Don't be too puzzled by what the books say about the center. It's partly nonsense. A �' A, or Y/1 radiates more power from the center (e4, d4, e5, d5), and can be rapidly transferred from there to any other part of the board.
But it is useless to put pieces in or near the center if they can be driven away, e.g., a common blunder by raw beginners after 7. e4 e5 2. /4 exf4 3. Nf3 is 3 ... Bc5?
Then, of course, comes 4. d4 and Black must lose a clear tempo (move) in develop ment. Being already behind White, he now has a position so bad that, between two masters, it would almost always mean defeat.
In the opening, all one can do is to push .fts forward into the center, which at any rate gives you a free run of the space behind them and prevents your opponent from getting too much central space himself.
Mere number of .fts in the center means nothing, however. Take these three positions.
1
2
3
In the first one, White has a central .ft majority of 2-0. In the second, he has nu merical equality. In the third, he has a mi nority.
But the first position is as good for Black as for White, while the other two are to White's advantage.
There is a simple test: Have I files for my Rooks?
If I have, I am sure to have freedom for my other pieces as well.
Applying this test to the first diagram, we find that both sides have a fairly free game. Black will ultimately develop his .§ s on the c- and cl-files, where they will be
rather better placed than White's, since they have the offensive. White's center fts are targets.
In the second diagram Black has just been induced to play ... exd4. This is called "giving up the center," and you can see this tells the story quite well. White has the run of one file up to d5, and he can also develop a !'! in the e-file without making it look absolutely silly. Black, however, has only one file on which a !'! could even pretend to be developed. All this confers on White a slight advantage (don't imagine that Black is necessarily lost).
In the third diagram, White obviously has the freer game. Black would stand bet ter if he were free to open up a file with ... c5.
Now we come to the part where the books talk nonsense. What is the idea of the King's Gambit ( 7. e4 e5 2. f4), the Queen's Gambit ( 1. d4 d5 2. c4 ), the Center Game ( 1. e4 e5 2. d4), and the allied Scotch Game ( 1. e4 e5 2. Nj3 Nc6 3. d4)?
All these openings are characterized by:
( 1) the advance of one of the two cen ter fts, followed by
(2) the advance of an adjacent jt . The purpose of the adjacent jt is sim ply to produce the possibility of an ex change of its (not necessarily at once). Thus provision is made at the outset for the open ing or semi-opening of a file so that the t'!s may be developed.
Fundamentally different is such an opening as the Giuoco Pianissimo: 1. e4 e5 2. Nj3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Nc3 Nf6.
Neither side can now advance either its d- it or f-jt two squares, so that the development of the �s will be long post poned. Thus, the "advantage" of the move tends to disappear.
In other words, the openings we looked at first are attempts to make something of
the advantage of the move.
There are more subtle openings, such as the Ruy Lopez, in which the push of the adjacent jt is held for a long time in re serve.
For beginners, perhaps the most telling point is this: if the possibility of develop ment of t'!s plays such a big part in opening theory, how important it must be to de velop the t'!s as soon as possible.
And yet in "simuls" one still meets such play as the following:
Mter 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc3 3. Bc4 (see diagram), a tyro will often tamely push 3 ... h6?
He wants to play out his 4::1, and first stops Ng5. He doesn't realize that in retard ing his development by one move he is doing more damage than his opponent could do to him by Ng5 (after 3 ... Nf6).
As Ng5 is not yet threatened, he should simply develop his free A (at c5 or even e7), then move out his 4J to f6. And then if White is mad enough to waste time playing Ng5, which would retard his own develop ment, Black can simply castle. This will completely protect his f-jt (for A and 4J are worth more than a !'! and jt while other pieces are on the board).
Interlude in the Center The Editor,
Dear Sir,
forgive, we thank.-Ed.). Re "Why A Pawn Center?" by CJ.S. Purdy.
