|
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
Chessville
Advertise to Single insert:
|
Chess Strategy In Action Reviewed by Prof. Nagesh Havanur
When John Watson’s book Secrets Of Modern Chess Strategy (SOMCS) was published five years ago it raised a stormy debate in the chess world. Here was a work that seemed to challenge every preconceived notion of positional play. The title deservedly won the 1999 BCF Book Of The Year Award and also the USCF Fred Cramer Award for The Best Book. Five years later John Watson has followed up with this sequel, which is no less compelling than the first book. Recently it has won the 2003 Chess Café Book Of The Year Award. The author has taken sufficient care to ensure that this work can be read independently of its predecessor. However, it would benefit the reader more if this sequel is read together with his first book, Secrets Of Modern Chess Strategy. According to Watson the two books stand in a theory-to-practice relationship, but they also have a volume 1 & volume 2 connection, with the second volume filling in gaps in theory left by the first. There is a wealth of ideas in both the books. Much of the debate on the books has revolved around Watson’s concept of rule-independence. According to Watson the modern GM does not depend on general rules. As he puts it: “…the movement in modern chess is away from general rules and towards a more open, concrete and realistic view of the board.” This does not mean that rules have become irrelevant, but rather that they are context-sensitive and that their application should depend on the position. But there has never been unanimity about rules or universal principles at any point of time in chess history. Tarrasch disagreed with Steinitz over the question of mobility versus pawn structure. Tschigorin clashed with both Steinitz and Tarrasch over the issue of centre and development. Lasker was a supreme individualist and refused to submit to dictate of rules. The question is whether such rules can have universal application today. In this context it would be interesting to know if practicing GMs and other experts share Watson’s radical views. For example, Korchnoi’s unorthodox play is specially commended by Watson in this book. However, the youthful veteran continues to affirm his respect for classical principles. Consider the following comment on one of his games: “Some 80 years ago the opening that occurred in this game was assigned to the ‘irregular’ list, and hence it was not considered necessary to make a serious study of the theory of such a secondary setup, one that was dubious for Black. Later, by the efforts of nihilists, who rejected any rules for playing the openings in favour of a concrete approach to a particular position, the range of acceptable ‘correct’ openings was considerably broadened. I, however, who was brought up with a respect for classical opening principles, have not gone over to the nihilists, but continue to mistrust opening innovations that break the time-honoured rules. Therefore I very rarely play openings such as the Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence or the King’s Indian Defence .” (Victor Korchnoi: My Best games Volume 2 . p.64) Korchnoi may be making a valid point, although the last observation remains rather open to question. The King’s Indian Defence has had a chequered life for the last 60 years. Its honour has been upheld by “classicists” like Fischer and Kasparov. Yet with characteristic obstinacy and defiance Korchnoi continues to battle against the King’s Indian. Time and again, Watson refers to Dvoretsky’s books and cites their emphasis on concrete analysis. But he does not share Dvoretsky’s theoretical perspective. Indeed, Dvoretsky’s works like Opening Preparation and Positional Play strike a fine balance between a nuanced statement of general principles and specific analysis of variations. Chess cultures differ. Dvoretsky is a product of the Soviet School and his universalism springs from the influence of Botvinnik and Smyslov. Watson belongs to the liberal West, and is more influenced by empiricism. Hence, the emphasis on the individual and the particular. In this book Watson re-examines each of the premises in opening theory that has been taken for granted by generations of players. Here is Watson on development: “By the term ‘development’ various authors mean different things. Here I will be concerned with it in the simple sense of bringing one’s pieces out, leaving questions of the quality of their disposition to be discussed case by case. SOMCS emphasized the increasing number of openings in which modern players choose not to bring out their pieces in order to achieve other goals such as establishment of a favourable pawn structure. Increasingly we see developmental patterns that defy traditional conceptions. For example, the same piece is moved repeatedly and ends up on a worse square (or even back at home) so as to provoke the opponent into a potentially vulnerable situation. Or pieces are developed to apparently awkward squares leading to inharmonious positions for purely pragmatic or prophylactic reasons. We also see pawn-grabbing sorties by the queen to the complete neglect of development, a strategy frowned upon by the textbooks. (NSH: This last observation makes interesting reading in the light of the game Grischuk-Shirov 2002 given at the end of this review.) I’ll begin with some familiar cases in which structure takes priority. When one player decides not to establish a classical central pawn presence (as in many modern openings), he or she obviously gets more leeway in terms of delayed development. This is because there are fewer immediate targets in his or her position, making it (at least initially) less critical to develop. In the Open Sicilian Defence, for example, Black may play a number of pawn moves like …d6, …e6, …a6, and …b6 or ...b5 with only a single minor piece out or perhaps just the queen, the piece traditionally admonished to stay at home in the opening.’’ “To emphasize how flexible the contemporary view of the Sicilian Defence has become, here is a sequence played mainly in the last few years: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Nc3 b5 6.Bd3 d6!?
