Break the Rules!

Neil McDonald writes in Break the Rules! A Modern Look at Chess Strategy (2012), "experienced players ... tread a fine line between the moves they want to play and the moves they are compelled to play." He continues, "Rules and precepts are useful starting points, but we have to use our judgement, creativity and knowledge to find the best move and plan in the specific position in front of us." A game he employs to illustrate has White beginning the game with eight consecutive pawn moves. The game is Navara -- Shimanov, Vilnius 2010.

When I read this book last year, I was already familiar with both the concept and a different Caro-Kann game from having seen them yoked in John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess: Advances since Nimzowitsch (1998). Watson cites as an example of rule independence a game that Andy Soltis presents in The Art of Defence where Black's first ten moves included seven pawn moves. Yet, somehow I remember it as the same line presented by McDonald (maybe it, too, is in Watson's book).

After McDonald's explication, however, I began playing this line against the Caro-Kann in my online games. I've trapped several bishops when my opponent strayed from the best course. In other games, I've also sacrificed a pawn on e6 to lock in Black's dark-square bishop. These games turned out to be good preparation for a tournament game when my opponent attempted to play the Nimzo-Larsen Attack. But there was more: inspiration from a game I looked at nine years ago.

A game in Chess Informant 124 (2015) inspired me such that I have been meeting 1.b3 with 1...a5 ever since with good results. That game is Rapport -- Adly, Tsaghkadzor 2015. Sometimes I enjoy creating chaos at the board, but I always find it useful to remove my opponents from their comfort zone.

Both these games inspired and guided me during my round four game against David Griffin in the Inland Classic last weekend.

Griffin,David (1522) -- Stripes,James (1873) [A04]
Inland Classic Rathdrum (4), 25.02.2024

1.Nf3 Nc6 2.b3 a5N

A novelty inspired by Rapport -- Adly. Rapport is a devotee of 1...b3. I call this move a novelty because the position does not appear in my usual databases. However, further research shows that the move in the present position has been played 902 times on Lichess.

I did have an OTB game against Griffin Herr in 2019 that began 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.b3 a5. Before the game, Griffin had asked me how I responded to 1.b3. I told him the truth, not knowing that we would be paired.

3.Bb2 e6 4.e3 a4

White to move

5.Be2

5.a3 seems important, as I suggested to David after the game.

5...a3

5...Nf6 6.0-0 Be7 7.d4 0-0 8.c4 d5 9.bxa4 b6 10.Nc3 Na5 0-1 (34) Shytaj,L (2459)--Ponkratov,P (2613) Riadh 2017.

6.Bc3 Nf6 7.0-0 d5=

White to move

8.Nd4

8.d4 has been popular on Lichess, where this position has occurred in 114 games. David wanted to avoid this move because his bishop's scope on the long diagonal was his intended manner of play.

8...Nxd4 9.Bxd4

9.exd4 Bd6 and I would have continued with somewhat more normal development, perhaps seeking to take advantage of the absence of White's king's knight.

9...c5 10.Be5

10.Bb5+ Bd7 11.Bxf6 gxf6=
10.Bxf6 gxf6= (10...Qxf6 would be a mistake).

10...h5

I am aiming to trap the bishop. After my a-pawn push, I suspect Griffin did not assess the concrete analysis behind this move.

11.Nc3

11.h3 was David's suggestion after the game.
11.d4 is also good.

11...Nd7

We have reached the game's critical position. Both sides still have chances. After White's next move, Black gets the upper hand and carries it to the end.

White to move

12.Bg3??

12.f4! Qb6 (12...f6? 13.Bxh5+ Ke7 14.Qg4 Qa5 15.Qg6 fxe5 16.Qe8+ Kd6 and White is better) 13.Na4 Qc6 and White is slightly better.
I anticipated 12.Bb5 f6 13.Bg3 h4 with a slight edge for Black.

12...h4-+

I'm winning the bishop.

13.Bf4 g5

Here, I wrote 9/13 in the margins of my scoresheet and then went and asked the tournament director whether I had broken the rules by doing so.

14.Re1!

