Pandolfini’s Ultimate Guide to Chess

by Bruce Pandolfini

  Student: Still, it’s nice to know I have options.

  Teacher: You most certainly do, but let me ask you a question. Suppose, after playing 1. e4, you were allowed to play another move, so that you actually get two moves before Black gets to play any. What would you play?

  Student: But no one ever gets get two moves to start a game. Why should I even bother to think about it?

  Teacher: Suppose after your first move of 1. e4 your opponent were to play a totally irrelevant and innocuous move that did practically nothing, that ignored your first move altogether? Wouldn’t it then be as if your opponent gave you two free moves to start the game? Wouldn’t you then have carte blanche to do what you wanted on your second move, as if it, too, were another first move?

  Student: I think I see your point. In addition to trying to anticipate my opponent’s responses, I should be prepared to play for my ideal circumstances, just in case my opponent doesn’t reply intelligently.

  Teacher: Right. In that case you can get what you want without a fight. You should know what’s a good extra second move just in case your opponent plays illogically. You shouldn’t depend on your opponent’s mistakes, but you’d like to be prepared to capitalize on them if they should happen.

  Student: So what moves would be great extra moves for White?

  Teacher: A number would be useful here. The one that makes the most sense, however, is 2. d4, since we’ve already indicated it would be just as good as the actual move you’ve chosen, 1. e4. Imagine how wonderful it would be to play the two strongest moves before your opponent has made a meaningful move of any kind. After moving both center pawns two squares ahead, White occupies d4 and e4, two of the four center squares, and controls d5 and e5, the other two. The queen’s scope would also increase and the dark-square bishop could be developed. This formation, with two pawns so aligned in the middle, is called a classical center or an ideal pawn center.

  Student: Why is it called classical?

  Teacher: For a number of reasons, but primarily because the concept goes back to the earliest generations of strong masters, to those who laid down the bedrock of chess fundamentals. Think about it. The old automobiles of my childhood have turned into collector’s items—classic cars, they call them now. Meanwhile, the radio music of my teenage years has turned into “classic” rock. Practically anything that gets old enough can become classic.

  Student: Does that include chess teachers?

  Teacher: Thanks a lot.

  Student: Sorry. Another question: Why should I be ecstatic if I manage to possess a classical center early on?

  Teacher: Once you’ve established a classical center, especially in the beginning stage of the game, you can undertake many reasonable courses of action. Such a center would give White a commanding space edge and make it difficult for Black to fight back adequately in the central region. Against such poised front lines, Black might wind up falling behind in development, because he’d have far fewer squares he could move to safely. White’s menacing center would have the capacity to drive back Black’s pieces before they could secure themselves on particular posts.

  Student: Wouldn’t it be equally good for Black to have such a center?

  Teacher: Certainly, if the conditions were truly the same. But since Black starts second, he is much less likely to be able to set up such a center logically. Illogically, of course, anything could happen. White might wind up playing so irrelevantly that in effect Black gets the White pieces.

  Student: I can see how such a center might help White’s development, since it makes it easy to move the queen and the bishops freely. Could you go over some of the possible deployments once the classical center is created, and would these include moving any other White pawns?

  Teacher: Actually, White’s pieces are now ready to be developed without having to move any other pawn whatsoever! In fact, White needs only eight moves at most to mobilize his forces from here, once the classical pawn center has been formed. For example, the knights could be moved to f3 and c3, the bishops to c4 and f4, and the queen to d3. White could castle kingside (0-0), and finally move the rooks to the central files by putting the king-rook on e1 and the queen-rook on d1, as in diagram 123.

  Diagram 123. An opening scheme: White is developed, ready for action.

  Student: Would you mind going over the moves leading to the above position?

  Teacher: Not at all, but let me warn you: I’m going to leave Black’s pieces off the board for the next few diagrams in order to make my point clearly. To create the position in diagram 123, White would have to play 1. e4 2. d4, in either order; 3. Nf3 4. Nc3 5. Bc4 6. Bf4, in any order; 7. Qd3 8. 0-0, in either order; and then 9. Rfe1 10. Rad1, in either order. These ten moves together form an opening scheme. Opening schemes are defined by the placement of the pieces around a particular pawn structure. Diagram 124 shows an alternative scheme from the same pawn advances.

  Student: How did you get to this other position?

  Teacher: To get to the position of diagram 124, White played 1. e4 2. d4 3. Nf3 4. Bd3 5. 0-0 6. Bg5 7. Nbd2 8. Qe2 9. Rfe1 10. Rad1. Of course, the same position could have been arrived at through different coherent orders. There are also other ways to develop the pieces around a classical pawn center. These are just representative schemes, where Black hasn’t had an opportunity to respond to White’s moves. In a real game, White would have to reply to Black’s moves, so every idea and plan would have to be based on the actual course of the game, rather than on a fixed set of moves set in plaster. Therefore, in real play, the ideal might not happen at all.

  Diagram 124. A different opening scheme.

  Student: It’s interesting that the king should be considered developed on g1. Why is that?

