Teacher: Generally, it’s not a good idea, though it very much depends on circumstances. You wouldn’t think twice about bringing the queen out early if it gave you immediate checkmate, would you? You’d just do it and tell the principle advising against early queen development where to go. On the other hand, the queen is particularly vulnerable to enemy threats. If it’s menaced, you’re probably going to have to move your queen away to safety, possibly for several moves, in order to prevent it from either being captured or finding its abilities severely impaired.
Student: You know what I hate? Losing queen for queen.
Teacher: No one likes to lose his queen, but trading queens is an entirely different matter. Wouldn’t you be willing to trade queens if doing so enabled you to win the game for sure on the next move?
Student: I guess.
Teacher: You guess? Of course you would. But by the same token, if you’d be willing to trade queens because you know you’d win for sure on the next move, perhaps you could understand why strong players, with all their experience and know-how, might be willing to trade queens for the tiniest of meaningful reasons. They know that such small advantages almost always win in the end too.
Student: I get it: Small advantages, in the right hands, win just as easily as big advantages in smaller hands.
Teacher: Well put. Now back to the point. Bringing the queen out early isn’t always a bad idea, but it can easily lead to a loss of time, and losing time can be critical in the opening.
Student: So moving the queen early on tends to fritter time away, but not always?
Teacher: That’s about right. Sometimes you can waste a turn to save your queen and still maintain an advantage in time, especially if you can move the queen to safety while issuing a counter-threat in turn. But if you have to move your queen over a series of unnecessary moves, this can add up to a serious loss of time that might even cost you the game. Think what can happen by playing four pointless moves. Imagine being reduced to four moves with the lone queen, while your opponent uses the same time to put four different pieces into the field. It could result in chessic disaster for the side with the hapless queen.
Student: So if I wanted to bring out the queen early, I would have to have a very good reason for doing so.
Teacher: Right. Rather than bringing out the queen so early, it makes practical sense to first bring out other friendly forces. As a rule, try to attack in number, using all your pieces, especially the bishops and knights, which are your minor pieces. Don’t attack impetuously with lean forces. Prepare the queen’s entrance by bringing out the support troops first. Eventually, the queen will be ready for action, and then it can become a real menace to weak points in the enemy’s camp because of its wide range and striking power. Since it’s able to attack in all directions, it’s capable of delivering multiple threats with the same move. The ability to issue several threats at once is vital weaponry when grappling for material advantages.
Student: But isn’t it easy to see how beginners would want to win quickly with superior and overwhelming force?
Teacher: It’s easy to see how even strong players would want to do that, but they tend to know better, particularly when it comes to the ways in which early deployment of the queen can backfire. Newcomers naturally overuse the queen because they are impressed by its great strength, without considering the possible ramifications of such misuse. It’s funny, but we’re not really sure how the queen got to be so powerful in the first place. Originally, the queen was a weak piece known as the advisor, sitting next to the king. It moved only one diagonal square at a time, like an inferior bishop. Apparently, its powers reflected political belief at the time. In the real world it was thought that true power rested with the monarch, not his advisors. We see how different our own world has become. Somewhere around the 13th century, the advisor became the queen. Perhaps its rising importance paralleled the expanding role of ruling queens in Western history.
Student: So not only was the game possibly invented by woman, its most powerful piece is symbolically feminine. Is that why so many beginners avoid queen trades altogether?
Teacher: Probably this is not the chief reason for most beginners. I suspect it has more to do with fascination over the queen’s value, which leads novices to avoid early queen exchanges. They tend to feel that without the queen they either can’t play at all or that the game is less interesting. This is easy to understand, because the queen’s clout is so appealing. But what could be more attractive than winning itself? If trading queens brings this about, that’s the way to go. You have to aim for the ultimate good, however it’s achieved.
Student: Okay, here’s an idea for you: I think I understand the queen’s power and abilities better than I do the other pieces. That’s why I don’t want to trade it so much, because for me the queen is easier to grasp, and by keeping my queen, I can play better.
Teacher: From the way you’ve just put it, keeping your queen implies that you’ll play worse. I can, however, see what you’re trying to say. Certainly each particular piece demands particular attention, methods, and techniques. But before you can master the queen, it makes greater sense to try to understand to some degree the rook and the bishop, the two pieces that compose the queen’s power. The whole is certainly greater than the sum of its parts, but it doesn’t follow that the whole is necessarily easier to understand. That’s why we analyze in chess, to break moves down into their conceptual constituents. Players should learn how to use all the pieces, not just the queen, especially if they want to play the game astutely. That can be hard to do if they unreasonably cling to indefensible principles.
Student: But can’t you violate principles against weaker opponents, especially if you’re a very strong player?
Teacher: Base your decisions on the board, not your opponent’s strength. Analyze all positions objectively, and then select a course of action. Never play a move you know to be bad or against the spirit of the game, because even a weak player might exploit it if given the opportunity. Good players don’t take unnecessary chances. They try to win by risking virtually nothing. As a rule:
1. Never violate a principle without a good reason.
2. Play the board, not the opponent.
Student: After 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4, you’ve implied that White doesn’t have to take back on d4 right away. Instead of 3. Qxd4, what else could he profitably do?
