Chess Strategy

INDEX

PREFACE TO DOVER EDITION

I was pleased and flattered by Dover Publications’ offer to reprint this book that I wrote as a young student in Europe fifty years ago. It had run up a pleasantly large number of editions when the flames of Hitlerite fanaticism consumed the German version, and the British plates — in the publishers’ words — were destroyed by enemy action.

In a way, the book’s success reflected the rapid growth of chess popularity everywhere. But I believe it owed that success mainly to the idea that had prompted me to write it : to teach chess on the basis of general strategic principles rather than widely diversified analyses. This method unquestionably appealed to the great majority of chess students.

The chess master must thoroughly know the published analyses of openings, and he must keep up with their ever-increasing depth, or else he loses too much time in analyzing an unfamiliar variation over the board. In tournament chess where the player’s time is limited, this would place him at a great disadvantage. The amateur, however, has no such problems. His opponents are fairly certain to be as unfamiliar with opening analyses as he is himself. The player who better understands the characteristics that distinguish a good move from a bad one will win the majority of the games, often against adversaries of much longer practical experience.

These positional characteristics are based on a few strategic principles which are sufficiently general to make them applicable to almost any situation that may arise. Valid general principles are not apt to change; properly applied, they rule chess strategy today as they did fifty years ago.

It was most gratifying to learn from a number of famous Chess Grandmasters, among them Paul Keres and Reuben Fine, that they received their first chess instruction from my book and that it guided their chess thinking in the right direction. Not every reader is likely to become a Keres or a Fine, but I hope the book will continue to provide a solid basis from which to develop considerable playing strength without spending too much time and effort.

New York, 1960

EDWARD LASKER

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

As the first edition of Edward Lasker’s Chess Strategy was exhausted within a comparatively short time of its appearance, the author set himself the task of altering and improving the work to such an extent that it became to all intents and purposes a new book. I had the privilege of co-operating with him to a slight degree on that second edition, and was in consequence able to appreciate the tremendous amount of work he voluntarily took upon himself to do ; I say voluntarily, because his publishers, anxious to supply the strong demand for the book, wished to reprint it as it stood.

A little later I undertook to translate this second edition into English for Messrs. Bell & Sons. Only a few months had elapsed, the tournaments at Petrograd, Chester, and Mannheim had taken place, several new discoveries had been made, and it is the greatest testimony to Edward Lasker’s indefatigable devotion to the Art of Chess that I am able to say that this is not a translation of the second edition, but of what is practically a new book. It contains a new preface, a chapter for beginners, a new introduction, new variations. Furthermore, a large number of new games have taken the place of old ones.

I have no doubt that any chess player who will take the trouble to study Chess Strategy will spend many a pleasurable hour. Incidentally new vistas will be opened to him, and his playing strength increased to a surprising degree.

The author says in his preface that he appeals to the intelligence and not the memory of his readers. In my opinion, too, the student should above all try to improve his judgment of position.

Than the playing over of games contested by experts I can hardly imagine a greater or purer form of enjoyment. Yet I must at the outset sound a note of warning against its being done superficially, and with a feverish expectation of something happening. Every move or combination of moves should be carefully weighed, and the student should draw his own conclusions and compare them with what actually happens in the game under examination.

This applies particularly to some of the critical positions set out in diagrams in the course of the exposition of the several games.

The reader would derive the greatest possible benefit from a prolonged study of such positions before seeking to know how the games proceed. After having formed his own opinion about the merits of a particular position, he should compare the result with the sequel in the game in question, and thus find out where his judgment has been at fault.

The deeper study of the theory of the openings is of course a necessity to the student who wishes to become an expert, but the development of his judgment must precede it. To him Griffith & White’s admirable book, Modern Chess Openings, will be a perfect mine of information. There are thousands of variations, and in most of them the actual game in which they were first tried by masters is named, thus adding to the interest and value of the work.

I must not omit to mention the invaluable help afforded me by my friend Mr. John Hart, to whom my warmest thanks are due.

JULIUS DU MONT.

