Home Page

A History of the Development of Chess Strategy
The Romantic Era The Italian Modenese School of Chess
From 1750 to1860, the attack on the king was everything. Games were played with open centers and pawn to e4 was the most popular first move. From this period we inherited all the older tactical variations of the King's Gambit and Giuoco Piano, where sacrifices were common and their acceptance was honourable and usually routine. Fast development followed by attack was the name of the game. Beyond this there wasn't much theory. Players only plan was to make a direct attack on the opponent's king...to mate, or lose gloriously in the attempt.
School of Philidor Francois-Andre Philidor (1726- 1795)
France was the center of the chess world in the 1700's. Onto this stage appeared one of histories greatest chess thinkers. Francois-Andre Philidor. He emphasized the importance of pawns and their relationship to the placement of the pieces. His writings in 1749 focused on flexible pawn formations. These formations were to be supported by pieces from the rear and were among the first contributions to the closed chess position.
	Many chess ideas which came later can first be found in his games and writings. In his 1749 book L'Analyse des Echecs, he discussed holes - blockade - prophylaxis, and the positional sacrifice. He described pawn weaknesses such as *the isolated, backward, and doubled pawns,* and discussed what we now term as "pawn islands". He was far ahead of his time and even though he was praised for 90 years he had little influence on the play of his time! He championed above all else play with the pawns, saying *"Pawns are the very soul of the game."*
English School of Chess Howard Staunton (1810-1874)
There was briefly an English school centred around Howard Staunton who also lived in the time of the Modenese School, and directly contradicted the Italian style by playing first for control of the small centre,e4,e5 and d4,d5 or some other advantage, before any thought of direct attack on the king. Staunton and his followers brought to chess flank openings like the English Opening, and concepts like flank play, central control, and the fianchetto. His victory in 1843 over Pierre Saint-Amant (1800- 1872), in the Cafe del la Regence, dethroned France as the centre of chess and brought England to the forefront until the 1870's, but although he wrote a fine textbook, Staunton never defined or discussed his own system, and his style disappeared when he retired.
Adolph Anderssen (1818 - 1879)
Although the centre of chess had changed, the Italian Modenese school of play had yet to run its course. Adolph Anderssen was one of it's strongest players. He was a professor of mathematics at the Friedrich's Gymnasium in Breslau, Germany. Anderssen started his brilliant chess career at age 30. An attacking player and a tactical genius, he quickly became one of the best players in the world. In 1848 he drew a match with Daniel Harrwitz (1823 - 1884).... after beating him blindfolded! Then he went on to win the great London Tournament of 1851. In this tournament he created one of the most elegant games in history against Lionel Kieseritzky to be forever known as the Immortal Game. Then in 1853 playing a casual game (if there was such a thing in those days) against Jean Dufresne, he created a second classic, the Evergreen Game. Steinitz called the Evergreen Game, "a blossom in Anderssen's wreath of laurels." He went on to win the London Tournament of 1862 and a drawn match against Louis Paulsen that same year. With the retirement of Paul Morphy, Anderssen was the undisputed, though unofficial World Champion. The attacking style continued until the Modern era began with Steinitz who in 1866 proclaimed himself World Champion after defeating Anderssen in their match.
Paul C. Morphy (1837 - 1884) One of the strongest chess player in American history.
The style of Paul Morphy brought some additional science to all this, though not everyone noticed it at the time. Through his games he showed that: "a successful attack must be based on a lead in development". and that "a player who is behind in development, must not open lines to free their position", since these lines will provide avenues along which the better developed side will attack, instead, they should keep things closed until they have caught up.

