|
|||||||||
|
Five Early Chess Classics by Robert T. Tuohey
Of the various difficulties facing the true student of the Royal Game (as opposed to the mere player of chess), perhaps foremost is the sheer quantity of the literature. Indeed, the ever-rising mountain of chess books, recently buttressed by glittering foothills of DVDs, presents a formidable challenge to even a keen sense of intellectual navigation. With due consideration, however, two guiding ideas present themselves. First, the student must know what the key landmarks in chess history are. Next, original, primary texts should be thoroughly studied in chronological order. I believe that it has been amply demonstrated (Note 1) that the development of chess has been scientific in the sense that since the advent of the modern game (circa 1600) each generation has availed itself of the extant literature on the game and then tested and refined those concepts in rigorous play. In short, or fine, in order to understand Short or Fine, the former requires the latter and the latter the middle and the middle the beginning. Now, while these two ideas may appear obvious (particularly after having been pointed out!) I still feel that the importance of primary texts needs to be stressed. Many a developing chess student (and even occasionally those who should know better), neglect older texts in favor of modern works stating that “anything of importance” has been included, and all the dross dropped. This, however, is certainly not the case. In fact, many (if not all) contemporary chess manuals (beyond the most rudimentary), tacitly assume that the reader is familiar with the classic being alluded to. Many a modern work, for example, will refer to Nimzowitsch’s My System, and then move on to the matter at hand ~ however, if you haven’t had the pleasure of the maestro himself, no doubt things seem a bit foggy. Much worse, the modern abbreviated rehash is very often a bizarre combination of bald bowdlerization liberally padded with reams of computer-generated analysis (read that “nonsense”). The result is as predicable as it is silly: the classic-less reader can decipher as much of the modern text as Casca could of Cicero’s Greek. The early classics (meaning those from
1600 to 1900) however rely solely upon striking examples and essential
analysis. Read carefully and chronologically, these masterpieces
provide not only insight into the historical development of chess, but also
into the fundamentals of the Royal Game (Note 2). Five Perennial Works The goal is simply stated: to gain a first-hand understanding of chess from its modern form (in the late Renaissance) to roughly 1900. With this in view, I recommend the following list (all, incidentally, freely available on the internet). [Four of the five are available on our free eBooks page. -Ed.]
In what follows I’ll offer a few comments
on the value of each work and some study advice. Greco’s Manuscript (Note 3)
Greco’s 70-odd miniatures (the number varies slightly depending on the edition) provide insight, primarily, into opening mistakes and the elements of combination. Each example, then, should be studied in just this two-fold aspect: identification of the opening errors and combinational motifs.
The general ideas of the Italian School, exemplified by Greco, would require some 100 years of circulation before the Royal Game was prepared for its next step. This advancement came in the form of Andre Philidor’s Analysis of Chess (1749). Philidor’s chessic genius (let us not forget that he was a master composer, as well) lay in his understanding that the pawns are the foundation, or basic structure, upon which a chess position is built. Yes, the Mediterranean masters had been correct in demonstrating the necessity of rapid deployment of your forces, the exploitation of opening errors, and creative (if not always sound) combinations ~ but, if your opponent, naturally aware of this “system”, utilized the best defenses (the scoundrel!) and survived into the middlegame, everything now hung upon the remnants of your pawn structure. Enter Philidor. Here is a sample of Philidor in play (given near the very end of the book). Philidor himself gives no notes to this game, but it is certainly worth playing over. The comments here are my own.
Staunton’s Handbook Again a century of digestion will be required; Staunton’s 1847 Handbook, however, is significantly different from the two works we have seen thus far. In fact it has been argued The Chess Player’s Handbook is the first modern chess text. To begin, from the time of Philidor to Staunton, all phases of chess knowledge (history, general theory, openings, tactics, and endgames) had been drastically increased. This information was widely available via common newspapers and numerous, though often short-lived, chess magazines. Second, although as a player, Staunton cannot be compared to Greco or Philidor, he is the first great collector and annotator of games (his post as editor of the chess column for the prestigious Illustrated London News greatly assisted him in this). (Note 5) This interesting position is given in the endgame section of the Handbook:
White to play and mate in six. (Note 6) Morphy’s NY Ledger Columns
Following his triumphal return from Europe (1859), Morphy became increasingly disillusioned with chess (or, at least, with the chess world); further, during the last years of his short life, he suffered from a deterioration of his mental powers. Of the many unfortunate results there from, one is that Morphy never wrote an extended work on chess. However, he did, albeit briefly, conduct a chess column for the NY Ledger newspaper. Until a few years ago these articles by Morphy were all but unknown to the general chess public, and even to the Morphy historian were naught but name without form. Chesscafe.com, headed by Hanon Russell, has however changed that deplorable lacuna via the recovery and republication of the series. To date, twenty two have been reissued, with the remainder to follow (Note 7). Morphy, in his typically modest fashion, more often than not, does not comment on his own games, but rather annotates the best from other masters of the time (concentrating on the 1834 La Bourdonnais and McDonnell match). Going through these columns at the rate of, say, one per week, I’ve found to be an excellent exercise. Morphy’s annotations are laconic and incisive: if either player goes astray in the opening, the correct variation is briefly given; in the middle game, the critical position is shown. The lines he gives are seldom lengthy ~ rather, he puts you on the right track, and then leaves you to figure out the details. Indeed, this is the only way to learn chess. The first column annotates the first game between La Bourdonnais and McDonnell. After a fine explanation of the key points, the article ends with the remark that rather than 46.Nb8 “White, as an examination of the position will satisfy the student, might equally have drawn by exchanging the knights.”
White to play and draw via Nb8 or NxN Bird’s Chess History and Reminiscences
Having spent the required time on the outlined texts, you will have gained not only a great deal of chess knowledge, but also first-hand experience of the development of the Royal Game. From here, you may well desire a general summing up, an overview of the history of chess up to this time (circa 1900). In this respect, I can highly recommend Henry Bird’s (Note 8) Chess History and Reminiscences (1893). Bird, in an informative yet entertaining style, sketches the evolution of chess, and gives anecdotes on players, and makes comments on various aspects of the game. Here’s an excerpt concerning the recent innovation of clock-play and amateur chess:
Notes 1．See The Development of Chess Style by Max Euwe (ISBN-10: 1879479664), and The March of Chess Ideas by Anthony Saidy (ISBN-10: 0812922336). 2．For my article on the fundamental elements of chess: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles329.pdf 3．For my article on Greco: www.chessville.com/misc/History/PastPawns/GrecotheGreat.htm 4．My article on Philidor: www.chessville.com/misc/History/PastPawns/PhilidorAnnotates.htm 5．Staunton’s strength as a player has been greatly debated. Morphy is said to have thought poorly of it, whereas as Bobby Fischer deemed him a “profound opening analyst”. For a good overview on Staunton, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Staunton. 6．1.Nec4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 3.Ke2 b3 4.Ke1 b2 5.Ne5 b1Q 6.Nd3# 7．http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/skittarch.htm 8．A good overview on Bird: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Bird
|
Chessville
The
Advertise to Single insert:
|
||||||||
|
|||||||||