Perhaps David's strongest move of the game. The bishop cannot be saved, but Black might yet be punished for an inordinate number of pawn moves and a king that likely will remain in the center.

14...gxf4 15.exf4 d4 16.Nb5 Nf6

White to move

17.Bc4

17.f5 seems best and principled. Black's material advantage remains, but White has good chances to create some play in the center.

17...Qb6

Finally! After eleven pawn moves and five knight moves, I develop another piece. Already, I am looking towards some checkmate ideas.

18.Qc1

David's focus on removing my a-pawn did not help his game.

18...h3 19.g3 Qc6 20.Bf1

Forced. There cannot be very many positions in the database where Black has pawns on h3 and a3 on move 20.

Black to move

20...Bd7

I wanted to avoid White's bishop pinning my queen against my king with the knight on a3. Also, I might get an opportunity to create a bishop and queen battery along the long diagonal.

21.Nxa3 Bd6

Targeting the unprotected pawn on f4

Stronger was 21...Qf3 22.Qd1 Qxd1 23.Raxd1 Rxa3-+

22.Nc4

22.f5 Qf3

22...Bxf4 23.Ne5

23.gxf4 Rg8+ and checkmate follows.

23...Bxe5 24.Rxe5 Ng4

White to move

25.Re1

25.Qe1 is best, then 25...Qf3 26.Rxc5 Rh5! a deflection that I might have missed 27.Qe2 (27.Rxh5 Bc6 and White can only delay checkmate) 27...Qxe2 28.Bxe2 Rxc5.

25...Qf3

Bc6 will be decisive

26.Qd1? Qxf2+ 0-1

Although my play was unorthodox, it worked because David did not adapt his plans to the needs of the position. The early a5 thrust by Black is not dangerous, but it is disruptive if White does not meet it appropriately.

Study Material

What might I gain from some focused study of the works of Aron Nimzowitsch? I’ve had My System and Chess Praxis in the old English descriptive versions since the 1990s and have dipped into them often enough to have a grasp of his central concepts. Of course, prophylaxis, blockade, pawn chains, the isolated queen pawn, and other ideas that he articulated before anyone else are found in many books today. One cannot read chess books and fail to encounter the work of Nimzowitsch.

John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy has been in my possession close to twenty years and I’ve read chunks. In fact, it was much on my mind during yesterday’s round four game, as was Neil McDonald, Break the Rules! Both Watson and McDonald present a Caro-Kann line in which White begins the game with eight pawn moves. Concrete calculation trumps general principles, Watson notes. In my game yesterday, prior to 17…Qb6, I had made 11 pawn moves and 5 knight moves. Also, I had trapped my opponent’s bishop.

Last summer, I purchased both the original edition of Raymond Keene, Aron Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal and the somewhat newer algebraic edition. I’ve read only the first chapter. Yesterday, at the chess tournament, the new translation of Nimzowitsch’s classics was added to my book collection thanks to the generosity of IM John Donaldson attending and playing in our local tournament. He has been doing so for a quarter century and has made a habit of bringing books that he sells at bargain prices.

Perhaps the new book will end up on the shelf gathering dust. Perhaps I will make some time to study it. 

Outpost

The concept of an outpost square in chess varies somewhat in chess literature. Aron Nimzowitsch often gets credit for introducing the  concept in My System (1925).* For Nimzowitsch, outposts are connected to play on open files. He presents the following position.

White to move

The key move, Nimzowitsch writes, is Nd5, "and the knight here placed we call the outpost; by which we mean a piece, usually a knight, established in an open file in enemy territory, and protected (of course by a pawn)" (32). This move provokes black to drive the knight back with c6, a move which weakens the d-pawn.

A contrasting definition of outpost is given by David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld in The Oxford Companion to Chess (1992). In their definition, an outpost is a square, "guarded by a pawn but cannot be attacked by an enemy pawn, especially such a square on an open file" (285). That the square cannot be assailed by an enemy pawn is central to Peter Romanovsky's description of the "eternal knight". In Chess Middlegame Planning, trans. Jimmy Adams (1990), Romanovsky suggests conditions when a piece might be placed permanently on a weak point in the opponent's position:

And so the potential weakness of a square arises as a result of the impossibility of attacking it with pawns. However, such a square should only be considered a real weakness when an enemy piece, which it will not be possible to drive away or eliminate by an exchange, threatens to take up a position. (37)

Such a position was reached in a game presented by Romanovsky, Izmailov -- Kasparian, Moscow 1931. After 25...Nd4, Black's knight is unassailable.