  Teacher: For the purpose of these exercises, as well as in actual chess games, the king is said to be developed when it’s safely castled and the rooks are mobilized so they can stand sentinel over the central files from the squares e1 and d1. It’s not so much that you’re developing the king; it’s that you’re getting the king out of the way so that the other pieces, such as the rooks, can move along the home rank more freely.

  Student: So development usually entails moving pieces to better places.

  Teacher: Generally, though not always. Sometimes you can develop a piece by moving a pawn out of the way. Development of pieces, however, usually involves their transfer to more effective squares. The minor pieces must be moved off the first rank, though this doesn’t necessarily apply to the queen and the rooks. The latter two can often be developed effectively by shifting them along the first rank to open files, and if not to open files, then to files that may soon become open once obstructing friendly pawns are moved out of the way. How do you think you might be able to get your own pawns out of your way?

  Student: If my pawn advances and subsequently captures an enemy pawn or piece, that will move it diagonally to a different file.

  Teacher: Very good. An obstructing friendly pawn may also be removed in another way, when enemy forces capture it. In turn, the opposing unit that captures your pawn may be recaptured by another of your pieces, instead of another potentially barricading pawn. This would keep the line essentially open, for you could probably move your own piece off the line whenever desirable. That’s not something you could do as easily with a pawn, which can’t move off its file without capturing something. Here’s another challenge for you. Practically speaking, can the position of the pieces in diagram 124 be achieved with essentially one less move?

  Student: I think I have an idea. I think you could save a move in effect if White castles queenside instead of kingside. The king would wind up a different square (c1 instead of g1), but everything else would be the same if, say on move eight, you castled queenside, 8. 0-0-0, and on move nine played the king-rook from h1 to e1.

  Diagram 125. White saves a move by castling queenside.

  Teacher: Really nice. So you see you can achieve this same essential setup in one move. It may only be a si
ngle move, but chess is most definitely a game where little things matter.

  Student: No wonder so much attention can be paid to whether or not the king-rook moves only once instead of twice. But let me ask you something. Is castling queenside preferable to castling kingside?

  Teacher: No, not really, though everything depends on the circumstances you’re presented with in an actual game. Kingside castling occurs more often mainly because it can happen sooner, since there are fewer pieces to get out of the way. To castle queenside, one must also move the queen off the castling side’s first rank. In a real game, of course, circumstances may make it desirable to position the king on a particular side, so it might be wise to castle in that direction. This suggests the following advice, which works for virtually every aspect of your play: Don’t ignore your opponent’s moves. Everything you do can be influenced by what the other player does.

  Student: I hope this doesn’t sound absurd, but suppose your opponent plays without any logic at all, so that it’s as if you were granted three free moves to start a game. After the two moves 1. e4 and 2. d4, should you then move a third pawn on your third turn?

  Diagram 126. Moving the c-pawn to c4 is reasonable, but it’s not necessary to furthering development.

  Diagram 127. Moving the f-pawn to f4 is also good, but it’s also not necessary for future development.

  Teacher: Not at all. Surely you could play 3. c4 or 3. f4 as the next two diagrams show, with an overwhelming position, but there’s no reason you couldn’t start to develop your knights, for instance, which have to be gotten out anyway.

  Student: So I shouldn’t move a third pawn in this situation?

  Teacher: You could move a third pawn advantageously, but such an advance doesn’t contribute significantly to future development to make it essential. To complete your development, it’s sufficient to begin the process by moving only the two center pawns. After that, it’s easy to develop all your pieces, and no other pawn necessarily has to be moved to complete development, assuming your opponent doesn’t respond meaningfully, in a way that would dissuade you.

  Student: Obviously, real opponents may try to deter me in every way they can.

  Teacher: That’s right, so you should be as economical as possible in deploying your forces. Rather than move a third pawn, for the newcomer it’s more prudent to commence the mobilization of the pieces on the back rank. You’ve laid down the front lines with the e-pawn and the d-pawn. Now bring up the support troops behind them and get going.

  Student: It still seems a little weird, thinking about the impossible.

  Teacher: It’s actually not that weird, and it’s not that impossible. I know it seems odd to consider what you would do if you could make three unanswered moves in a row. But you’d be surprised how often opponents may play totally unresponsive moves that have little bearing on what’s really happening. If your opponent happens to be that foolish, you’ll be able to develop as if he is playing no moves at all. Then you’ll want to proceed optimally, aiming for the ideal setup. Imagine a game where your opponent plays moves like 1 … a5, 2 … Na6, and 3 … Rb8 (diagram 128). You could more or less do whatever you want. What you should want is to maintain control, so that you can win as expeditiously as possible. In chess, it’s all about control. You want to control the game. You aim to control your opponent’s responses.

  Diagram 128. White has played three logical moves; Black, three illogical ones.

  Student: Does thinking about what you’d like to do help you get it done?

  Teacher: Yes, because it keeps key things in mind, just in case opportunities should arise. Being mindful of future possibilities and designs always adds a dimension to your play. This is why, as a training procedure, some teachers have their students play as many unanswered moves from the start as they wish until they’ve achieved what they consider to be the perfect position. If the teacher relies on this approach, he usually insists on one restriction: nothing can be moved beyond one’s own fourth rank so that the entire action stays in the realm of build-up, not execution. This exercise helps students think in terms of schemes, plans, and goals. The point is, it’s easier to look ahead if you have some idea what to look for. In real games, the other player will probably try to stop you, of course—from doing good things and even from seeing them.