Diagram 157. After 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4.
Teacher: White instead could offer a pawn sacrifice, not aiming to take back on d4 right away, in order to gain time for development. Two alternatives are 3. c3 (diagram 158) and 3. Nf3 (diagram 159), but exploring these possibilities in detail can be left for another time. For now, suffice it to say that if White were to offer such a sacrifice it would be with the hope of building an attack by going ahead in development. Furthermore, by playing 3. Nf3, White isn’t necessarily sacrificing a pawn. In some cases he may simply be delaying capture for a move or two, using the time to increase his development, as Black does in the line 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 (see diagram 152).
Diagram 158. After 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3, offering a gambit.
Diagram 159. After 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Nf3.
Student: I’m curious. After 1. e4 e5 2. d4, should Black let White’s pawn be and defend his own instead?
Teacher: The correct move for Black here is to take White’s pawn. Unless White is mentally prepared to play differently, he will have to expend a move to take the pawn back. At least temporarily, this gives Black the initiative and the next free move. This doesn’t mean that Black couldn’t defend his e-pawn satisfactorily, say by 2 … Nc6 (diagram 160). But this position is not so easy for a newcomer to understand.
Diagram 160. Reasonable for Black, but slightly harder for a beginner to play.
Student: How about defending e5 with the one-square advance 2 … d6?
Diagram 161. Too passive for Black.
Teacher: One thing Black shouldn’t do is defend e5 by playing to
2 … d6. That would lead to an unfavorable trade of queens for Black, and a desirable exchange for White, after 3. dxe5 dxe5 4. Qxd8+ Kxd8 (diagram 162). Black has lost the ability to castle and his king remains in the center, where it’s more vulnerable to White’s forces because the center is open.
Diagram 162. Black’s king is potentially exposed.
Student: Is it always bad to lose the right to castle?
Teacher: Sometimes losing the right to castle doesn’t lead to chessic suicide, especially when players are moving toward the endgame. At that point, the king may actually be better placed in the center. But in most cases involving the opening, losing the right to castle usually means that the defender will have to be very careful, hoping to get his king to safety before enemy pieces can start sniping at it. It’s no fun to find your king the mark for target practice.
Student: Obviously, it’s clear the trade of queens may be desirable for non-material reasons. But what about sacrificing the queen, giving it up for less material? Is that ever a good idea?
Teacher: You can only do this if you know for sure that your sacrifice is going to work. Otherwise, giving the queen up at a loss would be foolish. There’s an exception, of course.
Student: Isn’t there always?
Teacher: Yes, although there are exceptions to that, too.
Student: I suppose there’s no exception to checkmate.
Teacher: Not if it’s legal. When that happens, the game is most definitely over.
Student: Would you mind clearing up the concept of sacrifice? Based on what we’ve said or haven’t said so far, I feel there’s some ambiguity there.
Teacher: In general, a sacrifice is the voluntary offer of material for the purpose of gaining a greater or more useful advantage in either material, attack on the enemy king, or some other factor. Often the sacrifice is made in conjunction with a number of moves in a combination. Rudolph Spielmann, in his Art of Sacrifice in Chess, said: “The beauty of a game of chess is usually appraised, and with good reason, according to the sacrifices it contains…. The glowing power of the sacrifice is irresistible: enthusiasm for sacrifice lies in man’s nature.”
Student: Is a gambit a sacrifice?
Teacher: Yes, it is. A gambit is a voluntary offer, usually of a pawn in the opening, in an attempt to gain another kind of advantage, especially in time. The gambiteer hopes to garner several tempi for the pawn and build a winning attack. Give any opponent three extra moves and see what happens. Time advantages in the opening can affect the whole game. Obviously, if you use your time edge to force checkmate right away, there’s no middlegame or endgame, and you can forget about who has the better pawn structure or more material. If particular sacrifices or gambits seem to bring you closer to winning, then you should seriously consider offering them. If they don’t seem to be too promising, however, then don’t play them. It’s that simple.
Student: Can you give me some specific examples of gambits or opening sacrifices?
Teacher: How about the double-edged King’s Gambit? It’s possibly the most celebrated opening sacrifice of all. It’s brought about by the moves 1. e4 e5 2. f4. Although it can give White a powerful initiative, it can also lead to a breach in the protective wall around his own king.
Diagram 163. The King’s Gambit.
Teacher: Another gambit can be found in E. M. Forster’s Abinger Harvest. There the writer conveys a fascination for the Evans Gambit, which occurs after the moves 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4. It was first played in the 1820s by a Welsh sea captain, William Evans. White sacrifices the b-pawn for open lines and central activity. Forster liked this aggressive game, but it’s come to my attention that he lacked the knowledge needed to conduct the offensive.
Diagram 164. The Evans Gambit.
Student: Are there other advantages to be found in gambits?