White to move

The knight does not sit on an open file, as Nimzowitsch's definition would lead us to expect. Romanovsky does not employ the term outpost, but highlights the concept through "weak squares" and the "eternal knight".

Hooper and Whyld also refer readers to their entry on the concept of "hole", "a square on a player's third rank or beyond that cannot be guarded by a pawn" (175). The concept, they state originates from the writing of Wilhelm Steinitz. He writes in The Modern Chess Instructor (1889) that he first used the term in The International Chess Magazine (November 1886). In Steinitz, we find the concept of an outpost square, albeit without the term later used by Nimzowitsch:

...not alone the weakness on one single pawn but also that of one single square into which any hostile man can be planted with commanding effect, will cause great trouble, and often the loss of the game, and that by proper management of the pawns such points of vantage need not be opened for the opponent. (xxxix)

Steinitz gives the opening moves 1.e4 e5 2.c4 as creating permanent weaknesses for White on d3 and d4, even anticipating Nimzowitsch's focus on open files: "A hole or a weak square are still more troublesome when the opponent is enabled to open the file on which they are situated for his queens and rooks" (xxxix).

The Lesson

Several of my students this past week were presented a lesson concerning outposts that I extracted from Michael Stean, Simple Chess (1978). Stean offers a nuanced definition: "a square at the forefront of your position which you can readily support and from where you can control or contest squares in the heart of the enemy camp," mentioning both a supporting pawn and that the opponent cannot attack the position with pawns (13). He offers five illustrative games with informative annotations. I selected one position from each game, presented the position to my students, and we played from there. Then we looked at the game as played.

In Stean's first illustrative game, Tal -- Bronstein, Tbilisi 1959, Black contested White's efforts to establish a knight on d5. When the knight went there anyway, it provoked a series of exchanges that led to a superior endgame for Tal. The second game, Benko -- Najdorf, Los Angeles 1963, offers a well-placed forward knight on f5 and an open h-file for White's heavy pieces.

White to move

Benko opened a line for the queen to join the rooks on the h-file with 24.f4! Najdorf resigned a couple of moves later. A couple of my students tried 24.Rh7, and one was able to beat me in a queen and pawn ending after quite a few moves.

Stean's selection shows a range of tactical opportunities that were facilitated through battles focused on outposts and concludes with Unzicker -- Fischer, Varna 1962 where Fischer successfully prevented Unzicker's efforts to deploy a knight to a d5 outpost.

*I am using the 1947 David McKay edition, translated by Philip Hereford and revised by Fred Reinfeld.

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.

Counting Tempi

During a lesson with one of my top students last week, he observed that a particular candidate move lost a tempo. I opined that tempi did not seem as vital in this variation of the Pirc Defense as in certain open positions. The conversation brought to my recollection something that I had read in John Watson's Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy (1998) more than a dozen years ago.

Later in the week, I pulled Modern Chess Strategy off the shelf to revisit the half-remembered passage. Watson's book drove me back into Aron Nimzowitsch, My System (1930). After spending idle moments of three days rereading Modern Chess Strategy and My System, I started digging through other books on the shelf. William Steinitz. The Modern Chess Instructor (1889) did not offer anything to my inquiry, although he mentions a move "losing time" as early as 1873 in The Field.* Seigbert Tarrasch, The Game of Chess (1935) was published after My System, even though it seems to precede Nimzowitsch theoretically.

In order to illustrate his point concerning tempi, Nimzowitsch presents a curious position that has arisen in very few games. Watson carries the position further through logical moves as a critique of Nimzowitsch.

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 Nf6

Black's third move does not appear in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO). My database does have three instances of this position prior to publication of My System. All three games were played in 1839 by William Davies Evans, inventor of the Evans Gambit. Evans had White against three different opponents, the best known of which was Pierre Charles Fournier de Saint-Amant. One of these games reached this position by transposition (1.e4 e5 2.c3 Nf6 3.d4 exd4).

