Century"--a few months ago, I had this position on the dining room table all weekend.

White to move

Without moving any pieces, I tried to calculate and record the principle variations. I became caught up in long and difficult assessment of variations that follow after 18.Bxe6, which was not played in the game. The obvious answer finally hit me while folding my laundry. The position after 18.Bxe6 is on the book's cover and is Checkmate Challenge #70 at the end of the checkmate unit. The notes that I produced that weekend also appear in the fifth unit, devoted to great games.

After checkmate, the process advocated in Five Days to Better Chess presents endgames as day two. It begins with elementary king and pawn positions that highlight the square of the pawn, breakthrough ideas, and the fundamentals of opposition and outflanking. There are sections on knight vs. bishop, queen vs. pawn, and queen vs. rook. A large chunk on endings presents the most important rook endings, concluding with two examples of Vasily Smyslov's exemplary defense against a rook and two pawns with a rook (pawns on the f- and h-files). All of these topics are treated in much greater detail in books by Yuri Averbakh, Jeremy Silman, Mark Dvoretsky, and others. Nonetheless, my explanations may prove useful to many students and coaches. Five Days highlights those skills that are most fundamental.

A section of the middlegame unit offers an extended discussion of the many aspects of pins. Then a short glossary defines with examples the other thirteen most common tactical ideas from attraction (decoy) to zwischenzug. A section on strategy builds upon Dan Heisman's Elements of Positional Evaluation (1999) through deep analysis of the key moments in Pillsbury -- Lasker 1896.* Lasker's own presentation of this game in Lasker's Manual of Chess (1947) validates the usefulness of Heisman's seven elements. Annotations to a couple of Paul Morphy's games further develop the reader's understanding of positional play.

The opening section develops basic principles, and then returns to Lasker's critique of his loss of time against Pillsbury, then offers move-by-move discussion of one line of the classical French (the opening in that game). Four more openings are presented, highlighting verbal explanations of basic principles--Italian, Spanish, Queen's Gambit, and London System. These are tied to model games, including a thrashing of Pavel Eljanov's Catalan by Magnus Carlsen. The exercises at the end of the chapter are twelve instructive miniatures for readers to analyze. Solutions in the back of the book highlight the key errors.

The chapter on great games offers a narrative of my quest for the best game ever played and annotations of three masterpieces that just missed the top ten. The annotations highlight my own learning process as a model for readers, including an extended discussion of how Vladimir Barsky, The Ragozin Complex (2011) helps elucidate strategies Jon Ludvig Hammer employed in his masterpiece last year in Stockholm. My ten candidates for best game are presented in full for reader analysis. Five Days offers brief statements of the merits that I see in each game. The focus in this unit is offering suggestions on how students of the game might approach learning from such games, especially how these games teach all elements from the opening to the endgame.

Two Notes

The subtitle, essential tools, employs a metaphor. Those are my tools on the cover. The metaphor comes out in the writing.

Regular readers of Chess Skills already know that I am a historian. This book offers many anecdotes and vignettes of chess history, such as the origin of the word pawn.

Genesis of the Work

Five Days to Better Chess is the culmination of more than ten years' work. In summer 2008, I offered my first chess camp for children at the school where I had been coaching eight years. My work as a youth  chess coach began as a parent volunteer at my son's school. When he moved on to another school, I was offered a stipend so that I would stay on as the coach.

Offering a chess camp extended the chess work one week into the summer, while also intensifying the learning opportunities. To keep the children focused, I prepared more exercises than they could possibly finish even if that is all they did during camp. Camp included competition--a pawn wars tournament, checkmate contests, a camp tournament with one game per day--lectures, and solving sessions. Camp points  accumulated as long as behavior was good and exercises were completed. Bonus points were awarded to those who won games, and to those who practiced chess notation.

Assembling the exercises and some of the instructional material into a workbook gave the students something they could take home. My hope was that they would study on their own through the summer. The school photocopied my materials, and then I had them spiral bound with card stock covers at Kinkos or Staples.

I used the same workbook the second summer, changing only the date on the cover. The third year, I created a new workbook focused on learning from Adolf Anderssen, titling it "Attacking with Anderssen". Tactics exercises came from his games. I recycled some of the materials, especially the elementary pawn endings. As the theme changed year after year, some materials that I recycle were fine-tuned. These appear in Five Days to Better Chess.

When I published Forcing Checkmate through Amazon this spring, I learned that Amazon's printing cost and mark-up was barely more than I paid at Staples for spiral binding. It seemed time to expand my workbook and get professional binding. I aimed for 200 pages because that was the minimum length that would allow printing the title on the book's spine. I ended up with more than 225 double-column pages of content, plus front matter and a couple of blank pages to facilitate design elements.



*The second edition of Heisman's book was published in 1999. I have the fourth edition as well.

Kindle Chess Books

"The Good, the Bad, the Ugly"

I do not have a Kindle. While at Best Buy, I looked at them, even playing a game of chess with one in the store. It was an easy win. That was in 2010. My wife and I had gone to Best Buy with thoughts of maybe buying Kindles, but went home with two iPads instead. The iPad screen is much larger and Apple offers a Kindle Reader on the App Store.

A couple of weeks later, on a flight to London, I finished reading Zero History (2010) by William Gibson. It was my first Kindle Book. After returning home, I added several more, including the second edition of Mark Dvoretsky, Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (2008). Adding a copy of this book to my iPad considerably lightened the weight of my chess bag. For most of the previous year, the print version of the first edition of Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual was nearly always with me. In both my chess coaching and personal study away from home, I made frequent use of my pawn ending flashcards (see "Pawn Endings Flash Cards"). It was often helpful to refer to Dvoretsky's analysis.

some light reading

With a lightened chess bag, I increased the number of books that I carried. I added PDF copies of my own self-published pamphlets--"A Checklist of Checkmates" and a couple of camp workbooks. For a few dollars more, the print edition of Gibson's novel would have been easier to read and never face the prospects of a dead battery. But having a growing collection of chess books always in my bag added useful tools to chess study and teaching. I began to see chess e-books as the bee's knees!

