But if every gram of material contains this tre mendous energy, why did it go so long unno ticed ? The answer is simple enough: so long as n one of the energy is given off externally, it can not be observed. It is as though a man who is fabulously rich should never spend or give away a cent - no one could tell how rich he was. ALBERT EINSTEIN
The fact that the mass of a panicle is equivalenz to a certain amount of energy means that the particle can no longer be seen as a static ob
ject, but has to be conceived as a dynamic pat
tern, a process involving the energy which manifests itself as the particle 's mass.
FRITJOF CAPRA, The Tao of Physics
When you play against Kasparov, the pieces start to go differently.
GM EVGENY BAREEV
It is time to consider ways in which we might strive to overcome our propensity to Material
ism. My two main suggestions are quite differ
ent, but they both contain the idea that there is always more to be seen in a chess position than just material, if you know how to look. My first suggestion is to borrow from science and look at how the stupendous equation E = mc2 is rele
vant to chess. The simplicity of the equation easily lends itself to distortion and so my aim is merely to consider its essence, which is that mass (material) and energy (what a piece can do) are, in a sense, the same thing, without pretending that this can fit chess in any com fortable or scientifically valid way. If you're willing to roll with me for a while though, it seems that a creative application of this equa tion can help us break free from the shackles of
Materialism.
The starting point is that chess is a universe unto itself, and just like our universe, it con tains energy and matter. My idea is to make a suggestive link between 'material' in chess and
'matter' in physics. If you'll go with me this far, then given that 'mass' is the fundamental characteristic of a body (chess piece), deter mined by the amount of matter (material value) it contains, we begin to see that when we are discussing what a chess piece is worth, the physical analogy suggests that we are asking how much mass it has. Now, E = mc2 tells us
that mass, when multiplied by a constant (large) number, is equal to energy. Are you still with me? Good. If you accept that Materialism is a problem in chess, maybe we can solve this problem by looking at the subject of the prob lem (matter) in a different way . The key is to
see the pieces not as blocks of wood, but as
bundles of energy.
When we refer to an 'active' king, or any other sort of activity, what do we mean? It seems to me that we are implicitly referring to some sort of energy. Now 'energy' means many different things, but the most basic definition is that energy is 1he ability of a system to do work.
Looking at the Capra quotation above from a chess perspective, and replacing mass with ma terial value, particle with piece, and energy with the ability to do something useful in a po sition, we get this : "The fact that the material value of a piece is equivalent to a certain amount of energy means that the piece can no longer be seen as a static object, but has to be conceived as a dynamic pattern, a process in volving the ability to do something useful in the position which manifests itself as the piece's material value."
This suggests that we should look at chess positions from the perspective of material (the mass or quantity of the pieces) and energy (what they can do). Now this is no revelation, and to an extent we do this anyway, but in a chess context we have a terrible time seeing material and energy as equivalent. Indeed, we invariably look at the pieces firstly as mass (point count) and only after as energy (what they do). Einstein's quotation above helps us to see why we do this. The energy, unlike the mass, 'cannot be observed' . In other words what you see is what you get. We know that a knight can fluctuate in value, depending on its location and prospects, but we still see a knight on the board as mass, rather than energy. In thinking of it as a fixed material value we neglect the fact
that this mass is also energy, and significantly, that its mass is convertible to energy. We are fixated by our vision, but in being so we are half blind.
Now if mass and energy are basically equiv alent, you might think that one side's 'capacity to do work' depends on how much material it has, and so the more material you have, the more likely it is that you'll achieve your aims (work) on the chessboard. This is the truth, but it's not the whole truth and when you look at it from the perspective of energy you get a rather different view. One side cannot have any more material (mass) than their capacity for work (energy) allows. So on seeing a position in which one side has an extra bishop and three pawns (for instance), you might think that that side has a much greater capacity to do work, but then if you look at the position and see that the side with less material has a winning attack, it seems that this is not the case at all. The only relevant work is stopping the pending mate, and the side with the extra material doesn't have the ability to do that work. It doesn't have the en ergy. The material, when seen from the per spective of energy, is not matter at all. Quite literally, it doesn't matter.
So it's almost like what we think of as the ' smaller' mass, which is about to deliver mate, is overflowing with energy while the 'larger' mass looks like it has no energy at all. But this a distortion because when you apply E = mc2 the
amount of the mass depends on the amount of energy. From a scientific perspective, it doesn't matter which you look at 'first' because the whole point is that they are both there and nei ther precedes the other, but in a chess context it matters hugely because 'the ability to do
work' is all that counts and in this sense, en
ergy is more important than matter in chess.
Abstract material values (mass considered as separate from energy) may or may not be useful from a theoretical perspective, but they are hugely misleading when you look at chess move by move because they won't point you in the direction of the work that needs to be done. If the material values could 'stretch' depending on their capacity to do work, then we would be gin to look at material in a much more flexible way, and would perhaps be less susceptible to some of the problems that we have seen in this
chapter. Or maybe even better would be to do away with material values altogether, but I
wouldn't want to suggest that without offering a convincing alternative. It seems to me that the best thing to do is just to have lots of different perspectives and look for good moves rather than rely on any theoretical model to do your thinking for you.