Well, why a pawn center? No finer example than the game Tarrasch-Ale khine, Pistyan 1922, Blumenfield Coun tergambit, can be found to support the theory that there is something in a strong center other than the development of Rooks, which Mr. Purdy is so strong for. Since this game, no attempt has been made to accept the gambit. In the progress of that game Tarrasch had plenty of squares for his Rooks! I personally do not think it is a good way to introduce a series for novices, as the first article could be very controversial. Far better would it have been to state that "the object of a gambit is twofold" -in the first place, e.g., King's Gambit, it opens up the f-file, on which the h-Rook can be quickly devel oped {if accepted). In the second place, it offers the possibility, after elimination or exchange, of forming a STRONG CEN TER, whereas in the Queen's Gambit, which after all is not a true or real gambit since Black cannot take and keep the pawn . . . (Our correspondent breaks off here, evidently leaving us to fill in the blank.-Ed.)
Even if the Giuoco Piano is funda mentally different (as Mr. Purdy contin ues), it can hardly be said that it is a good continuation, viewed in the light of mod em chess conception. The move 3. Bc4
by White continues his development, to be sure, but does not advance his posi tionally indicated attack against Black's e pawn. This, I think, explains why this opening has pretty well disappeared from tournament play. Whereas the Ruy Lopez does, as Mr. Purdy will be well aware.
So I would say that the approach in the article could very likely confuse the novice just as much as the weight oflitera ture concerning pawn centers, and tend
to start him off on the wrong foot. I sincerely hope you will accept my notes in the spirit offered.
Yours faithfully, J. Hibbert.
Our answer to the last paragraph is contained in parenthesis in the first.
Mr. Hibbert's is more or less the voice of the orthodox student who has read a good deal about chess and is naturally in clined to rebel at having his icons shattered.
Let us deal first of all with the criticism which is merely a misunderstanding. Since this reader has misunderstood us, perhaps others have. By the way, students would do well to run through the article before pro ceeding-it is very short.
We were not writing on the relative merits of openings. We simply picked out the Giucco Pianissimo (both sides playing Bc4/c5, both .i£)s to f3/c6, and d3) as the opposite kind of opening to the King's or Queen's Gambit, since in it there is no early provision for developing �s.
It is interesting for average players to know why some openings are in fashion among the masters and some out of fashion, but such knowledge will not improve their own play. Any opening one is used to is a good opening.
Our Test
The second criticism we answer is that we began with something controversial. It may have been controversial, but we be lieve that we are right. We believe that we can best help beginners by simplifying the problem of the center down to the problem of developing �s. We said:
"There is a simple test (of whether a central position is favorable).
"Have I .files for my Rooks?
"If I have, I am sure to have freedom for my other pieces as well."
Our correspondent would like us to have said, "It offers the possibility . . . of forming a strong center ... "
All right, what is a strong center? We don't know anything vaguer in chess. For a start, there is a general confusion between the terms "center" and "pawn center." The center, strictly speaking, is "the four squares which enclose the midpoint of the board, i.e., the squares e4, d4, e5, d5 for both sides" (Nimzovich, My System). A ft center I have never seen defined, but it is generally un derstood as consisting of one or more fts in the center, the enemy having no fi in the center, or he may have one if the "pawn center" contains two, e.g., after 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 White has, temporarily at least, a ft center (two versus one), and after 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 he still has a ft center (one versus zero), Black's "center pawn" being only on e6 and therefore not in the center proper. Rather confusing, we agree. On the other hand, after 3. exd5 exd5 we have equal ity of fts in the center, and it is not custom ary to speak of either side as having a .ft. center then.
The thoughtful beginner may ask, why should a ft center be strong? Why indeed? Quite often, it isn't strong.
Nimzovich Lashes Out
As far back as 1913, in the Wiener Schachzeitung, Aron Nimzovich was already attacking prevalent notions about the cen ter. He then wrote:
If in a battle I seize a bit of debatable land with a handful of soldiers, without having done anything to prevent an en emy bombardment of the position, would it ever occur to me to speak of a conquest of the terrain in question? Obviously not. Then why should I do so in chess?
It dawns upon us then, that control of the center depends not on a mere occupa-
tion, i.e., placing of pawns, but rather on our general effectiveness there.
Here we interpose, how is that effec tiveness to be measured? We have given a very simple test, which even beginners can apply intelligently. Namely, have we effec tive provision for developing �s?
For preference, the provision should be on central or near-central (c-, f-) files. To see this, play through again the correspon dence game Purdy-Goldstein Uune 1948, Chess World). Here White allowed his oppo nent to double �s on the only open file, but it was the b-file, which had little bearing on the center. In an endgame, the �s would have been strong; in the middlegame, they were not.