Kindle Books are not the only e-books. Google has been creating digitized copies of many old and often rare books. These are available in several formats, including one that can be read in Google Play (Google's answer to the Kindle). The works of William Lewis (1787-1870) have become accessible. Over the course of several months, I translated Lewis's long English descriptive notation in Gioachino Greco on the Game of Chess (1819) into algebraic (see "Gioachino Greco on the Game of Chess"). That expanded my database of Greco's games from the 77 generally available to 168. This expanded database became a core resource for that summer's chess camp and workbook, "Learning from the First Chess Masters."

Unfortunately, the hard drive on my notebook crashed that summer and I had failed to back-up my Greco database. I still have Lewis's book in Google Play, of course. I also have the smaller database created for camp, but most of my work on Greco those two months must begin anew. I have been working with Francis Beale, The Royal Game of Chesse-Play (1656) to rebuild this work. The notation is more difficult than Lewis's. My long-term plan is to have a compendium of the Beale, Lewis, and "Hoffman" (1900) editions of Greco's games. Professor Hoffman (a pseudonym for Angelo Lewis) is the author of the work that forms the basis of the database, but even this work has variations that were left out when the database was created (see "A Greco Miniature").

My collection of seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth century chess books and magazines would fill a bookcase, but they are always with me on my iPad and iPhone. Moreover, they were free. Kindle Books are not free, but they usually cost less than the print edition.

Dan Heisman, Elements of Positional Evaluation, 3rd. ed. (1999) transformed my thinking. In place of Larry Evans' "four elements"--pawn structure, force, space, and time--I have Heisman's seven. Heisman argues against what he calls pseudo-elements--material, space, king-safety, and development. Instead, in a book that reads well alongside John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy (1998), he offers mobility, flexibility, vulnerability, center control, piece coordination, time, and speed. It is hard to stop using the word development, but it is much easier to explain what is meant by this vague notion with terms like mobility, flexibility, and vulnerability. Get your pieces to squares where they have maximum mobility and flexibility. Reduce your own vulnerabilities, while looking for ways to exploit those your opponent fails to reduce. Reading the old masters in the light of Heisman's book, it becomes clear that they employed the word mobility to define what they meant by development. They also determined material value by examining how many squares a piece could reach and noting the colors of these squares. See "Principle of Development: Early History" for extended musings on this topic.

The third edition of Heisman's Elements of Position Evaluation contains a minimum of diagrams and few illustrative example. The fourth edition greatly expands the work with many well-illustrated examples. I have the fourth edition in my Kindle library. Other Kindle editions that are always with me and frequently prove useful in my work with youth players include: Bruce Alberston, Chess Mazes (2004); Alexander Alekhine, Alexander Alekhine's Best Games (1996)--a reduced selection from his three volumes with additional notes by John Nunn;  Ray Cheng, Practical Chess Exercises (2007); and now my own Essential Tactics: Building a Foundation for Chess Skill (2017). There are also many books that I use for self-study, especially Alex Yermolinsky, The Road to Chess Improvement (2012), and Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov, Part I: 1973-1985 (2011).

Horrors of Self-Publishing

Converting my worksheets with 150 elementary tactics problems into Kindle book format with diagrams featuring colored arrows to highlight the solutions was a year's work. I started in spring 2016, working a few hours per week. The first step was restoring the database used to create the worksheets, because that, too, was lost in the hard-drive crash a few years ago. Then, I started creating colored diagrams as exercises and another set with arrows as solutions. While creating these diagrams, I also wrote the text. After two months of steady work, I set it aside. My body can handle only so much meticulous work in front of a screen. In late winter 2017, I resumed the project with the determination to finish.

Once the manuscript was completed and I had proofread it a few times, publishing was a snap (see "Writing and Publishing"). Only when it was "live" in the Kindle store was I able to see errors that I had missed while proofreading. Over the course of 48 hours, I uploaded five or six corrected editions. I found that it was almost too easy to self-publish a Kindle book.

The first two days that it was available, Essential Tactics sold six copies. That lifted it to #7 among the Kindle chess best-sellers. I started paying more attention to the other top selling Kindle chess books. These lists are updated hourly. Some very good books by strong Grandmasters with a penchant for explaining things clearly are usually on the list. John Nunn, Understanding Chess Move by Move (2013), for example, is in the top ten at this hour. Books about Bobby Fischer, such as Brady's biography, are often near the top. So is Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess, which Fischer did not write.

Also among the top selling chess e-books are instructive manuals by writers no one has ever seen at a chess tournament. A book titled, Chess: Become a Master (2017) aims to lift beginners to the next level. It explains the rules and offers some basic strategy and tactics instruction. The author is not a chess player. The explanations of the rules are full of errors, repeating some of the misconceptions your uncle may have taught you fifty years ago. The strategy and tactics suggestions will make you a worse chess player if you are already over 1000 Elo.

There are similar horrors as bad or worse.

Earlier this week, five of the top ten were a book, The Chess Strategy, by five different authors. All five were the same text: Edward Lasker, Chess Strategy (1915), which is available free from Project Gutenberg. Someone had uploaded this book several times with different covers and fake author names. I wrote a review of one copy identifying the work as plagiarism. Once I received notice that the review posted, I looked at the top selling books again. Ten of the top twenty were Chess Fundamentals, but Jose R. Capablanca was not identified as the author of any of these. Prices ranged from $3.00 to $4.00. This time, however, there was no free Kindle sample, no preview. However, the book description started in mid-sentence and was instantly recognizable to anyone who has spent as much time reading Capablanca's original as I have.

Is it any wonder that I have difficulty attracting potential readers to my self-published books? I, too, am an unknown author without a chess title. My students may call me "Sensei", but I am not a master. I have been teaching beginners and novices, and a few strong local players who have become state champions. My skill at bringing young players up to C Class, and with a foundation that facilitates growing beyond me, is well-established. I have thousands of pages of instructional chess materials ready for conversion into e-book format. No one cares.