  Student: But I should always aim for the best.

  Teacher: While being prepared to ward off the worst. Would you like to summarize?

  Student: Since White would try to move both center pawns two squares each under ideal conditions, the player handling the White side should try to do exactly that in actual play.

  Teacher: But, as we have clearly pointed out, real adversaries will not sit back and let their opponent proceed without contention. Whoever handles Black will naturally try to make White’s plans difficult or downright undesirable. Former world champion Emanuel Lasker (1868-1941) wrote a philosophical treatise entitled Struggle, which drew analogies between chess and other disciplines. Lasker described the game as a simple battle where the players inevitably tussle for control.

  Student: Since they start the game with exactly the same position, do White and Black start with the same plans?

  Teacher: Yes and no. Black would like to be able to do what White can, but as you know, he begins a move behind. So I’d put it this way: White tries to convert his first-move advantage into a win, and Black tries to offset that advantage and steal the initiative, essentially so that he can act as if he has the White pieces. In chess, players begin at the beginning with about equal chances. The one who is most likely to gain true control at some point in the game is likely to be the one who takes his idea and follows it up most consistently. Winners don’t necessarily make the first move, just the best or most opportunistic ones at the right times.

  Student: I seem to recall a line about how the winner is the one who makes the next to last mistake.

  Teacher: Are you sure you’ve never played this game before?

  Student: I hope this doesn’t get us off track, because I know we’ve mainly been focused on pieces and their development. Still, I’d like to ask another question about pawns. I see some things about how pawn moves can be good when they attack or defend soundly. But what are the consequences of bad pawn moves?

  Teacher: Any kind of bad move is bad by definition, so I suspect you’re really talking about unnecessary pawn moves. Even if such moves don’t lead to serious weaknesses, they simply waste time that could be put to better use developing pieces. Especially in the opening, every move, every tempo—which, as in music, constitutes a unit of time—is critical and should be utilized for the mobilization of the forces.

  Student: Could you go into more detail on that?

  Teacher: You bet. Once pawns advance beyond a point, they can never again guard the squares they’ve passed. Unlike pieces, pawns can’t move backward. Their consequences are irreversible. If you make a bad pawn move, you’re stuck with it. With pieces, on the other hand, you sometimes get an opportunity to retract errors at the cost of a wasted move, though that can mean trouble too.

  Student: Are pawns good defenders, or are they simply too weak to be relied on?

  Teacher: Pawns can be great defenders, especially because they’re not valuable. This makes them more expendable than other units. Every enemy piece must respect a square guarded by a pawn, for if the piece lands on that square, it may be captured without fear of losing material, even if the pawn that takes the piece is then taken back. Who wants to lose a piece for a pawn?

  Student: Supposedly, you shouldn’t move the pawns around your king without a good reason.

  Teacher: You shouldn’t do anything without a good reason, but as a rule it’s especially wise not to move the pawns in front of your king unless truly desirable or necessary. Pawns are particularly good defenders for the king, where their intact arrangement around a castled king’s position tends to ward off most enemy invaders. Move those pawns and you might expose your king to a ras
h of invasive forces.

  Student: I’ve heard this may be especially true for the f-pawn.

  Teacher: Quite so. Deadly consequences, for example, may result from pushing the king-bishop pawn, otherwise known as the f-pawn, because moving it greatly weakens an uncastled king’s setup. Of course, pushing the f-pawn tends to be a far less serious offense after the king is already castled kingside. Moving the f-pawn then can even be a good thing, because your own king-rook might be able to capitalize on the opening of the f-file. But if you do move your f-pawn after castling kingside, you’ll want to make sure the suddenly opened diagonal running from queen-rook-7 to king-knight-1 can’t be exploited by your opponent.

  Student: Many inexperienced players move up their rook-pawns to keep enemy knights and bishops from invading. Is that a good idea?

  Teacher: Not really. In fact, it can be weakening and a waste of time. Unless you have a good reason for doing otherwise, and really understand the implications, try not to move your rook-pawns in the early part of the opening. It does nothing for development. It also reduces the ability to control certain squares on the adjacent knight file, and it’s even possible for the rook-pawn in question to become a target itself.

  Student: Okay, I’ll try not to move my rook-pawns unnecessarily.

  Teacher: Moving any pawns unnecessarily in the opening is generally not a good idea, and some of the shortest games in chess history have resulted from ill-considered premature pawn thrusts. Remember the game we examined at the end of our first lesson? That game, nicknamed the Fool’s Mate, provides perfect proof of the pernicious consequences of unnecessary pawn moves. Similar losses can occur even when masters are playing, no matter how masterfully they think they play Take a look at this game, played between two French masters in the 1920s.

  Diagram 129. After the moves 1. d4 Nf6.

  Teacher: Black’s first move prevents White from building a classical pawn center bv moving the e-pawn two squares, for now it would be captured for free. The move Nf6 also develops a piece toward the center.