Steinitz School of Chess (The start of the Modern, Classical, Scientific School of Chess) Wilhelm Steinitz (1836-1900)
First Official World Champion, Wilhelm Steinitz of Austria, also lived in the days of the Modenese school. He contributed greatly to "defensive technique" and the method of "winning by accumulation of small advantages" . He was a great player but also a great thinker and writer, abilities that helped to get his ideas widely known and adopted. He also showed how to play defensively once you have accepted a gambit pawn, that you intend to keep. With Steinitz we associate "positional play", "accumulating advantages" and "playing against weaknesses. He did not discover weak points, but he showed that they were more important than had been assumed. He was a theorist primarily of closed positions (see the Steinitz Variation of the Ruy Lopez for a good example). To him we owe an understanding about two bishops, about play behind a row of pawns, about weak pawns (see his lines for Black in the Queen's Gambit Accepted, playing against an isolated Queen's pawn: 1 d4, d5; 2 c4, dxc4; 3 Nf3, Nf6; 4 e3, c5; 5 Bxc4, cxd4; 6 exd4 followed by ...Nc6-b4-d5).
	When Steinitz defeated Tchigorin , in a match the much older Steinitz said ironically "youth has triumphed" meaning, the Modern School, had defeated the Romantic School. Steinitz' awkward-looking chess attracted a lot of criticism, but even if there was no arguing with results there was no arguing with Steinitz, who was as combative an opponent off the board as on it.
Mikhail Ivanovich Chigorin (1850 - 1908) founder of the Russian School of Chess
	Chigorin was a great chess genius, a deep calculator, and a strategic wizard, and probably the last great player that preferred knights over bishops. He had a more modern understanding of the relative values of the pieces than his contemporaries, and realized that it all depends on the position, that losing a tempo to get a bishop for a knight is usually a bad idea. His school is best described as anti-dogmatic. Tchigorin was one of the few players who did not completely accept the principles of Steinitz saying that there is more to be discovered in a chess position that cannot be governed strictly be rules. Therefore for Tchigorin, the superiority of two bishops over two Knights should not be taken for granted but would depend on the position. While the Scientific School (Tarrasch) were reducing chess to do's and don'ts, Tchigorin's (Chigorin) school looked for what is different in a position, a more creative approach. Russia went on to dominate chess to this day.
	Johannes Zukertort, (1842 - 1888. ) One of the strongest chess grandmasters of the 19th century, Zukertort won the London tournament of 1883, one of the greatest tournaments ever played. He is now best remembered as the loser (to Steinitz) of the first official World Chess Championship match, played in various American cities in 1886.
In 1886 Steinitz played Johannes Zukertort, for the World Championship, and critics of the day compared the clumsy-looking games unfavourably with the supposedly brilliant, error-free and superior chess of Morphy. Steinitz replied, not just by pointing out in an article Morphy's tactical blunders, but also indicating his strategical errors. Steinitz agreed that Morphy was a genius, but added that "Morphy in 1886, had he been alive, would have beaten the Morphy of 1859"...
	"We may all learn from Morphy and Anderssen how to conduct a King's side attack, and perhaps I myself may not have learnt enough. But if you want to learn how to avoid such an attack, how to keep the balance of the position on the whole board and how to expose the King and invite a complicated attack that cannot be sustained in the long run, then you must go to the modern school for information ...." - STEINITZ
By the 1890s most players had been influenced by Steinitz, and LASKER who took his crown, paid tribute to his theories.
Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch (1862-1934).
The technique of chess continued to evolve. Following Mr. Steinitz, came the next great chess teacher his pupil, Siegbert Tarrasch who adopted, adapted and publicised Steinitzs' theories. He would always defend an isolated central pawn if it meant he could develop his pieces freely, and his defence to the Queen's Gambit does just this: 1 d4, d5; 2 c4, e6; 3 Nc3, c5; 4 cxd5, exd4; 5 Nf3, Nf6 and later Pxc5 (or ...cxd4,Nxd4) will give Black the IQP. It was Tarrasch who gave the line 1 d4, d5; 2 c4, e6; 3 Nc3, Nf6 its derisory name of Orthodox Defence. In the Ruy, he advocated the Open Morphy Defence with 5...Nxe4, again leading to an open position where Black gets more activity in compensation for his messy pawn structure. This balance between pawn structure and piece activity is perhaps the key question in any chess position, After Tarrasch we see a continuous exploration of these issues across a variety of positions. After his victory in the Breslauer tournament 1889, Tarrasch declined a World Championship match in 1891 with the aging world champion, a match he would have won. The actual reasons for its refusal are not well known other then he didn't like the long ship journey over the Atlantic to the chess club in Havanna, site of the match. So Steinitz played Emmanuel Lasker.
	To these ideas, Siegbert added "If you have greater mobility you can play so your pawn weaknesses are not attackable." By 1890,the Steinitz School ended the long reign of the Modenese School. The fun and excitement of the reckless, heroic attacks was coming to an end in the top levels of chess. When players learned to decline or return sacrificed material, the steam went out of the Italian approach. e.g. an old line of the Danish Gambit goes 1. e4......e5; 2. d4.....exd; 3. c3......exc3; 4. Bc4......cxb2; 5. Bxb2............. . If Black clings to the material White will have a fun time attacking, but 5............d5; 6 Bxd5....Nf6 secures open lines and probably the two Bishops. The best line for White here is probably 7. Bxf7+... Kxf7; 8. Qxd8....Bb4+; 9. Qd2.... Bxd2+ where Black has no extra material but can play to win the ending with the Queen's-side majority. Technique was replacing romance in chess.