The Kindle store is full of rubbish. Even some of the books by established tournament players seem overpriced at $4.99. Some are incompetent. I titled one review of a book by a strong, young expert or master with that word. The author, who should know better, repeats an error that I have seen in several books, "the king cannot fork."*

In Essential Tactics, I have this exercise.

White to move

A king fork wins a piece and likely the game.


*That author currently has seven books in the Kindle store, several of which are always among the top sellers. One is no more than a ChessBase export file that any skilled ChessBase user could create in five minutes. In fifteen minutes, I could produce a cleaner copy.

Calculate

Lesson of the Week

My young chess students were presented with exercises this week that are designed to develop their calculation skills. For the advanced students, I culled six problems from a workbook that I created for my chess camp two years ago and that I updated this week so that other chess coaches might find it useful.

Problem 2 is from a game that I lost to an alum of the chess club where I now coach. He is our current city champion. The game from which the position is extracted was played when he was in high school.

Problem 6 asks the young players to find the move that I considered, but did not play, against IM John Donaldson in a simul in 2003. I managed a draw (Donaldson scored 26-2-2 in the simul), but had winning chances had I played the move that I had been aiming at for several moves prior. Donaldson was moving around the boards quickly and I did not have enough time to resolve my doubts concerning the sacrifice.

White to move (1-3)

1.

2.

3.

Black to move (4-6)

4.

5.

6.

I introduced my beginning students to the knight's tour exercise to develop their abilities to handle that piece. The worksheet had a sample with the first ten moves entered and three blank chess boards for them to write on. The image below displays part of this worksheet.

The Workbook

My workbook is titled "Basic Training for Chess Success: Lessons from Camp" and was created for my 2014 summer chess camp. I have been creating new workbooks each year for my summer chess camp since 2008, often reusing materials that were particularly useful. "Basic Training" uses a section from my 2010 workbook, which was wholly focused on Adolf Anderssen (see "Learning from Errors: Adolf Anderssen"). This is followed by a section drawing lessons from Paul Morphy that I created for my 2012 workbook and then a short lesson that has appeared in several workbooks that applies Dan Heisman's Elements of Positions Evaluation to Pillsbury -- Lasker, Nuremberg 1896. There is a short endgame section culled from my work on Vasily Smyslov that formed the core of my 2011 workbook. Finally, the workbook contains a "glossary of tactics" and 124 exercises with solutions.

Thinking about Development

Ever since reading Elements of Positional Evaluation, rev. ed. (1999) by Dan Heisman fifteen years ago, I have thought a little differently about development.* Before reading this book, I had been content to get my pieces out, hopefully to good squares. I did not think deeply about which rook to move first, nor when to delay deploying a bishop because I was uncertain of its best square, nor what exactly is meant by the term development.

Heisman calls development a pseudo-element.

Development theory yields more contradictions than any other single positional theory, and if noting else comes out of this work, it is hoped that the overused "development" will be exposed for what it really is: a vague catch-all which confuses more than it clarifies. For a definition, we finds such indefinite generalizations as "getting your pieces into play," "moving a piece from its original square," and "putting your pieces on squares where they are well placed for the middlegame."
Heisman, Elements, 28.

I have sought to employ Heisman's seven elements--mobility, flexibility, center control, vulnerability, piece coordination, time, and speed--in my teaching of juniors and in my own play. I have sought through my reading and rereading of classic works to understand the historic evolution of the concept of development. Chess writers before Steinitz concerned with positional play used the term time before development became a catch phrase.

A position that I recently faced in a correspondence game provoked further considerations of development, and surprisingly, perhaps, found me relying on something I read in Siegbert Tarrasch, The Game of Chess (1935). Tarrasch employs the concept of development throughout this book. However, he breaks it down into three factors: time, material, and space.

White to move

It was my move in this position. My first impulse was to play 10.Nxf6+, but then I remembered Tarrasch's sage advice in his section on time, "every care must be taken not to develop one's opponent, for by so doing one presents him with one or more tempi" (227). There was no rush as this was a correspondence game with seven days to move. I spent a leisurely 45 minutes or so contemplating and researching this position.

It seemed clear to me that White had an advantage. Tarrasch would note White's occupation of four ranks while Black's pieces occupied three (space). Counting tempi in the manner that Tarrasch suggests yields 5-4 in favor of White because a knight on the fourth rank is worth two tempi (229). Capturing the knight on f6 would restore the balance of tempi, something obviously not in White's best interests.

Heisman's elements were also helpful. White's pieces struck me as slightly better coordinated than Black's. The old pseudo-element (Heisman's term) of space helps. In particular, White's pieces are well coordinated to generate pressure against h7 and start an attack on the castled king. Despite seemingly adequate protection, Black's king could prove vulnerable if White could build an attack.

I looked at several lines designed to create a checkmate threat on h7. Inevitably, Black was forced to play g6, but then Black's bishop became well-posted on g7 or f6. As pieces were exchanged, White's initiative failed to expose the king and began to dissipate.

Exploring my database, I found that this position had occurred in at least fourteen prior games with thirteen White wins and one draw. One of the wins, however, came as a consequence of a long endgame with one knight and five pawns each. Black was outplayed in what looked to me like an equal position. In those fourteen games, White had played ten different moves.

Before looking at the move that I played and the subsequent course of the game, it may be of interest to see how this position came about.

Stripes,J (2175) -- Internet Opponent (1919) [C04]
www.ChessWorld.net, 31.05.2015

1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.Nd2 Nc6

The Guimard variation has long had a reputation for being weaker than 3...c5 and 3...Nf6, as well as the flexible 3...Be7 that is recommended in several recent books on the French. Even so, John Watson offers a chapter on it in Dangerous Weapons: The French (2007).

4.Ngf3 Be7

4...Nf6 is nearly always played and is the only move discussed in Watson's Dangerous Weapons. Other moves that can be found in ECO are 4...g6, 4...Nh6, and 4...dxe4. The last transposes to a obscure variation of the Rubinstein French.