“Six straight pawn moves ! After 7.0-0 White has four pieces to Black’s none. I find 28 master level games since 1995 including quite a few with GMs and Black scores +4 against only mildly inferior opposition!” The second example is even more astonishing: 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bf4 c5 4.f3 Qa5+ 5.c3 Nf6 6.d5 Qb6 7.Bc1 e6 8.c4 exd5 9.cxd5 c4 10.e3 Bc5 11.Kf2 (Hodgson-Wells 1996)
White has no pieces out after 11 moves, and has just moved his king! Oddly enough, this whole sequence (including the paradoxical B-g5-f4-c1) may well be the best play for White, probably favours him slightly, and has scored quite respectably. Curiously enough, Watson offers no further explanation as to why the position should be satisfactory for Black in the first example and for White in the second. Instead it sets the reader on a quest to seek his own answers. This method of inquiry is a refreshing departure from others which claim to offer instant answers to fundamental questions. For example, in the first case after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Nc3 b5 6.Bd3 d6 White can play 7.f4 or 7.Qe2. The latter alternative appears promising. After 7.Qe2 Nf6 8.a3 Bb7 9.g4 (Kritz-Markowski 4th IECC 2003 1-0, 36 moves.) Black has quite a few problems to solve. But the Sicilian Defence has shown its resilience in such positions, and Black also should not be without resources. In the second case after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3. Bf4 c5 4. f3 Qa5 + 5. c3 Nf6 6. d5 Qb6 7. Bc1 e6 8.c4 Black can deviate and survive with 8...Qb4+ 9.Bd2 Qxb2 (9…Qxc4 10. e4 mentioned by Watson favours White) 10.Nc3 Qb6 11.Rb1 Qd8 12.e4 d6 (Hall-Berndt Bundesliga 2001-2002) The merry dance of the White bishop and the Black queen exemplifies the paradox of development in modern chess. Apart from opening theory, the book has an astonishing variety of middle game topics, ranging from the relative value of pieces to the power of pawn play. There is a harmonious blend of positional ideas with tactics in the exposition of each position. A brief glance at the list of contents gives an idea of the sheer range of themes dealt with by Watson:
While Watson’s work is marked by originality of thought, it is not free from prejudice. There is a tendency to associate the Classical School with dogma and the Hypermodern School with independent analytical outlook. To be fair, Watson does show that the Hypermoderns, like Nimzovitsch, could also be dogmatic. What he refuses to accept is the fact that the ideas of both the Classical and the Hypermodern players were circumscribed by the limitations of knowledge of their age. The evolution of scientific thought follows a certain dialectic in its progression of ideas, and the same applies to chess strategy. In my view every game of chess is an ongoing argument between conflicting positional principles like mobility and prophylaxis. There are various schools of thought in chess based on these principles, as epitomized by Tarrasch and Nimzovitsch. The present generation of GMs has assimilated the best elements of both the Classical and Hypermodern schools. Yet there are sharp divisions among them. Players like Kramnik, Leko, and Anand are perceived as leaders of the Pragmatic School. Their style is often practical, patient and logical. They do not take irrational risks. In contrast players like Shirov, Ivanchuk and Morozevich are exponents of the Neo-romantic school. Their play is distinguished by wonderful fantasy. It is the creative clash between the Pragmatists and the Neo-romantic artists that makes chess struggles so fascinating. However, these generalizations can be misleading. The modern GM