	The Scientific School (Positional School of chess) The Scientific School was founded by Wilhelm Steinitz who dominated chess from 1866 till 1891 and championed by his pupil, Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch.
The doctor's approach has been attacked by later writers for being dogmatic and too rigid, but his principles worked well for most players rated below 2000, and he was not given enough credit either as a teacher or as a player. Today, he would be considered a super grandmaster even though he never won the world title because he was part of the same generation as Emmanuel Lasker who ranks as one of the strongest players of all time. Lasker beat Tarrasch decisively for the World Championship, in part because he was much more flexible in his approach and understanding of the game. Yet despite being over shadowed by Lasker, Tarrasch’s teachings influenced a generation of chess players and much of what we read in middlegame manuals today flows from his teachings and from those of Wilhelm Steinitz who was the first official world champion from 1886 until his loss to Lasker in 1894. Lasker in turn held the title from 1894 to1921. (Lasker studied mathematics at Erlangen University, and formulated a theorem of vector spaces which is known by his name. He was a friend of Albert Einstein one of the few that understood him. In the 1930's they shared an apartment and exchanged ideas during their frequent walks.)
Tarrasch's dogmas became proverbial. They were easy to understand, clear and logical and "The Law" "create a strong centre (e4,d4..) do not move the same piece twice in the opening develop knights before bishops Open and control lines of attack Place the castles behind the pawns

Lasker and TCHIGORIN both played superb defensive chess - Lasker on a knife-edge, waiting for his opponent to stumble, and Tchigorin more solidly - it was Tchigorin who founded the Ruy Lopez known as the Closed Morphy or Tchigorin Defence (1 e4, e5; 2 Nf3, Nc6; 3 Bb5, a6; 4 Ba4, Nf6; 5 O-O, Be7 {just this far is the Closed Morphy}; 6 Re1, b5; 7 Bb3, d6; 8 c3, Na5; 9 Bc2, c5 {the Tchigorin Defence; Black can delay the ...Na5/...c5 manoeuvre until after castling}). Tchigorin was a demon attacker, in the spirit of the old Romantic School.

The "Hypermodern School"
Aaron Nimzowitch (1886- 1935)

Founded the theory of the Hypermodern school, and wrote the chess classic "My System"- the Hypermodern's bible.
which he expounded his views on the centre, centralisation, prophylaxis, and various pawn formations.
Hypermoderns also included Richard Reti, Gyula Breyer, Alexander Alekhine, Efim Bogoljubow and Savielly Tartakower.

Onto this stage stepped the masters of the Hypermodern School of chess who were determined to prove Capablanca
and the Scientific School wrong,
and the battleground was to be the center.

Whereas Tarrasch and the old school advocated building a large center by occupying it with pawns, the Hypermoderns
preached that this type of center could be undermined by attacking it with pieces and pawns and thus the early advance of
pawns in the center, was weak because it gave your opponent an object of attack.
If White couldn’t maintain that center, then Black would have an advantage after it had been liquidated.