5.c3 has been played in over half of the small number of games reaching this position. White's score of 84% is impressive, but the sample is too small and most of the games are between players below Candidate Master.

5.e5 f5 (5...Nh6 6.c3 Bd7 7.Bd3 Nf5 8.Nf1 Na5 9.Ng3 Nxg3 10.hxg3 h6 11.g4 a6 12.g5 h5 13.g6 Bb5 14.g4 h4 15.gxf7+ Kxf7 16.g5 Ke8 17.Bxb5+ axb5 18.Qd3 c6 19.Nxh4 Nb3 20.Rb1 Nxc1 21.Qg6+ Kd7 22.f4 Qf8 23.f5 Nd3+ 24.Kd2 Nf4 25.fxe6+ Nxe6 26.Rbf1 Bxg5+ 27.Kc2 Qe8 28.Rf7+ Be7 29.Nf5 Rxh1 30.Nxg7 Rh6 31.Qf5 Qxf7 32.Qxf7 Rf8 0–1 Fernandez Romero,E (2383)--Pons Boscana,G, Mallorca 2000) 6.c4 Nh6 7.cxd5 exd5 8.Nb3 Nf7 9.Bd3 a5 10.0–0 a4 11.Nbd2 g5 12.Bb5 Ra5 13.Bxa4 g4 14.Bxc6+ bxc6 15.Nb3 Ra7 16.Ne1 Ba6 17.Nd3 Qa8 18.Re1 Bb5 19.a3 Ba4 20.Bd2 c5 21.dxc5 d4 22.e6 Nd8 23.Nf4 Bxc5 24.Qc2 Bd6 25.Qxf5 Bxb3 26.Qh5+ Kf8 27.Ng6+ Kg8 28.e7 Ne6 29.Nxh8 Bxe7 30.Qf7+ Kxh8 31.Qxe7 Ra6 32.Bh6 1–0 Rogers,I (2574)--Buecker,S (2341), Hertogenbosch 1999.

5...dxe4 6.Nxe4 Nf6

White to move

With Black's move the game transposes into a slightly larger data set, perhaps the seventy games are sufficient for justifying some optimism for White in the 92% score.

7.Bd3

A thematic move against the French.

7...b6

7...Qd5 8.Qe2 0–0 9.Bf4 Nxe4 10.Bxe4 Qa5 11.0–0 Bd6 12.Ne5 Bxe5 13.Bxe5 Bd7 14.a4 Nxe5 15.dxe5 Rab8 16.b4 Qa6 17.b5 Qb6 18.Qd3 Rfd8 19.Bxh7+ Kf8 20.Be4 c6 21.c4 Qc5 22.Qa3 Qxa3 23.Rxa3 Be8 24.Rd3 Rxd3 25.Bxd3 Rd8 26.Rd1 cxb5 27.axb5 a6 28.bxa6 bxa6 29.Be2 Rxd1+ 30.Bxd1 a5 31.f4 f6 32.Kf2 Bc6 33.g3 a4 34.Ke3 a3 35.Bb3 fxe5 36.fxe5 Kf7 37.Kd4 Kg6 38.Kc5 Be4 39.Ba2 Kf5 40.Kd6 g5 41.h4 gxh4 42.gxh4 Bf3 43.h5 Bxh5 44.c5 1–0 Mortensen,E (2440)--Crawley,G (2345), Copenhagen 1987.

7...0–0 is the most popular move in the position.

8.0–0

8.Qa4 has been played by the strongest players who reached this position 8...Bb7 9.0–0 (9.Bb5 Qd5=).

8...Bb7 9.Qe2 0–0

And we have reached the diagram position at the top of this post. Notice that it emerged from the Tarrasch variation of the French.

Fourteen games in the ChessBase database have reached this position. White has tried ten different moves. One game was drawn and White won all the others.

10.Re1!N

Moving my rook to the semi-open file strengthens my grip on the center, prepares for an eventual rook lift if I can generate an attack on Black's king, leaves d1 available for the other rook, and defers development of my dark-squared bishop. Even more important, it makes no concrete threats that guide Black's choices. I am developing with a very slight increase in pressure. I have increased the mobility of my rook (Tarrasch would count the rook's placement on e1 as a tempo because there is no White pawn blocking it). My pieces remain well-coordinated as others join in the battle. I continue to eye potential vulnerabilites in Black's position. I am not wasting time, nor am I helping my opponent gain time through exchanges.

Whether my move is better than others that have been played in this position is unclear. It seems that almost everything has led to success.

Indeed, I like this position for training because it is not the move, but rather the rationale that is most telling. Although I will likely never see it again, and my students are not likely to ever play it, it could be a useful position for asking students to articulate their thinking. The concepts and principles that a player brings to this position may help identify what one still needs to learn concerning positional play in the later phases of the opening.

10.Qc2 was played on move 11 in a fifteenth game. 10...Nxe4 11.Bxe4 f5 12.Bd3 Bf6 13.Bc4 Bc8 14.Re1 Qd6 15.Qxf5 Bxd4 16.Qe4 Bf6 17.Bf4 Qc5 18.b4 Qh5 19.Bxe6+ Kh8 20.Qxc6 1–0 Jovanovic,Z (2541)--Patarcic,D (2157), Bosnjaci CRO 2015.

10.Nxf6+ Bxf6 11.Qe4 g6 12.Bh6 Re8 13.Qf4 Qe7 14.Bg5 Bxg5 15.Nxg5 e5 16.dxe5 Nxe5 17.Be4 Bxe4 18.Nxe4 Nd3 19.Nf6+ Kh8 20.Qh4 h5 21.Qg5 Qf8 22.Nxe8 Rxe8 23.Qb5 Nc5 24.Rfe1 Ne6 25.f4 Rd8 26.Qe5+ Kg8 27.f5 Qc5+ 28.Qxc5 Nxc5 29.Re7 Na4 30.Rxc7 Nxb2 31.fxg6 fxg6 32.Rxa7 Nd1 33.Rb1 Nxc3 34.Rxb6 Rd1+ 35.Kf2 Rd2+ 36.Ke3 1–0 Mirabile,T (2203)--Stenzel,H (2077), Nassau 1999.