is quite eclectic in his choice of openings. In choosing an opening system, he accepts one broad principle of strategy from a school of thought. If he opts for 1.d4 he should hope and believe that the immediate occupation of the centre with pawns should offer him some advantage. If the opponent plays the Grünfeld Defence, it is with the expectation that he can break up white's broad pawn centre through piece play and pressure from the flanks. Thereafter it is for each player to decide how to make use of his positional assets. Indeed if one sees the games of great masters, both past and present, the exchange of one positional advantage for another is characteristic of their play. They understand that positional values are relative. Chess history has followed a zigzag course. But it should be remembered that there is continuity between tradition and modernity. This living relationship between the past and the present is not sufficiently explored in Watson’s work. Watson’s admiration for the modern masters is such that he tends to ignore the legacy of the past (For a sustained critique, see Macon Shibut’s essay Modern Chess Anarchy? and Richard Forster’s review, both appearing on the Chess History website.) For example, he would have us believe that dynamic ideas like the positional sacrifice of a pawn or an exchange for initiative, are more of a modern phenomenon. As for the exchange sacrifice, one does not have to search farther than games of classical masters like Schlecter, Lasker, Capablanca and Rubinstein to see it in practice. A case in point is the game Nimzowitsch-Schlechter, Hamburg 1910. Similarly the positional pawn sacrifice was employed by Lasker for defence. It was Alekhine who used it for initiative and made it a fine art. Players like Boleslavsky and Bronstein followed it up with their own practice. At present Kasparov remains the virtuoso of the positional pawn sacrifice. He is the natural heir of Alekhine. However, materialists like Fischer and Korchnoi have never believed in the value of pawn sacrifice or exchange sacrifice for their own sake. Botvinnik tried such a pawn sacrifice against Fischer at the 1962 chess Olympiad in Varna and had to fight for a draw having failed to demonstrate an advantage. Likewise, Petrosian came to grief with his patent exchange sacrifice against Korchnoi in their game at Moscow 1975. As Watson would agree, sacrifice of material alone does not guarantee anything. Much depends on the position. The problem is that Watson adopts an admiring, uncritical attitude to modern chess. This adulation of moderns is about as undesirable as the veneration of ancients. Perhaps we need to steer clear of both. In retrospect Watson’s attitude appears rather strange because he is otherwise known for his fair and balanced judgment in his writings. Time and again, Watson has criticized opening monographs as database dumps and the slavish use of software for analysis. In his own work on openings he has always done independent work and made only a judicious use of computer databases and analytical engines. There is a certain ambivalence about the use of computers for chess. Even a great player like Kasparov has had to follow an ultra-cautious approach in playing against the silicon monsters. (See GM Hübner’s article Fear: Reflections On The Match Kasparov- Deep Junior in ChessBase Magazine 94.) It has had an inhibiting influence on his subsequent play against humans according to discerning observers. Kramnik takes a more positive view of the role of computers. In a recent interview, he made the following comment on his contribution to the game and the effect of computers: ‘’My influence is usually underestimated. Look