AUTHOR’S PREFACE

THE large majority of chess players who would like to improve their game, have not the necessary opportunity of pitting themselves against players of master-strength, or at least of obtaining the desired instruction from personal intercourse with them. It is for such players that the present work is intended. The books on which the learner has to rely hardly ever serve his purpose, being mostly little more than a disjointed tabulation of numberless opening variations, which cannot be understood without preliminary studies, and consequently only make for confusion. In the end the connection between the various lines of play may become clear, after the student has made an exhaustive study of the subject, but very few would have either the time or the inclination for such prolonged labour.

Therefore another shorter and less empirical way must be found in which to acquire the understanding of sound play. My system of teaching differs from the usual ones, in that it sets down at the outset definite elementary principles of chess strategy by which any move can be gauged at its true value, thus enabling the learner to form his own judgment as to the manœuvres under consideration. In my opinion it is absolutely essential to follow such strategical principles, and I go so far as to assert that such principles are in themselves sufficient for the development and conduct of a correct game of chess.

Even though instruction in chess is possible on very general lines alone, yet I think it advisable and indeed necessary to explain the application of such principles to the various phases of each game of chess. Otherwise the learner might unduly delay his progress, and lose valuable time in finding out for himself certain essentials that could more profitably be pointed out to him.

With regard to the way in which I have arranged my subject and the form of its exposition in detail, I have thought out the following plan.

After discussing at length the leading principles underlying sound play, I have first treated of the openings, in which such principles are of even more deciding influence than in any other stage of the game, as far as could be done on broad lines without having to pay attention to middle and end-game considerations.

I proceeded as follows, by taking as my starting-point the pawn skeleton which is formed in the opening, and round which the pieces should group themselves in logical fashion. As a consequence of the pawns having so little mobility, this pawn skeleton often preserves its shape right into the end-game. Applying the general strategical principles to the formation of the pawn skeleton, the learner acquires the understanding of the leading idea underlying each opening without having to burden his memory. Not only that, he will also be able to find a correct plan of development when confronted with unusual forms of opening.

The most important result of this system of teaching is that the learner does not lose his way in a maze of detail, but has in view at the very outset, the goal which the many possible variations of the openings are intended to reach.

Before I could proceed to the discussion of the middle game, I found it necessary to treat of the principles governing the end-game. For in most cases play in the middle game is influenced by end-game considerations. Here also it has been my endeavour as far as possible to reduce my subject to such principles as are generally applicable.

Finally, as regards the middle game, to which the whole of Part II is devoted, I have again made the handling of pawns, the hardest of all problems of strategy, the starting-point for my deliberations. I have shown at length how the various plans initiated by the various openings should be developed further. To ensure a thorough understanding of the middle game, I have given a large number of games taken from master play, with numerous and extensive notes. Thus the student has not to rely only on examples taken haphazard from their context, but he will at the same time see how middle-game positions, which give opportunities for special forms of attack, are evolved from the opening.

It has been my desire to make the subject easily understandable and at the same time entertaining, and to appeal less to the memory of my readers than to their common sense and intelligence. I hope in that way not to have strayed too far from the ideal I had in mind when writing this book, namely, to apply to chess the only method of teaching which has proved productive in all branches of science and art, that is, the education of individual thought.

If I have succeeded in this, I shall have the satisfaction of having contributed a little to the furthering, in the wide circles in which it is played, of the game which undoubtedly makes the strongest appeal to the intellect.

EDWARD LASKER.

CHESS STRATEGY

PART I

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTORY

I. RULES OF THE GAME

A GAME of chess is played by two opponents on a square board consisting of sixty-four White and Black squares arranged alternately. The forces on each side comprise sixteen units, namely a King, a Queen, two Rooks, two Bishops, two Knights, and eight Pawns. All units move according to different laws, and the difference in their mobility is the criterion of their relative value and of the fighting power they contribute towards achieving the ultimate aim, namely, the capture of the opposing King. Before I can explain what is meant by the capture of the King, I must set out the rules of the game in full.