10...Qd7

10...Nxe4 helps White 11.Qxe4 g6 12.Bh6 Re8 13.Bb5 Bf8 (13...Na5 14.Qf4) 14.Bg5 Be7 15.Bxc6 Bxc6 16.Qxc6 Bxg5 17.d5 with an attack.

11.Bg5

This move becomes Stockfish's second choice after several minutes, although it does not make the top six through the first minute or so. It does not make it into Komodo's nor Hiarcs's top eight even after five minutes. The moves that appear favored by more than one engine are 11.Nfg5, 11.b4, and 11.Bd2. 11.Nxf6+ is an early choice that drops after the engine has a few minutes of thinking time.

Black to move

11...Rac8??

This move fails to address the needs of the position. White's forces are well-deployed for action against the king.

11...Nd5 is the top choice of every engine that I checked. 12.Bd2+/=. Perhaps 11...Nd5 was the only move with all others giving White an explicit advantage.

12.Nxf6+

The time is now! Black's position is collapsing.

12...Bxf6

12...gxf6 was the only try 13.Qe4 f5 14.Qh4+/-.

13.Qe4 g6 

I was surprised to see that this move was Stockfish's top choice. I considered it tantamount to surrender.

13...Rfd8 or Rfe8 struck me as the only reasonable try. Both moves drop two pawns and leave White with kingside pressure. 14.Qxh7+ Kf8 15.Qh8+ Ke7 16.Qxg7+-.

14.Bxf6 1–0

Black resigned.

I was preparing for a longer struggle. By slowly building pressure and forcing my opponent to make critical decisions in a seemingly quiet position, I gave him the opportunity to self-destruct.





*The fourth edition came out in 2010 and is much expanded over the edition that I read fifteen years ago.

Flexibility

One of the hallmarks of modern opening play is to aim for maximum flexibility. That is, you want to use the move order that will achieve a position where you have excellent choices of how to proceed.
Edmar Mednis*

My study game this week is the second match game between Paul Morphy and Alexander Meek at the First American Chess Congress, 1857.** Friday morning, I played Rashid Ziyatdinov's Position 152 (GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge) against Rybka 4 and managed to win. Today, I am mulling over the initial moves in the game.

Morphy,Paul -- Meek,Alexander Beaufort [C01]
USA–01.Kongress New York (2.2), 16.10.1857

1.e4 e6 2.d4 g6 3.Bd3 Bg7 4.Be3

Up to this point, the moves are identical to those in the fifth match game between Adolf Anderssen and Howard Staunton at the London International Chess Tournament, 1851 (see Anderssen -- Staunton 1851).

4...Ne7

Is Meek's play superior to Staunton's?

5.Ne2 b6 6.Nd2 Bb7

White to move

This position offers aesthetic appeal and also anticipates the twentieth century struggles of the hypermoderns. White occupies the center, while Black seeks to contest the center from a distance.

Morphy violated the not yet formulated rule that knights should be deployed before bishops, and also posted his knights on slightly less active squares than the more usual c3 and f3. In doing so, however, his f- and c-pawns remain unimpeded.

François-André Danican Philidor considered it an error to block the f-pawn, but few chess players have agreed with him on this point. Philidor was concerned about reducing the flexibility of the pawns. In the diagram position, Morphy's f- and c-pawns are prepared to advance one square to support the center, or to advance two squares to claim more space on the chessboard.

White's bishops are also more flexible than Black's. Dan Heisman employs the term "two-way bishops" in Elements of Positional Evaluation (2010), quoting Aron Nimzovich. Nimzovich offers an example of defending pieces with "slight elasticity (capacity for maneuvering) ... in the case of a sudden attack on another wing, they will not be able to equal the attacking pieces in rapidity of motion" (My System [1947], 147).

Each of Black's bishops occupies a long diagonal and strikes towards the center. White's bishops on the other hand, occupy the center and are able to strike in either direction. As this game developed and the center closed, Black's light-squared bishop was locked out of the action. In Morphy's game against Meek, this bishop took no part in the battle. In my game against Rybka (beginning at move 19 in Morphy's game), this bishop became Black's last piece, defending a hopeless position against a knight and two pawns.

White's knights impede the mobility of the queen and are themselves less mobile on the second rank than the third. On the other hand, both knights are poised to maneuver to either wing.



*"What Price Flexibility?" Inside Chess (13 November 1995), 14; as quoted in Dan Heisman, Elements of Positional Evaluation: How the Pieces Get Their Power, 4th. ed. (Milford, CT: Russell Enterprises, 2010), loc. 869 (Kindle edition).

**I describe my this aspect of my current study plan in "To Know a Position."

Vulnerability

Whose king is more secure?

White to move

White's king has an intact pawn shield, while Black's was shattered by White's sacrifice of a knight.

Black's h7 pawn appears to be a target, but Black has the diagonal leading to it blocked with a pawn that is well-defended. White could try to create a battery along the h-file with a rook lift, but Black has the resources to find additional defenders along the seventh rank.

Black's bishop is prepared to take up residence on c6, while his heavy pieces might all find their way to the g-file. With light-squared bishops on the board, the White king will be less secure on h1 than the Black king on h8. The pawn on f5, currently serving a defensive role, may be able to move to f4 should White play g3.

Black has a slight material edge due to White's sacrifice earlier in the game. Black's pieces are better coordinated than White's. Despite superficial appearances relating to Black's shattered pawn shield, his king is more secure. Moreover, Black has a decisive advantage.

The game continued 21.Re3 Ng6 22.Qh6 Qd4 23.Rh3 Qg7

Black's move is the only one that does not lose. 23...Rf7 loses because the h-pawn in pinned. 24.Qxg6+-.

White to move

24.Qe3??