at what people are playing these days: Sicilian Sveshnikov, Petroff, the Berlin Defence. Others are playing the openings that were developed by me. I am being copied these days, and so is my defensive style. Very few players play like Kasparov in the ‘90s. The grandmasters consider my style more efficient. It’s all about deeper understanding. The more we analyse with computers, the more we believe in defence. I was the first player to display this clearly, particularly in my games against Kasparov. You can’t play the same way today as people did 10 years ago. I admire Kasparov’s imaginative attacking victories from the ‘80s and ‘90s, but when you check them with a computer, in every other game the machine accepts the sacrifice, defends, and wins. This kind of attack on the edge of a bluff just doesn’t work anymore. We are under the influence of computers and we are defending more precisely. Kasparov himself has adapted his style. He even admits that he now plays like I do.” In other words, the use of computers has made the calculation of variations precise. But has it made aggressive attacking play á la Kasparov (chaotic dynamism to use Watson’s phrase) redundant as claimed by Kramnik? Obviously Kasparov himself and players like Shirov, Morozevich and Ivanchuk would have a different opinion. Thus the debate on the Man versus Machine goes on, and there are no easy answers as to what future portends. What is questionable is Watson’s reliance on statistical methods to make an analytical point. If the overwhelming majority of players do not play Lasker’s Defence to The Queen’s Gambit Declined, it does not necessarily mean that the system is bad or unplayable. It only means that most GMs prefer to follow the beaten track. Indeed, it is a poor reflection on modern chess that as many as 20 moves of a standard variation are copied, and a TN (theoretical novelty) is claimed on the 21st move as a wonderful invention. Contrast this mindset with the play of the original modern artists like Bronstein and Larsen. With them the theoretical novelty began as early as the first move. The average modern GM today does not have the courage of conviction of that quartet from the past: Steinitz, Tschigorin, Tarrasch and Nimzovitsch. These men staked their lives and fought out their theoretical battles. They shared the results of their analytical research freely with the rest of the world. The discerning player reaps benefits from their work even today. If Kramnik had relied on statistical methods he would never have played the Berlin Defence to the Ruy Lopez. Here was an unfashionable defence, played in the days of Lasker and Capablanca, with a poor reputation. Korchnoi employed it against Karpov in the World Championship Match 1981 and lost. This did not deter Kramnik from making it his main weapon against Kasparov in their World Championship Match in 2000. The bemused Gary could not breach the Berlin Wall, which played a major role in Kramnik’s victory. By Watson’s own standards, a chess player should be guided by concrete evaluation of the position on the board rather than by statistical surveys which only reflect the predilections of players and current opening trends. Finally, both the strength and weakness of Watson’s thesis may be seen in his interpretation of the following encounter (cited in the game Shirov- Nisipeanu 1999, a mind-boggling struggle.) The notes are based on Shipov’s annotations in New In Chess Magazine 2002/7. The game is a brilliant demonstration of creative fantasy in modern chess.