Nimzovich went on to give several ex amples where one player had a ft center and yet his opponent had the better control of the center.
Again we quote Nimzovich: ''All this teaches us that by counting the heads of the pawns in the center, nothing, literally nothing, is gained." Rescue from Chaos
Again, then, comes the question, what are we to substitute? Counting heads was easy for beginners. Are they now simply to be told, "That's bunk," and given no substi tute? Our substitution is rough, but it is easy and will be found reliable, and the reason is always this: if the �s have scope in the
center, the other pieces are sure to have. Test for Our Test
Now let us examine the game quoted by our correspondent, Tarrasch-Alekhine, Pistyan 1922.
1. d4 Nf6
3. c4 c5 4. d5 b5 5. dxe6 fxe6 6. cxb5 d5 7. e3 Bd6 8. Nc3 0-0 9. Be2 Bb7 10. b3 Nbd7 1 1 . Bb2 Qe7 12. 0-0 Rad8 13. Qc2 e5 14. Rfe1 e4 15. Nd2 Ne5 On Wedges
Black has more than a .ft center now. Once a .ft gets into the enemy side of the center, it acts as a wedge; the wedge is doubly effective if on the square nearer the enemy castled 'i£7, i.e., on d5/d4 with en emy 'i£7 castled "i;¥-side, or e5/e4 with en emy 'i£7 castled 'i£7-side, as here. In general, the defender cannot afford to ignore it. Either he must undermine its support (which cannot be done here because White has no c- .ft left to attack the supporting cl- .ft), or else he must challenge the outpost itself (with j3) or push past it lj4), a procedure which also weakens the outpost's effect.
Unfortunately for White, either 16. j3 or 16. f4 is too unsafe here, and that is why White has a losing game, e.g., 16. f4? exj3 e.p. 17. gxj3 Neg4!, a winning sacrifice. Or in this, 17. Bxj3 Neg4 and again the attack wins. Before we leave the diagram, let me explain that the effectiveness of the wedge
is due to the well-developed pieces behind it. They are poised for a swoop. So don't start driving a wedge into Bill Brown's posi tion next time you play him without having support ready. A wedge without proper support is easily broken up, and then the would-be attacker's position often collapses. On the other hand, don't be scared. Here is an example of an early wedge that is quite good:
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d6 3. Nc3 e5 4. d5! Here the wedge can be further sup ported by e4 (if 4 ... Bf5, then 5. g3 and Bg2 first), and Black's undermining move, .. .j5, is obstructed by his 'i£7-{), while ... c6will do nothing worse than open the c-file for both sides, White being left with the major share of the board.
The notion of wedges goes rather be yond the question of mere .ft centers. In a
.ft center, the .ft or .fts merely guard impor tant squares. A wedge, on the other hand, also acts as an obstruction. It tends to divide the enemy forces, i.e., it prevents them from crossing readily from wing to wing.
Having once got on to the subject of wedges, we give the rest of the game, with which Alekhine won a brilliancy prize, just as an example of the effect a wedge may have. Then we return to the part of the game which concerned the .ft center before it became a wedge.
One question? At what stage has White had "plenty of squares for his Rooks"? Not for one moment so far has White had an effective file available for a E\ . We had to mention this, as our correspondent makes such a point of it.
Now we finish the game:
16. Nd1 Nfg4 1 7. Bxg4 Nxg4 18. Nfl Qg5! 19. h3 Nh6 20. Kh1 Nf5 21. Nh2 d4!
22. Bel d3 23. Qc4t Kh8 24. Bb2 Ng3t! 25. Kgl Bd5 26. Qa4 Ne2t 27. Khl Rf7! 28. Qa6 h5! 29. b6 Ng3t 30. Kgl axb6 31. Qxb6 d2! 32. Rf1 Nxfl 33. Nxfl Be6!! 34. Khl Bxh3! 35. gxh3 Rf3 36. Ng3 h4! 37. Bf6 Qxf6 38. Nxe4 Rxh3t 39. Resigns Were You Right?
Now we return to the opening. Tarrasch-Aiekhine
1. d4 Nf6
2. N£3 e6
3. c4 c5!?
4. d5!