24.Qxg7+ was best 24...Kxg7.

24...f4 25.Qc5

25.Qf3 is better.

25...Bxh3 26.gxh3?

The final error. 26.Qg5 allows White to play on even though his position is irretrievably lost. 26...Be6.

Black to move

26...Nh4+

Black spots the mate in four.

0-1

In Elements of Positional Evaluation: How the Pieces Get Their Power, 4th ed., revised and enlarged (Milford, CT: Russell Enterprises, 2010), Dan Heisman offers vulnerability as a positional element to replace the pseudo-element of king safety. A key element of vulnerability that Heisman addresses is strength of the forces the guard a vulnerable piece.

The king is absolutely vulnerable because he may not be sacrificed. An attack on the king must be met. But, in the illustration above, the Black king's relative vulnerability is low because there are more pieces defending than attacking.

Space

The concept of space in chess is difficult. It "is not an easily definable or recognisable concept," according to Michael Stean. In Simple Chess (1978), Stean offers the capacity of a position as a guide. "Any given pawn structure has a certain capacity for accomodating pieces efficiently. Exceed this capacity and the pieces get in each other's way, and so reduce their mutual activity" (97).

Stean illustrates capacity with two positions that have an identical pawn structure. They are differentiated by the number of pieces on the board. In the first position, all of the pieces remain and White has a clear advantage with more space to manuever. In the second position, both players have traded off a knight and a bishop. White is overextended and Black has the advantage. With less space, Black's position lacks the capacity for the full complement of chess pieces. With two fewer pieces, "the size of Black's forces is here well within his position's 'capacity'" (98).

This diagram illustrates Stean's second position. In the first, White has an additional knight on c3 and bishop on e2. Black has a knight on f6 and bishop on c8. Black's position is congested.

In the old Modern School, space is one of the three elements, or "basic factors". Siegbert Tarrasch wrote, "the more space a player commands the freer his game and the easier his development" (The Game of Chess [1935], 225). Space triumphs the other factors.

The systematic utilisation of Space, or, to put it another way, the systematic disposition of the pieces, is the most important factor in a game of chess and, within certain limits, even more important than Force, that is to say than a superiority in material. Often a win is obtained because one player forces a decisively better position by a sacrifice of material--a triumph of mind over matter.
Tarrasch, The Game of Chess, 227.

Space is calculated by counting the number of squares that are controlled in the other player's side of the board. But matters are not so simple. In The Oxford Companion to Chess (1996), David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld present the game Tarrasch -- Marco, Vienna 1898. After 25...Bf6, the game reached this position.

White to move

Counting squares reveals, they note, "the players each control about the same number of squares" (380). However, Black is unable to make use of his greater space on the queenside. White's advantage on the kingside is of more account. White's pieces have greater mobility, and as a consequence, a combination is possible.

They observe at the beginning of their article on space that the terms space and mobility are sometimes indistinguishable.

To gain an advantage in space is to achieve the possibility of moving one's men to more squares than are available to the opponent's men. Not all the squares "gained" need to be controlled--they may simply be inaccessible to the opponent's men. Normally, to gain space is to gain mobility, and the terms are frequently synonymous.
Hooper & Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess, 379.

Stean does not use the terms interchangeably. Rather, mobility "is the essence of simple chess," and space is "the single most important factor in determining mobility" (97). Space, thus, appears to be a means to an end, and that end is mobility. The terms are not so much interchangeable as primary and secondary. Mobility is a principal factor in chess positions; space is important when it affects mobility.

Mobility, according to Dan Heisman, is an "element of positional evaluation," while space is a pseudo-element. In Elements of Positional Evaluation: How the Pieces Get Their Power, 4th edition (2010), Heisman asserts that, "space is not an end in itself, nor even a means to an end other than mobility/activity" (Loc 1528, emphasis in original). Heisman's examples are somewhat extreme, as he acknowledges, but his conclusion appears in harmony with Stean's discussion.

Mobility can be measured and quantified, just as can space according to some definitions. Activity is subjective, Heisman asserts. Activity is "how much the piece can do in an actual position" (Loc 744). Mobile pieces are more likely to be active.

Heisman offers an interesting position from the Deep Blue -- Kasparov rematch.

Black to move

Black has more pieces on White's half of the board, and contests more squares there. Black has more space. Heisman does not mention space in relation to this position, however. He employs it to assert the relation between mobility (quantifiable) and activity (subjective). White's pieces contest every entry point along the d-file, which at first glance appears to be controlled by a Black rook on d8. The other Black rook supports a passed pawn, but that pawn is blockaded by a White knight. Despite a quatifiable advantage in both material and mobility, Black lost this game. Heisman observes, "the rooks have good mobility but not all that much activity" (Loc 751). Heisman sees mobilty as the "basic tool," but activity is "the better 'real position' indicator" (Loc 759).

Might we conclude that space, the old "basic factor," can be understood better insofar as it contributes to mobility, and mobility is an element insofar as it correlates with activity? How do we distinguish activity from Stean's notion of capacity? Capacity is a static concept. Activity might be a consequence of adequate capacity. But for pieces to experience activity, they need targets. Hence the opponent's position must exhibit some vulnerability that can be attacked.

Positional Play: Lessons from Akiba Rubinstein

Teaching positional chess to third and fourth graders, many of whom are beginners, resembles teaching William Faulkner's novels to college freshman. There is more in the lesson than the students have the time and ability to absorb. I have taught Faulkner's Go Down, Moses (1942) as a unified novel in a college introductory literature class.* I teach positional chess concepts to third graders. I may be nuts.


Elementary Tactics

Beginners struggle to spot simple forks. Beginners capture pinned pieces, instead of piling on with a piece of less value. Indeed, even some of the successful third graders--measured in numbers of trophies earned since kindergarten--do not always handle an elementary pin in the correct manner. The first problem in my Knight Award Checkmates and Tactics set should be easy, but even players who have won trophies at the Washington State Elementary Chess Championship have erred while solving it.