A further creative analogy is that energy has two main aspects : kinetic (energy in motion, or simply what the pieces are doing in the position at hand) and potential (what the pieces are ca pable of doing in certain foreseeable circum stances). So when you say that your pieces have considerable energy (ability to do work) you could be referring to what they are doing in the given position and/or what they are capable of doing in the future. Thus in a typical Hedgehog position, the material and energy aspects may be perfectly balanced, but the tense equilibrium can be understood by seeing that although White has lots of kinetic energy, and is seem ingly more 'active' , in an important sense Black is every bit as active, because his position has a huge amount of potential energy. This has the same relation to mass (material) as the 'more active' but only kinetically energetic white pieces.
When considering whether to use these ideas in the book, I was concerned that it may seem too abstract or contrived for most readers and hard to apply to their real games. However, then I was reminded of the Bareev quote above, and I felt compelled to proceed. One of the biggest gaps between stronger and weaker players is that the stronger players have more ways of looking at a position. So even if I'm not making any sense, or if you only partly understand what I'm saying, the main thing is to have the cour age to look at chess with new eyes. For now I ' m just saying that when you view the pieces as en
ergy rather than mass, they do indeed ' start to go differently' and that's just what many play ers need - a new start.
When all is said and done though, I am not radically undermining what we have known for a long time: material is a hugely important aspect of the game and often the most impor
tant one. Indeed, one of the most significant
aspects of E = mc2 is that it says we need a mas
sive amount of energy to create a little bit of
mass (c2, the speed of light squared, although constant, is a huge number). This might suggest that there is good reason to look at material be fore 'energy' because the cases when there will be enough relevant energy will be few and far between. However, this is too easy an escape because there is no real constant ( c2) in chess, other than the fact that for every move one side plays, the opponent gets another. This suggests to me that the relevant c2 in chess would be a rather small number, perhaps simply one, to reflect the constant fact that 'one move' in volves a move by both sides. 'The speed of light squared' may loosely refer to the speed at which we can do things, and that is related to the fact that we can only make one move at a time.
This may be pushing it too far, but if I'm right to think that the c2 in chess is best viewed as one (so that material and energy can be viewed as exactly equal) then it reflects the time (initiative) aspect of the game too because the relationship of mass and energy in a given position will depend on one side's use of the material on the available move, and the pro spective response. This links us to the next sec
tion, because if what I'm saying makes sense then I could tentatively suggest that E (quality)
= m (material) x c2 (time) would be the way in
which chess 'fits' the world's most famous equation. The fourth dimension would merely be that in which we wrestle with the equation above. However, for now let's get our heads out of the clouds and put our feet on the ground with an instructive example of my basic point; which is that you should see your pieces as mass and energy.
Capablanca - Em. Lasker
St Petersburg 1914
1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 �6 3 i.b5 a6 4 i.a4 lDf6 5 0-0
tbxe4 6 d4 b5 7 i.b3 d5 8 dxe5 i.e6 9 lDbd2 tbc5 10 c3 d4 1 1 cxd4 tbxd4 12 tbxd4 1i'xd4 13 i.xe6 lbxe6 14 1i'f3 :td8 15 a4 11i'd5 16 'ii'xdS :txdS 17 axbS axbS 18 .:.aS+ lbd8 (D)
I took this example from Purdy's The Search
for Chess Perfection. Purdy is keen to express
that all we really mean by 'dynamic play' is play with the pieces. He suggests that we should picture the game as "a hand to hand struggle
w
between the pieces" and that "The woodshifter, as the name implies, sees the pieces as blocks of wood, whereas the real player ... sees them as units of energy which he can combine in beau tiful ways, just as the musical composer can build up bewitching melodies out of scales of mere sounds, each in itself no more interesting than a wooden chess figure." Crucially, he goes on to say: "Don't look at chess in this way be cause it' s romantic. It is, but look at chess this way because it is a way to win."
In any case, what do you think you would play in this position if you had not been told that there was something special to see? Tar rasch, in the book of the tournament, says that 99% of players would play 1 9 ttlf3 . This esti mate is by no means implausible and I certainly
doubt that I would be one of the 1 % 'savants'
who saw beyond this conventional knight hop. The attraction to this move is that it's so natural and obvious; you defend your e5-pawn, de velop your knight to a reasonable square and open the way for your bishop. What !!lore could you ask of a single move? Perhaps you couldn't ask for more. In fact the key, in a sense, is to ask for less.