Diagram I shows the position the forces take up for the contest. The board is so placed that there is a white square at the top left-hand corner. The Rooks take up their positions at the corner squares, and next to them the Knights. Next to those again are the Bishops, and in the centre the King and Queen, the White Queen on a White square, and the Black Queen on a Black square. The eight pawns occupy the ranks immediately in front of the pieces. From this initial position, White begins the game in which the players must move alternately.

The pieces move in the following way : The Rook can move from any square it happens to be on, to any other square which it can reach in a straight line, either perpendicularly or horizontally, unless there is another piece of the same colour in the way, in which case it can only move as far as the square immediately in front of that piece. If it is an opposing piece which blocks the way, he can move on to the square that piece occupies, thereby capturing it. The piece thus captured is removed from the board. The Bishop can operate along either of the diagonals of which the square on which he is standing forms part. A Bishop on a White square can therefore never get on to a Black one.

Diag. 1.

The Queen commands both the straight and the oblique lines which start from the square she stands on, and therefore unites the power of both Rook and Bishop in her movements.

The King has similar powers to the Queen, but curtailed, inasmuch as he can only move one step at a time. He therefore only controls one neighbouring square in any direction.

The Knight plays and captures alternately on White and Black squares, and only reaches such squares as are nearest to him without being immediately adjacent ; his move is as it were composed of two steps, one square in a straight line, and one in an oblique direction. Diagram 2 will illustrate this.¹

The pawns only move straight forward, one square at a time, except at their first move, when they have the option of moving two squares. In contrast to the pieces, the pawns do not capture in the way they move. They move straight forward, but they capture diagonally to the right and left, again only one square, and only forward. Therefore a pawn can only capture such pieces or pawns as occupy squares of the same colour as the square on which it stands. If, in moving two squares, a pawn traverses a square on which it could have been captured by a hostile pawn, that pawn has the right to capture it, as if it had moved only one square. This is called capturing en passant. However, this capture can only be effected on the very next move, otherwise the privilege of capturing en passant is lost.

Diag. 2.

If a player succeeds in reaching the eighth rank with one of his pawns he is entitled to call for any piece of higher grade, with the exception of the King, in place of such pawn.

Each move in a game of chess consists of the displacement of one piece only, with the exception of what is termed castling, in which the King and either Rook can be moved simultaneously by either player once in a game. In castling, the King moves sideways to the next square but one, and the Rook to which the King is moved is placed on the square which the King has skipped over. Castling is only allowed if neither the King nor the Rook concerned have moved before, and if there is no piece between the Rook and King.

Diagram 3 shows a position in which White has castled on the Queen’s side, and Black on the King’s side. Castling is not permitted if the King in castling must pass over a square attacked by a hostile piece. A square (or a piece) is said to be attacked when the square (or the piece) is in the line of action of a hostile unit. A square (or a piece) is said to be covered or protected if an opposing piece occupying that square (or capturing the piece) could itself be captured.

When attacking the King it is customary to call check, to notify the opponent of the fact ; for the attack on the King must be met in some way or other. This can be done by capturing the attacker or by interposing a piece (this is not possible in case of attack by a Knight or a pawn), or lastly by moving the King to a square which is not attacked. The latter must not be done by castling. If it is impossible by any of the three methods above mentioned to avoid the attack upon the King, the King is said to be checkmated, and the game is ended.

Diag. 3.

If a King is unable to move, though not attacked, and none of his remaining pieces can move, the King is said to be stalemated, and the game is drawn. A game is also drawn when neither side has sufficient material left to enforce a mate. (Compare page 63.)

If a player resigns his game before he is actually mated, he acknowledges that in the end mate is unavoidable, and the game is counted as a loss to him.

A game is null and void if it is shown that a mistake was made in setting the board or men. The same applies when in the course of the game the position and number of pieces have been altered in a manner not in accordance with the proper course of play, and the latter cannot be reconstructed from the point where the error was made.