White to move

I took this position from Barnes -- Mongredien 1862, but it appears in fourteen games in the ChessBase online database. The Black knight on c6 is pinned, so White easily wins material piling on the knight with 1.d5. Barnes made this move in the game, and then Mongredien replied 1...a6. While beginners often fail to see 1.d5, most of those with some experience find the correct move. Alas, after I ask about their reply to 1...a6, they fail. Even state trophy winners have told me they would capture the knight with the attacked bishop.

If a player cannot see to retreat the bishop, maintaining the pin and winning the knight for a pawn, he or she may not be ready for positional chess. Endless repetition of elementary tactics seems necessary first. My chess pupils may advance more rapidly if I induce each of their parents to purchase Bruce Pandolfini, Beginning Chess (1993) and compel working through the 300 problems therein as a precondition to participation in tournaments.

In mid-October, I started creating worksheets with simple tactics and few pieces--problems inspired by the method in Beginning Chess. Some groups required more than thirty minutes to solve the first six of these elementary problems (see "Lesson of the Week" [16 October 2012]). The second and third weeks, the young players solved the problems more rapidly and with greater accuracy. Some beginners, however, continue to struggle.

This simple problem was one that many missed this week on their first try.

White to move

White has a simple tactic, but there is a more advanced element too. After the elementary fork, 1.Be5+ Qxe5 2.Rxe5 Kxe5, White has only one winning move, 3.Kg3. For the worksheet this week, students need only find the winning fork. This position may appear again later in pawn ending training.


Endgame Skills

The resulting king and pawn endgame requires understanding of opposition and outflanking. My chess students begin learning such lessons after earning the Knight Award. For the Bishop Award, a player must demonstrate understanding of Jeremy Silman's king vs. king exercise (see How to Reassess Your Chess, 3rd ed. [1993], 3-8.), and two elementary king and pawn exercises. I play Black; the student must win both.

White to move

White to move

A student who has earned the Bishop Award has developed endgame skills well beyond the vast majority of scholastic chess players. In addition to understanding the rudiments of opposition and outflanking, he or she knows how to checkmate with two bishops, and has solved 64 chess problems in addition to those completed for the Knight Award. The Knight Award Checkmates and Tactics problem set consists of twelve problems. The Bishop Award Checkmates and Tactics problem set has 24. In addition, two sets of twenty problems must be solved from my "Checklist of Checkmates" workbook: Corridors and Diagonals.


Positional Chess

[E]ach chess move begins in the head. If you attach importance to playing a good game of chess, you must first of all learn how to think properly.
Alexander Bangiev, Squares Strategy CD

Even while observing a significant lack of skills in elementary tactics, I have been encouraging young players to consider the strategic elements. Until the late nineteenth century, the world's top chess players were masters of attack. None of them were particularly capable defenders. Modern players sometimes scoff at the alleged brilliance of some of these attacking games because even strong club players of today easily spot superior defensive moves. The attacking play of Adolf Anderssen, for example, appears rooted not so much in his tactical brilliance as in the wholly inadequate defensive play of his adversaries (see "Understanding Mayet's Thinking" for an example).

As the nineteenth century gave way to the twentieth, positional play became the focus of top chess players.  The elements of positional understanding were first articulated by Wilhelm Steinitz, followed by Siegbert Tarrasch, and others. Garry Kasparov asserts that Akiba Rubinstein was the "brightest" of the so-called Steinitz School that ushered in this era of positional play (My Great Predecessors, vol. 1 [2003], 187). Since mid-September, my weekly lesson for young players has featured a position from the games of Rubinstein.

Over the course of the 2012-2013 school year, additional lessons will come from a small group of players from the beginnings of modern chess. In November and December, lessons will come from the games of Paul Morphy. There will be tactical positions in abundance, but I will labor to encourage students to understand the positional base from which these tactics became possible. Although considered an attacking player, study of Paul Morphy's play from the mid-nineteenth century reveals that he understood positional concepts. In January, we will turn our attention either to Emanuel Lasker or to Siegbert Tarrasch. The other will follow from mid-February through the end of March.

In The Modern Chess Instructor (1889), Wilhelm Steinitz set out to articulate the "maxims of development" as the basis for emerging chess strategy (viii). He notes, as an example, how the French Defense deprives White of many sacrificial possibilities against the vulnerable f7 square. Consequently, when Black meets 1.e4 with 1...e6, White is forced to attend "to the balance of forces and position on all parts of the board, and the accumulation of small advantages if possible" (xxxii). Chess players since the time of Steinitz have been able to articulate that one side stands better in many positions even when material is equal and no immediate tactics are available. The position from "Lesson of the Week" (3 October 2012) offers a useful illustration.

White to move

Most skilled chess players immediately notice that White has a lead in development. That would have been a suitable answer when I posed the first of two questions that I introduced to young players the first week of October--the week that most of my school chess clubs began.

1. Which side is better?
2. What are the plans for both sides?

White is better due to a lead in development. However, most third graders cannot understand such abstractions. How does Steinitz define the term development? How does Tarrasch? How do other chess coaches working with young players communicate this abstract term so that it can be understood by those as young as six years old?

White's occupation of the center--four squares in the middle of the board--is much more concrete. Black is contesting two center squares. The one unoccupied center square, d5, is attacked by two Black pieces. Only the knight attacks e4, which is occupied by a White pawn. One White piece attacks (or defends) the e5 square occupied by White's knight. Two pieces protect the pawn on e4. White's king is the only piece that asserts control over d4, currently occupied by a White pawn. Counting makes it clear that White not only occupies, but more importantly controls the center of the board.

Another concrete exercise that young players can easily learn is counting the total number of legal moves. It quickly becomes clear that White's pieces are more mobile than Black's. They have more squares to which they might move, even though most of the potential moves for both players would lose material. Mobility and Center Control are more concrete concepts than development.**


Lessons from Rubinstein

I began the school year with a lesson on truth in chess: "Every conceivable chess position has a truth that may be discovered" ("Lesson of the Week" [18 September 2012]). In the illustrative position, Rubinstein capitalized on an error by his opponent. As a consequence, he reached a superior endgame. He had a material advantage, but he traded the material advantage for clear positional superiority. In that game, positional superiority was manifest in mobile passed pawns. One of these was sacrificed to promote the other. His opponent quickly removed the new queen from the board, but at the cost of a rook. This ending was the lesson for the last week of September.