Purdy suggests this with the lucid and in structive insight that "the fallacy in this reason ing - truly a popular one - is that the pawn needs defending." I think most players would just take this for granted. The e5-pawn is attacked, White has no particular combinational opportu nities, so the e-pawn must be defended. This is quintessential Materialism. Your thoughts on material values shape your perception of what is happening in the position and your primary concern is the material balance. Capablanca's
genius was to see that White' s problem was not so much that he was threatened with loss of ma terial (mass), but that he was threatened with the loss of the ability of his pieces to do any thing significant (energy). It can be very foolish to hold on to your material (mass) when this mass has very little energy. Indeed, the most important question here is how to maximize the energy (effectiveness) of your remaining mate rial (mass).
The great Cuban saw the first two reasons for moving his knight, to develop it and free the bishop, but his vision was not limited by the trappings of material. Purdy's insight is again revealing: "Capablanca rebelled against the tyr anny of the pawn and looked at the position from the viewpoint of the pieces. Undoubtedly the knight should move, ... but where to? What square gives him the most power?" In other words, Capablanca has no fear of losing mate rial when the energy of his pieces is improved and doesn't want to limit the energy of his pieces by making them hold on to material.
19 ttle4!
This is a very strong move which maximizes the energy in White's position. Purdy, unsurpri singly impressed with this move, goes on to give the impression that White is now clearly better and that Black is under enormous pres sure, but this is highly misleading. Looking at the variations, it seems to me that Capablanca's 1 9 ttle4 ! showed a deep understanding of the relative quality of the positions before his 1 9th
move. If White just plays 'normal moves' Black
has an excellent position based on White's pawn weaknesses on e5 and b2 and the light square weaknesses generally. What is paradox ical is that 1 9 ttle4 is not so much an attacking move, but a highly creative defensive effort. It's only because Lasker responded badly that White looked like a swashbuckling hero.
After 19 ttlf3 J.e7 20 J.e3 q;d7 ! ? (20 ... 0-0! ?)
2 1 :te l :te8 Black is significantly better. White
has no convincing plan and is in severe danger of drifting. Black's knight will soon be well placed on e6 while White's knight doesn' t have any particular ideas. White's bishop is re stricted by the fact that there are two pawns on dark squares. Black's rook is excellent on d5, where it defends b5, controls the d-file and ties White down to e5 while White's rook on c 1
seems to be where it should be but somehow looks a little gonnless. Black' s king is not in any serious danger and the relative activity of the kings (potential and actual) almost rules out a double rook exchange for White. Black has a very healthy queenside majority while White's kingside majority is crippled. All in all, things are highly unpleasant for White, who desper ately needs a constructive plan. Now:
a) 22 �fl? is a natural move that would show a lack of 'trend sensitivity' Things go from bad to worse if you don't face up to the di rection of the trends and it's time for White to seek a transformation. After 22 . . . ltJe6 23 :xeS �xeS 24 �e2 �d7, with everything stabi1ized, the above comments about Black's positional advantages can be seen even more clearly. White should not lose with best play, but it's extremely difficult to play the best moves with such a lifeless position. White's problem is not that he has fewer pieces but that these pieces are not as effective as their counterparts. If you look at mass first, you'll assume equality is nearby, but if you look at energy, and what both sides can do, it begins to look like White will have to do something very creative in order not to lose.
b) 22 ltJd4 l is called for: after 22 . . . :xe5 (22 ... ltJe6!?) 23 .C.a5 ! i..f6 ! ? (Black has to re turn the pawn, and this seems the best way to do it) 24 :xb5 :xb5 25 ltJxb5 lDe6 (given what we know about the king as 'a four-point piece' , you'll understand why White is not totally out of the woods here: the essence of the position is that b2 i s significantly weaker than c7 because of the positions of the kings, so in the relevant arena, where all the action is, Black is effec tively a piece up, but it feels as though White has good chances to hold this position all the same) 26 ltJc3 .C.b8 27 :dl + 'it'c6 2S i..c l i.xc3 29 bxc3 .C.b3 30 i..d2 ltJc5, Black still has some initiative and White will have to defend well for a while.
19 ... .C.xeS 20 :dt i..e7 21 f3 :rs?
The beginning of a collapse, seemingly caused by the desire to keep the extra pawn. In any case, I suspect Black missed White's next move, which is somehow peculiar-looking. Al ternatively:
a) After 2 1 . .. 0-0 22 i..f4 :f5 23 i..xc7 ltJe6 24 :a7 White retains some initiative due to the
activity of his pieces, but it looks like Black should hold.
b) 2 1 . .. c6! looks like crass materialism, but actually Black just wants to dilute some of White's dynamism by making him exchange rooks in the process of winning the pawn back. Following 22 i..f4 :d5 23 .C.xd5 cxd5 24 ltJc3 (after 24 ltJd6+ i..xd6 25 i..xd6 �d7 Black should emerge with a clear extra pawn after un tangling with . .. :es or .. .f6 and ... lDf7) 24 ... 0-0
25 ltJxd5 (25 ltJxb5 ltJe6 26 :xf8+ 'iitxf8 is