Teacher: Yes. They include gaining an attack, increasing or seizing the initiative, or improving and adding to development. All are nice goals at any point, but they are especially so during the opening, when the most handy weapon is often the asset of an extra move. But gambits are small sacrifices. It’s quite another matter to sacrifice your queen. Before doing that, you’d better know what you’re doing. Of course, if you know what you’re doing, and you can see your way to victory, sacrificing the queen may not be a sacrifice at all. It’s no sacrifice on my part.
LESSON 7
DEVELOPMENT AND THE CENTER
Teacher: Can you summarize what you’ve learned about the importance of time in the opening?
Student: Since gaining time is vital during the opening stages of a game, both players should avoid moves that waste it. Players squander time by bringing the queen out too early and making unnecessary pawn moves.
Teacher: Right on the money.
Student: Maybe I should start betting on my games. But not before I figure out the more subtle differences between pawns and pieces during the initial stages of the opening. How should these various things be used?
Teacher: In the early part of the opening, pawns should be used to stake out territory and clear lines for developing pieces.
Student: We’ve already talked about that. But I’m sure there are more intricate issues involved.
Teacher: Pawns are excellent for warding off invaders. They are generally more efficient defenders than the heavy pieces, the queens and rooks. Tying down a pawn to a protective chore is more economical than squandering a queen or a rook for that purpose. Bishops and knights, the minor pieces, fit neatly between heavy pieces and pawns. They can be decent attackers, able to strike across distances, and they are more expendable than either queens or rooks, which explains why it’s imperative to activate them expeditiously in the opening. They should lay claim to the center of the board and arrive ready for potential invasions into the enemy camp.
Student: I used to love camp.
Teacher: Let’s consider a few more subtleties. Compare, for example, the unit values of a rook and a pawn vs. two minor pieces. They seem to be even, at six points for each side. In actuality, they’re not really equivalent. True, a rook and a pawn are worth about six, but a bishop and a knight together are worth about seven, not six. Call it the new chess math. Three and three add up to something like seven, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. But the evaluation of different combinations always has something to do with circumstances and the accompanying phase of the game.
Student: I think I’m finally beginning to understand that everything is always dependent on everything else.
Teacher: And not only on a chessboard, either. Still, in terms of sheer worth, two minor pieces are usually preferable to a rook and a pawn in the opening and the middlegame, though the balance of power can sometimes shift in the endgame. The bishops and knights begin to pull their weight almost from the moment they leave their home rank, often threatening trouble in tandem, making them particularly valuable in the early stages of a game, when opponents could easily be caught unprepared. Bishops and knights can become effective immediately for both attack and defense, and they can reach good squares without much trouble. Rooks and pawns, on the other hand, aren’t as readily deployed early on. The pawn, in particular, is usually confined more or less to the file it originally occupies, and even a capture only takes it to an adjacent file.
Student: So rooks tend to have little impact in the opening?
Teacher: That’s not always true, just for the most part. Even after castling they’re often half asleep. Usually, rooks are at their best in the late middlegame and approaching the endgame. By then, files are open and the board is sufficiently clear for the rook to strut its stuff. Unobstructed lines into the enemy camp practically invite a rook’s intrusion. In fact, in many endgames, a lone rook is just as strong as a knight and a bishop combined. But in the opening, it often takes a rook and two pawns to equal the unified force of bishop and knight. That’s chess synergy at work.
Student: And the pawn?
Teacher:
As for the plodding pawn, its mobility can be practically nil in comparison to the other units. Move a pawn too precipitously in the beginning and it might become overextended and hard to defend. In the opening a pawn is often, though not exclusively, respected as a defensive unit. To some extent, it’s best left on its original square until much later on, unless its movement contributes to control of the center, development, or some definite chessic purpose.
Student: When visions of promotion can aspire it to greatness. Speaking of which, I have to decide on my second move. Should I play 2. d4?
Teacher: After 1. e4 e5, I don’t recommend playing 2. d4, which is too risky and too forcing. Instead, I suggest the steadier 2. Nf3.
Diagram 165. Developing and threatening.
Student: What’s so great about 2. Nf3?
Teacher: This move actually has at least four patent advantages. It prepares for playing d2-d4 later, at a sounder time; it develops the king-knight toward the center; it threatens the Black e-pawn; and it controls, to some extent, Black’s response. He can’t afford to lose a pawn for nothing, at least not without a gimmick. He’s either got to defend the e5-pawn or play a suitable counterattack.
Student: All right. I accept the worth of 2. Nf3, especially with all it does. It seems as if you prefer moves that do several things at once.
Teacher: Whenever you can make moves with multiple positive outcomes, some of which are hidden or difficult for the opponent to perceive, you’re playing chess as it should be played. If you can get away with disguising your intentions so effectively that you play moves achieving your goals without making any significant concessions, you may call yourself either a master or a master of disguise.
Student: I will attempt to camouflage my thoughts masterfully.
Teacher: But not just here and now.
Student: In that case, I’d like to ask you this. What if Black answers my second move not by guarding his threatened king-pawn, but by a counterattacking knight move of his own, 2 … Nf6, hitting my king-pawn? I know we looked at this a little earlier, but it wasn’t clear that you thought it was all right to play it.
Pandolfini’s Ultimate Guide to Chess Page 9