This school was lead by Aaron Nimzowitch (1886 -1935), Richard Reti (1889 -1929), and Gyula Breyer (1893 -1921)
in the 1920's. This belief was contrary to the school of Steinitz.
The school's principal weapon was the English opening,
in which the fianchetto, was used to control the center from the flanks.
With his victory over Mr. Reti in New York in 1924, World Champion Emanuel Lasker (1868- 1941) showed
that the occupation of the center with pawns was sound. Was the fianchetto dead?
On the contrary, these ideas heralded in the modern era of chess play.

The other Hypermoderns, of whom we may take Reti of Czechoslovakia as an example, proposed no really new theory of the middlegame but revolutionised the treatment of the opening.
They said (and showed) that there was no need to try to grab the centre immediately
and in fact, you could safely let your opponent rush into the centre with pawns in the opening,
using them as a target for attack. In fact, Reti said, to occupy the centre directly as White merely allowed Black either to blockade or blow up what White had established, whereas keeping things unfixed was possibly the most awkward thing White could do.

The hypermoderns would therefore develop the Bishops in fianchetto, and use
side-swipes like c2-c4 to undermine the centre.
For White, the Reti (1. Nf3 2. c4) and Barcza (1. Nf3 2. g3) openings, and
for the Black Alekhine's Defence (1. e4 Nf6) and the Grunfeld Defence,
are good examples of the hypermodern legacy.

          Rather than focus on defense as Steinitz had preached for Black, Hypermoderns preferred the counterattack, and the openings they played illustrated this. The King’s Indian, the Queen’s Indian, the Nimzo Indian, and the Grunfeld are examples of hypermodern defenses against d4, while the Alekhine and certain variations of the Sicilian represent hypermodern attempts against e4. For White, the Reti Opening, and the Catalan are two excellent examples of the Hypermodern approach. The leading



           A classic illustration of the hypermodern approach to the center is the Four Pawns Attack in the King’s Indian defense. According to classical theory, Black should be blown off the board by this approach, and without proper countermeasures, he will be. The Hypermoderns took their lumps, but their approach paid a huge dividend in helping to re-invigorate the game.

Saemisch, F Vs Euwe, M [E78]
Wiesbaden, 1925

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4
The Four Pawns Attack against the King's Indian. This position can also arise from the Modern Benoni.

5...0–0 6.Nf3 c5
Black strikes at the center with his c-pawn

7.d5 e6 8.Bd3 exd5 9.cxd5
This is a typical Four Pawns Attack position.

9...Qb6
White's previous move is inferior to Be2. Better for black would have been b5!? or Bg4, but this was very early
in the development of the line. Euwe is preventing White from castling here. 0–0 and c4+ wins the Bishop on d3.

10.Nd2 This is a popular move in this type of position

10...Ng4
Another anti-castling idea. 11.0–0 Bd4+ 12.Kh1 Nf2+ and Black wins the exchange.

11.Nc4 Qd8 12.Be2 h5 13.Nb5 a6 14.Nbxd6 b5 15.Nxc8 bxc4 16.e5
White has one a pawn and begins to mobilize his center.

16...Qxc8 17.h3 Nh6 18.g4
Here White, begins to launch an all out Kingside attack

18...Nd7 19.gxh5 Qd8
Black begins his counter attack. One of the problems with pawn storms on
the same side as your king is that they tend to leave his Majesty in jeopardy.

20.0–0 Qh4 21.Rf3 gxh5 22.Rc3 Rae8 23.Bd2
White is trying to complete his development

23...Nxe5 For Black it is now or never. This piece sacrifice unleashes a powerful attack on the king.

24.fxe5 Rxe5
White's King is on an open file.

25.Be1 Qe7
Threatening to win his piece back

26.d6 Qe6 27.Bf1 Rg5+ 28.Rg3 Qe3+ 29.Kg2
Bf2 fails to Rxg3+

29…Bd4 30.Rxg5+ Qxg5+
White resigned at this point. 0–1

Behind this human story of successive champions and rivals is a parallel story of the rise and fall of chess ideas. The
parallel is not exact, for although Steinitz played well as Champion and proved his theories to be correct, his pupil still could not beat Lasker, who in turn, founded no school or new ideas (Lasker did believe that chess was a fight and even made poor move to achieve this); and although the Hypermoderns were the ones to watch in the 'twenties, - none became world champion.