If a player having the move touches one of his pieces he is under compulsion to move it ; if he touches a hostile piece he must capture it, provided that the piece can be properly moved or captured in either case. This rule is of no effect if the piece so touched cannot be moved or captured, as the case may be. So long as the hand has not left the piece to be moved, the latter can be placed on any accessible square. If a player touches a piece with the sole object of adjusting its position, he must apprise his opponent of his intention by saying J’adoube beforehand. It is best to move the King first when castling. If the Rook is moved first, and unless the King is played almost simultaneously, a doubt might arise whether castling or a Rook’s move only was intended.

If a player has castled illegally, Rook and King must be moved back, and the King must make another move, if there is a legal one. If not, any other move can be played. A player who makes an illegal move with a piece must retract that move, and make another one if possible with the same piece. If the mistake is only noticed later on, the game should be restarted from the position in which the error occurred.

II. NOTATION

A special notation has been adopted to make the study of games and positions possible, and it is necessary for students of the game to become thoroughly conversant with it. The original and earliest notation is still in use in English, French, and Spanish speaking countries. It is derived from the original position in the game, in that the squares take the names of the pieces which occupy them. Thus the corner squares are called R 1 (Rook’s square or Rook’s first), and to distinguish them from one another Q R 1 or K R 1 (Queen’s or King’s Rook’s square). The squares immediately in front are called Q R 2 or K R 2. A distinction is made between White and Black, and White’s R 1 is Black’s R 8, Black’s R 2 is White’s R 7, White’s R B 3 is Black’s K B 6, and so on. K stands for King ; Q for Queen ; R for Bishop ; Kt for Knight ; R for Rook ; and P for Pawn. In describing a capture, only the capturing and the captured pieces are mentioned, and not the squares.

When confusion is possible, it is customary to add whether King’s side or Queen’s side pieces are concerned, e.g. K R × Q Kt. In this notation it is necessary to bear in mind which Kt is the Q Kt, which R is the K R. This becomes increasingly difficult as the game goes on and pieces change their places. Many sets of chessmen have one Rook and one Knight stamped with a special sign, to show they are King’s side pieces. This is not necessary in the case of Bishops : a white K B is always on white squares, a white Q B on black squares.

A more modern notation is the algebraic notation, which has been adopted in most countries. It has the advantage of being unmistakably clear, and also more concise. Here the perpendicular lines of squares (called files) are named with the letters a-h, from left to right, always from the point of view of White, and the horizontal lines of squares (called ranks) with numbers 1-8 as before, only with the distinction that the rank on which the White pieces stand is always called the first ; thus the square we named White’s Q B 2 or Black’s Q B 7 is now called B 2 in both cases. Black’s Q B 2 (White’s Q B 7) is always B 7. In capturing, the square on which the capture takes place and not the piece captured is noted, for the sake of uniformity. In the case of pawn moves, the squares only are noted.

O—O stands for castles on the King’s side ; O—O—O stands for castles on the Queen’s side ; : or × stands for captures ; + for check.

In the following opening moves, both notations are used for the purpose of comparison :

In most books in which the algebraic notation is used, both squares of a move are written out for the benefit of the student. The moves above would then look like this :

To conclude : I will give the denomination of the pieces in various languages:

¹ I should like to quote my friend Mr. John Hart’s clever definition of the Knight’s move, though it may not be new. If one conceives a Knight as standing on a corner square of a rectangle three squares by two, he is able to move into the corner diagonally opposite.

CHAPTER II

HINTS FOR BEGINNERS—ELEMENTARY COMBINATIONS

THE mental development of the chess player is a gradual struggle from a state of chaos to a clear conception of the game. The period required for such development largely depends upon the special gifts the learner may possess, but in the main the question of methods predominates. Most beginners do not trouble very much about any particular plan in their study of chess, but as soon as they have learnt the moves, rush into the turmoil of practical play. It is self-evident that their prospects under such conditions cannot be very bright. The play of a beginner is planless, because he has too many plans, and the capacity for subordinating all his combinations to one leading idea is non-existent. Yet it cannot be denied upon investigation that a certain kind of method is to be found in the play of all beginners, and seems to come to them quite naturally. At first the pawns are pushed forward frantically, because there is no appreciation of the power and value of the pieces. Conscious of the inferiority of the pawns, the beginner does not conclude