The correct answer to Black's attempt to usurp the initiative. White seizes the chance of driving a wedge. This move would not have been good against, say, 3 ... b6, because the wedge would have been too vulnerable. In general, the "wedge" move d5 is good only if the enemy has already challenged the d- ft with either ... e5 or ... c5. For example, 7. d4 c5 2. d5! Or 7. e4 e6 2. d4 c5? 3. d5! An exception is where d5 hits a piece, e.g., 1. d4 Nc6 2. d5!
4. • • • b5!?
Blumenfeld Countergambit. A ft is offered for the purpose of undermining the wedge.
5. dxe6
White, however, has no need to let
himself be sidetracked. Simply 5. Bg5!, mak ing e4 possible, keeps his grip. Instead, White chooses to barter his grip for a ft . This idea, too, was entirely sound, though not com mendable for players wishing to avoid diffi culties.
Annotators commonly attribute play ers' defeats to moves which were not bad at all.
5. fxe6
6. cxb5 d5
According to orthodox notion, Black has what might be described as a "fearsome pawn center." Its main strength, however, lies in the fact that there is no open file on the board. White's problem is simply to open a file, preferably in or near the center, or at least to threaten to-nothing more than that. For this, it is quite obvious that White must somehow contrive to play e4. As Black can guard the key square with three units (by ... Bb 7), White must also get three units onto the square, or else play it as a ft sacrifice.
For this plan, a logical first move would have been 7. Nbd2. Alekhine suggested fol lowing that up with b3 and Bb2, delaying the challenge in the center.
7. e3!
This, however, is also an excellent move, probably the best. The trouble was that Tarrasch played it as part of a wrong plan.
7. Bd6
The Real Crisis
This was where Tarrasch made a mis take-in our opinion his only one! He played 9. Be2? He should have played 9. Bd3! for e4.
The objection-why play e3 first if e4 was the objective?-is superficial.
To have played e4 in one move would also have involved an interruption in devel opment and would have meant returning the .ft , e.g., 7. Nbd2 Bb7 8. e4!? dxe4 9. Ng5 Qf-5!
The idea of e3 for Bd3 for e4 is well known to addicts of the Colle System.
In reply to 9. Bd3, Black could upset White's immediate intention (e4) with 9 ... c4. No matter. That move itself makes Black vulnerable in a new place and renders e4 unnecessary. Mter 10. Be2 followed by cas tling, simply b3 forces open a file. And Black's ... e5-e4 this time permits the .1£) to take the central square d4. If 9 ... Bb7, then 70.Qs2 reinforces the threat of e4. True, Black can prevent e4 by ... Ne4, but again this allows White to open a file (Bxe4, after castling).
If (after 9. Bd3 Bb7 10. Qs2 as above) 10 ... e5, 11. e4 d4 12. Nb1 with a solid posi
tion.
It is then the c-file which White's ,l'!s can use, bearing on the backward c- .ft . Black has a supported passed lt , but it is completely blockaded. Of course Black still has some compensation for his lt minus, but nothing like what he obtained in the
actual game.
Finally, if 9 ... e5 ?, 10. Nxd5! The Two Ways Home
Now there is surely no question that White should have played for e4.
The question is rather this: Is e4 aimed at Black's center .fts, or is it aimed at getting freedom for White's pieces, including his
,!'!s?
The answer is that both paths lead to the same place (e4).
Nimzovich would undoubtedly have stressed the idea that it was important to halt Black's "pawn roller"-see my article "Lopez Subtleties and Steamrollers." Black's three center is constitute a very powerful "roller" indeed. Note how it came on. First the three .fts abreast on c5, d5, eS. Then, later on, the two abreast on e4 and d4.
However, a center lt roller is rather a rarity. I wanted a general idea which would cover any closed kind of opening position at all.
My solution was this:
Play your pawns in such a way as will give freedom to your pieces.
However, nearly every learner in try ing to accomplish this would forget about his poor old ,!'!s. Even Tarrasch did that!
Instead, if the learner thinks always of his .!":( s, he will find good squares turning up for his other pieces anyway.
And even in the exceptional case of a central .ft roller, and a case difficult enough to baffle the great Tarrasch, I have shown, I hope, that thinking about t':(s would have sufficed to point the way to White's right general plan. Not necessarily 7. e3, 8. Nc3,