Grischuk-Shirov This game was played in the penultimate round. The ROW team was leading by 3 points, so it was imperative for the Russian team to win and level the score. The die was cast. 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Nc3 e6 5.g4 Bg6 6.Nge2 c5 7.Be3 Nc6 8.dxc5 Rc8 9.f4!? A fighting novelty. An earlier game went 9.Nd4 Nxd4 10.Qxd4 Bxc5 11.Qa4+ Kf8 12.Bxc5+ Rxc5 13.Qxa7 b6 Shirov-Morozevich 2002. Now14.0-0-0 would have given White good chances. 9.h4 is also a possibility. 9...Qh4+ 10.Bf2 Qxg4 11.Qd2 11.Rg1 Qh5 12.Ng3 Qxd1+ 13.Rxd1 Bxc2 14.Rd2 Bg6 is OK for Black. 11...Nb4 12.Rg1 Missing 12.0-0-0! Bxc2 13.Rg1 Qh5 14.Ng3 Qh6 15.Bb5+ Kd8 16.Nxd5 (There is also the pretty possibility 16.a3 Bxd1 17.Rxd1 Nc6 18.Nf5 Qg6 19.Nxd5!) 16...Nxd5 17.Qxc2 Qxf4+ 18.Kb1 with a powerful initiative in the centre. 12...Qf5 13.Rc1 Better than13.Nd4 Nxc2+ 13...Nxc2+ 14.Kd1 d4? Overestimating his chances. 14...Nb4 looks solid, but White has 15.Ng3 Qg4+ 16.Be2 Qh3 17.Nb5! with initiative. Perhaps only 14...Bxc5!? 15.Bxc5 Rxc5 16.Ng3 Qg4+ 17.Be2 Qh4 18.Rxc2 Bxc2+ 19.Kxc2 Ne7 offers counter-chances for Black. 15.Bxd4 Nb4 16.Ng3 Qg4+ 17.Be2 Qh4 18.Nce4 Nc6 19.Nd6+ Bxd6 20.exd6 Nxd4 21.Qxd4 Nf6 22.Bb5+ Kf8 23.d7 Nxd7 Not 23...Rd8? 24.Qd6+ Kg8 25.Qe7 24.Bxd7 Rd8 25.Ke1 Missing 25.c6! bxc6 26.Rxc6 Qxh2 27.Qc5+ Kg8 28.Rc8 wins. 25...Qxh2 26.Kf1 26.c6! still wins. 26...h5 27.Rg2 Qh3 28.Kg1 h4 29.Nf1 Rh5 30.Rxg6 The stroke 30.Qd6+ Kg8 31.Bxe6! went unnoticed. 30...fxg6 31.Qd6+ Kf7 32.Re1 Qg4+ 33.Kf2 Rxd7 34.Qxd7+ Kf6
35.Qd8+ 35.Re4 ! Qf5 36.Qe8! would have been a wonderful finish. 35...Kf7 36.Qd7+ Kf6 37.Ne3 Qxf4+ 38.Ke2 Re5 The rest of the game, not given in Watson’s book, was no less dramatic: 39.Kd3 Qe4+ 40.Kd2 Qb4+ 41.Kd1 Rxc5 42.Rf1+ Rf5!
43.Nxf5 gxf5 44.Qd2? 44.Rg1! g6 45.Qd8+ Kf7 46.Qg5 Qd4+ (46...Qxb2 is more tenacious) 47.Kc1 Qf6 48.Qh6 could have saved the game. 44...Qxd2+ 45.Kxd2 g5 46.Ke2 g4 47.Rc1 h3 48.Kf2 f4 49.Rc7 g3+ 50.Kf3 h2 51.Rh7 e5 52.Rh6+ Kg5 53.Rh8 Now not an immediate 53…f3+ 54.Kxg3 f2 55.Kg2 Ke2 because of 56….Rxe4+. So the White rook must be persuaded to leave the fourth rank. 53…. e4+ 54.Kg2 Kf5 55.Rf8+ Ke5 56.Rh8Kd4 57.Rh4 Ke3 58.b4 b5 Now White is in zugzwang. He must move his rook, as any king move allows… f3. 59. a3 a6 60.Rh8 f3+ 61.Kxg3 f2 62.Kg2 Ke2 0-1 This tragic loss of a point put an end to Russia’s attempts to catch up with their opponents. The final score in the match was ROW 52 – Russia 48. Apart from the sporting significance, the irony of this game should not be lost on the reader. The early pawn grabbing adventure by Black’s queen could have been punished by rapid development. Grischuk would have had a decisive advantage with 12.0-0-0. Obviously mobility has not lost its relevance. But Watson would rightly maintain that this does not invalidate his main argument. The judgment of a position is a matter of case-by-case determination. To sum up, this is a thought-provoking book with refreshingly new ideas and rich material. Along with its predecessor Secrets Of Modern Chess Strategy it is the most important contribution to chess theory after Nimzovitsch’s work. P.S.
The Bibliography is useful as it lists quite a few books - like
T.D.Harding's 64 Great Games and Igor Stohl's
Instructive Chess Masterpieces - which deserve to be
better known. However there is a curious omission. The book Excelling at
Chess by Jacob Aagaard (Everyman Chess, 2002) which
takes issue with Watson’s concept of rule-independence is not mentioned. Watson did respond to the criticism in two of his TWIC Book Review columns:
#45 The Watson Defence and
#57 Newish Books, Part 2. Readers
can draw their own conclusions after making a judicious comparison of
arguments by both the authors.
Download a
pdf file (from the Publisher's website) with a sample from the book.
|
The
|
||||||||
|
||||||||||