This century has not produced any great new theories, rather an approach to chess which takes no theory for granted. It was
actually Reti who claimed that

"It is the aim of the modern school not to treat every position according to one general law,
but according to the principle inherent in the position"

It seems that this claim has become more true as time has gone on. Curios play in the opening has become increasingly sophisticated, and players will defend the most dreadful-looking pawn structures if they get some sort of activity for it.
Chess has become more concrete, more dynamic, and more difficult. Let's have a look at a couple of examples:

1. e4...c6; 2. d4...d5; 3. Nc3, dxe4; 4 Nxe4, Nf6; 5 Nxf6, exf6
(now 5...gxf6 is played more often);
6 Bc4, Bd6; 7 Qe2, Be7; 8 Nf3, O-O; 9 O-O,diagram

This position was well-known to players and theorists of the
19th century. Lasker, comments:

"White's plan consists in realizing his pawn superiority on the Queen's side
while remaining passive on the King's side.

Black, on the other had will attempt to force his opponent to advance
one of his pawns on the King's wing, in order to start play against
White's King's side with his pawns."

Lasker has in mind moves for White such as
c4 and d5
to create a passed pawn,
and for Black ...Bg4, ...Bd6, ...f5 and ...Qh5.

In fact play went
9 ...Bd6; 10 Re1, Bg4; 11 Qe4! Bh5; 12 Nh4, Nd7; 13 Qf5.
Steinitz and Lasker would undoubtedly have criticised White's crude and 'unjustified' attack.
What's going on? Ragozin, a strong and experienced Soviet master, must have been aware of
Lasker's views, and of the theories of Steiniz, so why is he playing on the wrong side?

He has made in fact a much more dynamic and concrete assessment of the position
which notes, white's
Q-side majority, better piece development, and control of more space.
but also black's
awkwardly placed bishops,
missing N on f6,
and black's
compromised f-pawns

Given time, Black could no doubt disentangle his pieces. Ragozin gives him no time at all.

13...Nb6; 14 Qxh5... Nxc4; 15 Bh6!!... Qd7
(can you find the win after 15...gxh6?);
16 b3... Nb6; 17 Nf5... Kh8; 18 Re4... Bxh2+ 19 Kh1 and Black resigned

This is the real contribution of the 20th century to chess theory, in which SOVIET players have been dominant. Players look beyond the geometry of pawn formations and have moved to a more flexible and more dynamic style of play. There are no new general principles, because modern players do not believe in general principles. Players like BRONSTEIN and BOLESLAVSKY turned established ideas on their heads in the 1950s, championing Black's dynamic chances in the King's Indian and Sicilian.

The most dramatic recent example of this is
Evgeny Sveshnikov's cherished variation of the Sicilian,
sometimes known as the Pelikan:

1 e4... c5; 2 Nf3... Nc6; 3 d4... cxd4; 4 Nxe4... Nf6;
5 Nc3... e5; 6 Nb5... d6; 7 Bg5... a6; 8 Bxf6... gxf6; 9 Na3... f5!?
Black will use the extra central pawns and piece activity to stop
White getting a proper hold on his weaknesses
at ...d6; ...f6, and...h6.

1. e4... c5 2. Nf3... Nc6 3. d4... cxd4
4. Nxd4... Nf6 5. Nc3... e5 6. Ndb5... d6 diagram

Black has an obvious hole on d5; White sets out,
in textbook fashion, to occupy it.

7. Bg5 a6 8. Na3 b5 9. Bxf6 gxf6 10. Nd5

Mission accomplished!

But at what cost? The outpost stands unsupported by any other
White pieces, and the Na3 is at present a bit lost. Black's pawns are
very messy {not classically correct) yet control a lot of key squares such as
c4,d4 and f4. Black also has the open g-file.