Concerning this unusual 3...Nf6, Nimzowitsch states, "Black lets what will happen, and this is what every beginner should do in order to gain experience of the consequences of an advance in the center" (12).

4.e5 Ne4

White to move

"The knight can maintain himself here, for Bd3 will be answered by a developing move of full value, namely d5" (Nimzowitsch, 12-13). Nimzowitsch suggests that after 5.Bd3, Nc5 would be an error because the continuation 6.cxd4 Nxd3+ 7.Qxd3 "would yield an advantage of four tempi to White" (13). The resulting position appears once in my database--a seventeen move draw, perhaps one of those notorious arranged draws that plays out an obscure line from a book for a few moves.

Watson states concerning this advantage of tempi in Nimzowitsch's line:

Four tempi or not, 7...d5! leaves Black with two bishops and a healthy share of the centre (and it is White's 'good' bishop which has just been devoured). Most players would be quite content here as Black. (14)

After 4.e5, Captain Evans faced 4...Ne4 against George Perigal, 4...Qe7 against Saint-Amant, and 4...Nd5 against F.L. Slous.

Watson describes as "egregious", Nimzowitsch's assessment after 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 Nf6 4.e5 Nd5.

White to move

Nimzowitsch offers the continuation: 5.Qxd4 c6 6.Bc4 Nb6 7.Nf3. He states, "White has here six tempi as against two or one and a half, for the knight is not better placed at b6 than at f6, and the pawn at c6 is not really a whole tempo, since no move of a central pawn is here in question" (13).

Black to move

Watson asks, what has become of those valuable tempi after the logical 7...Nxc4 8.Qxc4 d5? Again, Black has the two bishops and is about to catch up in the number of minor pieces developed. He asserts that White is struggling for equality (15).


Tarrasch

For his part, Siegbert Tarrasch claims that counting tempi originated with Semion Alapin and him.

It is a very good thing, from time to time at least, to balance an account of the tempi visible on the board. This tempi reckoning originated with Alapin and myself. To be sure Alapin, as indeed is quite correct, included in his reckoning such moves as a4/a5, whilst I include only the developing moves and ignore the others--a system which, in my opinion based on my experience, gives results of greater practical value.
The Game of Chess, 228-229

Tarrasch offers a diagram to illustrate.

From his discussion of earlier positions, we learn that center pawns that have cleared out of the way of the pieces can be counted even if they have been captured. In this position, however, he does not count the pawns because both players have advanced both center pawns, making matters equal.

He explains further that a queen that has moved off the back rank counts as one tempo, regardless of how many times it has moved or where it stands. A rook is counted only if it has some space to move. Both of White's rooks have squares in front of them, and so count. Black's rook on g8 has moved, but is blocked and so does not count. Tarrasch does not count the rook on a8 because it has not moved, although perhaps he might consider it developed if the a-pawn were advancing against some target. Knights are more valuable when further advanced. The knight on c3 is one tempo. A knight on the fourth or fifth rank would count as two tempi, and Tarrasch counts three tempi for the knight on e6. Each bishop counts as one tempo when developed no matter how many moves were required to reach its present post.

Tarrasch thus finds that in this diagram, White has nine tempi to Black's five.

Most useful in Tarrasch's discussion, however, is the relationship of Time to Force and Space. "By good play tempi once gained are never lost," he asserts, "but rather are ultimately transformed into a gain in Space or Force" (231).

He is worth quoting at length.

These three factors of Force, Space and Time work together at every move. The whole art of the Opening consists in bringing into action pieces which are first shut in, in freeing pieces by a very few pawn moves, and in getting them to favourable positions and that as quickly as possible. Each tempo must be fully utilised for development, and one must advance one's game. (231)

Although Tarrasch is considered the dogmatist among classical chess theorists, I see the beginnings of modern dynamic chess in his discussion of the balancing of tempi with material and board control.


*See Sid Pickard, The Collected Works of William Steinitz (2003), CD for Steinitz's magazine annotations.