My two positional questions were introduced the first week of October, and then reinforced the second week. That lesson came from a game that Rubinstein did not win. Instead, he secured a draw because his opponent erred in a critical endgame position. In mid-October, Students faced the third key position from the games of Rubinstein in which they were asked to assess who stands better. In that position, from Nimzovich -- Rubinstein 1907, Black's control of the open file proves a contributing factor to greater piece mobility. Even more telling, however, is that White's pieces seem to get in one another's way, while Black's Piece Coordination facilitates an attack that wins material.

Even as I continued with these positional lessons from Rubinstein, however, attention in my after school chess clubs shifted towards elementary tactics. The young players did not get much of a chance to express their views on the position from Nimzovich -- Rubinstein because they were busy solving elementary problems. Knowing the problems would be too easy for some players, however, I was armed with photocopies of three different worksheets as the students entered the room. The newest beginners were given the six problems on the Elementary Tactics I worksheet (see "Lesson of the Week" [16 October 2012]). Beginners who had been in last year's clubs were handed the Pawn Award Checkmates and Tactics worksheet (six one-move checkmates). More advanced students were given the Knight Award Checkmates and Tactics worksheet. My top third grade players may have brought home a team trophy from state last year, but none of them have completed this worksheet and earned the Knight Award (there are additional requirements).

During the last two weeks of October (and carrying over to 1 November for the Thursday afternoon club), the lessons from Rubinstein received greater attention. Even though I continued to give players elementary worksheets as they entered the room, these were completed more rapidly. I continue to insist that players begin their offer of solutions to the problem on the demo board with a clear assessment of "who stands better?" No player may blurt out a possible move before offering this assessment. Even so, there are times when positional analysis must be subordinate to tactical calculation. Recognizing such moments becomes possible when tactical training develops pattern recognition. Also, the positional element of Vulnerability comes into consideration.

Forks were prominent both in the Elementary Tactics II problems presented to the young players at the start of club the week before Halloween, and in the position from Rubinstein -- Hirschbein 1927. Rubinstein's combination in that game is his only representation in the Anthology of Chess Combinations (1995) ("Lesson of the Week" [24 October 2012]). Many students saw the fork on f6, but fewer were able to assess why it does not work, and then find the tactic--removing the guard--that renders the fork a viable threat. One first grader, however, after being the first in his club to solve the six easy problems, suggested Rxd7! I was less strenuous in stressing positional evaluation as the prerequisite to suggesting this move, but did walk him through some positional analysis before acknowledging that he found Rubinstein's move.

In the final weekly lesson from Rubinstein's games, he is down two pawns and his queen is attacked. Many players were quick to observe the vulnerability of the White queen. Fewer noticed that Rubinstein was down two pawns. I should be pleased that the young players are not so materialistic as to count all the pieces before seeking to rescue the queen. But, they need to see the corresponding vulnerability of the Black king. The White queen is safe so long as the Black king is in check.


Notes

*Go Down, Moses was first published as Go Down, Moses and Other Stories. Some readers consider it a collection of seven works of short fiction, somewhat related to one another. Others consider it a unified whole. I side with the latter group.

**My debt to Dan Heisman should be clear to well-read chess players. For many years, I have used Elements of Positional Evaluation, Rev. ed. (1999) as my key text for articulating positional concepts. More recently, I have been studying Elements of Positional Evaluation, 4th ed. (2010). Heisman's work deserves the attention of all serious chess players and teachers. Heisman refers to development as a pseudo-element. The Elements, he argues, are Mobility, Flexibility, Vulnerability, Center Control, Piece Coordination, Time, and Speed. He might note that even Steinitz, in the effort to define development and the relative value of the pieces, employs mobility:

The superiority of the Bishop over the Knight is also shown by the fact that the former when placed on any square of the board will command at least 7 squares of one or more clear diagonals. In the middle of the board at K4, K5, Q4 or Q5, he will command 13 squares. On the other hand, the action of the Knight may be reduced to the command of no more than two squares, if he be placed into any of the four corners of the board, and the maximum of squares which he can command is eight. (The Modern Chess Instructor, xxxviii)

The elements put forth by Heisman are already present in the writings of Steinitz, Tarrasch, Lasker, and others of their era.

Flexibility

Anatomy of a Failure

In Elements of Positional Evaluation: How the Pieces Get Their Power (2010), Dan Heisman defines flexibility as one of seven positional concepts. Zwischenzug (an in-between move) often reveals flexibility in action. I failed a tactics problem by overlooking a zwischenzug. First, examining one plan that failed, I rejected it and found another plan. The second plan was correct, but a part of the first plan remained valuable. My wholesale rejection of the failed plan led to inflexibility in my thought process. This inflexibilty, when faced with an unexpected response, was the source of a blunder.

Black to move

Problem 77164 on Chess Tempo

Instantly, the check 1...Rc1+ bears examination. This move leads nowhere and must be rejected. Chasing pawns seems futile as well, but the knight is trapped.

I found the line 1...Re8 2.Nxd4 Rd8 when White wins a piece.

Playing 1...Re8, CT then confronted me with the unexpected 2.Rxd4. I proceeded with the original plan to win the knight and blundered. This game losing blunder (and tactics training failure) took me five seconds. Even 2...Rxd4 3.Nxd4 Rxe5 was superior too my horrid 2...Re6??

The correct move was 2...Rc1+, the first move that I examined, but played one move later. Such bull-headed pursuit of one idea when new unexamined circumstances appear on the board have been the cause of more than one failure in tournament play. The antidote to this failure is to create a problem set of zwischenzug problems on CT and spend several hours of deliberate practice solving them.