Let's see how things unfold

10... f5 11. Bd3 Be6 12. Qh5 Bg7 13. O-O f4 14. c3 O-O 15. Nc2 f5 diagram

The messy pawns dominate the centre and the King's side,
while White's pieces are still looking for a decent plan.
Black now attacks down the open g-file
.
16. Ncb4... Nxb4; 17. Nxb4... d5; 18. exd5... Bd7; 19. Bc2... Be8;
20. Qe2... Kh8; 21. Rad1... Qh4; 22. f3... Rf6; 23. Qe1... Qg5; 24. Qxe5... Bd7;
25. Qe7... Rag8; 26. Qxd7 Rf7 0-1

Games like this may make the classically-trained chessplayer
despair, but they have added a great richness and excitement
to our understanding of the game.

Nimzowitsch, A -Vs- Saemisch, F [E18] Copenhagen, 1923 Queens Indian Defense			Reti, R -Vs- Capablanca, J [A15] New York New York (5), 03.1924 English Opening

1.d4.......Nf6 2.c4.......e6 3.Nf3.....b6 4.g3......Bb7 5.Bg2... Be7 6.0–0....0–0 7.Nc3....d5 8.Ne5....Qc8 9.cxd5...Nxd5 10.Nxd5...Bxd5 11.e4......Bb7 12.Qa4....c5 13.d5......b5 14.Qb3....exd5 15.exd5...Bd6 16.Bf4.....Qc7 17.Nd3....a6 18.a4......c4 19.Qa3....Bxf4;	20.Nxf4...... Nd7 21.axb5......axb5 22.Qe7.......Qd8 23.d6.........Bxg2 24.Kxg2......Nf6 25.Rfd1.......Rxa1 26.Rxa1.......Qxe7 27.dxe7.......Re8 28.Ra7........g5 29.Ne2........Nd5 30.Nd4........Nxe7 31.Nxb5.......Nc6 32.Nd6........Nxa7 33.Nxe8.......Nb5 34.Nf6+.......Kg7 35.Nd5.........f6 36.Kf3..........Kf7 37.Nc3.........Nd4+ 38.Ke4.........Nb3	39.Kd5.......Nd2 40.h3.........f5 41.Nd1.......Kf6 42.Ne3.......Ne4 43.Nxc4......Nxf2 44.b4.........Ke7 45.b5.........Kd7 46.b6.........Ne4 47.Ne5+.....Kc8 48.Kc6.......Nf6 49.Nd3.......Nd7 50.b7+.......Kd8 51.Kd6.......Nb8 52.Nb4.......Nd7 53.Nc6+.....Ke8 54.Kc7...... 1–0	1.Nf3........Nf6 2.c4.........g6 3.b4.........Bg7 4.Bb2.......0–0 5.g3.........b6 6.Bg2.......Bb7 7.0–0.......d6 8.d3........Nbd7 9.Nbd2.....e5 10.Qc2.......Re8 11.Rfd1......a5 12.a3.........h6 13.Nf1.......c5 14.b5........Nf8 15.e3........Qc7 16.d4........Be4 17.Qc3......exd4	18.exd4.....N6d7 19.Qd2........cxd4 20.Bxd4.......Qxc4 21.Bxg7.......Kxg7 22.Qb2+......Kg8 23.Rxd6.......Qc5 24.Rad1.......Ra7 25.Ne3........Qh5 26.Nd4........Bxg2 27.Kxg2.......Qe5 28.Nc4.........Qc5 29.Nc6.........Rc7 30.Ne3.........Ne5 31.R1d5..... 1–0

Chess & Space
	Boiling a bubble of water on the tip of a Soldering Iron!
	Rocks in your gas tank!
	Learn about creeping sand.
	Two North Poles
Use of a wand to collect essential oils from a rose.	A rose may still be a rose but will it smell as sweet in space?
	STARDUST


	The Signing of Treaty Nine.

Research on how & why chess makes kids smarter! The Answer	Eruk's Chess Academy of Construction Chess Under "Construction" Building better Minds
	Give your kid an edge and a gift for a lifetime!! Research has proven that children studying & playing chess makes them smarter.