Student: I suppose it’s safe to say similar things about a Black knight placed on f6?
Teacher: Most assuredly. But let me get back to the f3-knight in particular. If it can later be anchored by a friendly pawn, and placed in a way that denies an enemy pawn actual or practical chances to drive it away, the f3-knight can be positioned beautifully on the attack-square e5. Notice in the constructed position of diagram 174 how the strong knight on e5 severely restricts Black’s bishop.
Diagram 174. White’s knight is strong on e5.
Student: Why should White have all the fun?
Teacher: Good point, which is why in the imagined situation of diagram 175 you’ll find it’s Black who has the aggressive knight. Having gone from f6 to g4, the knight assails f2 and h2, the latter in tandem with Black’s queen. Fortunately, White can hold the fort by shifting his knight to f1, but it doesn’t always work out so conveniently in similar circumstances, and the knightly g4-intrusion can often be more serious.
Student: Could you elaborate on Black’s knights?
Teacher: As I’ve said, Black’s king-knight has the same powers from f6 as White’s knight on f3. A black knight at f6 is prepared to move to e4 under ideal conditions, and it’s also ready to invade on g4, as we’ve seen in diagram 175, if the situation is suitably inviting. Queen-knights for both sides can do well from the bishop-3 squares, so it’s usually wise to move them there if circumstances support such developments. So both White and Black normally consider the possibility of developing their queen-knights to their respective queen-bishop-3 squares: c3 for White and c6 for Black. But these are not absolute decisions, and circumstances may very easily lead both sides to move queen-knights elsewhere.
Diagram 175. Black’s knight means business on g4.
Student: I expect it has something to do with the chosen opening—for example, whether White begins with a king-pawn opening or a queen-pawn opening.
Teacher: Very true. It’s not unreasonable to say that placing the queen-knight on the bishop-3 square is more likely in king-pawn openings than queen-pawn openings. Even then, the situation may be different for White and Black, since Black is a move behind and may have to make developmental concessions. Let’s not get into queen-pawn openings here, though, for this would divert us away from the game at hand.
Student: Fine, we can drop queen-pawn games for now, but what about the development of bishops in king-pawn openings? Knights may often come out sooner than bishops, but bishops still have to be developed at some time. Where do they usually go?
Teacher: This is a little harder to determine because bishops usually have more options than knights. Often you have to wait to see where to put them. In most games, though of course not all, the king-knights tend to go to the king-bishop-three square almost no matter what. We can’t necessarily say where the king-bishop is usually going to go. Its development is simply too subservient to attendant conditions.
Student: What about the catchphrase “knights before bishops”?
Teacher: It’s a principle with very slight merit. Why does it exist? Well, let’s see. It takes a knight at least two moves, even three or four or more, to assume advanced positions. Bishops almost never need that many moves to get into the thick of things, so that’s one reason to try to move knights generally before bishops. Another rationale for “knights before bishops” rests on the fact that no pawn has to be pushed in order for a knight to make a move. Therefore, it’s easier to develop knights, although I must point out that ease in itself should not necessarily be the linchpin for doing anything. Since bishops do tend to have more options, a knight move involves less immediate commitment and, thus, more opening flexibility. And finally, by developing at least the king-knight first, you secure your position better defensively, in that a knight positioned at king-bishop-3 stops the enemy queen from invading. That is, the White king-knight at f3 keeps Black’s queen out of h4, and the Black king-knight at f6 keeps White’s queen out of h5.
Student: Sounds like it’s almost never good to develop bishops before knights.
Teacher: Never? Like every other principle, this one is open to argument, a never-ending chessic dialectic. In many instances, especially for Black, moving a bishop before moving a knight can be fairly typical and very much in tune with the way the game develops. It can be a wise choice, or even a necessity, to move the bishop first.
Student: If this is so, then why does this principle seem to pop up in so many chess books?
Teacher: Primarily because it was put forth by a number of the classic writers, who often dealt mainly with double king-pawn openings. It turns out that the principle holds slightly more true for games beginning 1. e4 e5, and it tends to be even more reliable for White than for Black. But times have changed, and many vigorous and dynamic opening ideas have worked their way into today’s repertory. Today’s savvy player will do whatever works, not what he’s told will work. Probably I would restate this olden principle this way: “In double king-pawn openings, most of the time, White should develop his king-knight to f3 before developing his king-bishop, unless he prefers to develop the king-bishop first for meaningful reasons.” Since this way of putting it has no value to anyone, I offer it as the kind of thing chess writers and teachers say as a matter of course.
Student: I have a modification for you. Does this work? Develop minor pieces before major pieces.
Teacher: Yes, it does. It’s a lot more correct. Neither does it stop us so much from thinking on our own—to see what really succeeds, rather than what’s supposed to.
Student: Let me ask you this. Since some of these principles seem to get us nowhere, why should we resort to them at all?
Teacher: The better principles have great value. Even imprecise axioms, such as “knights before bishops,” can be helpful when you can’t seem to find your way. If you need to get your bearings, look for one or two principles in such situations as beacons to guide you to safety. If you can think of a principle or general guideline that seems to relate to the given circumstances, ask some probing questions about it. Try to find out if the principle really does apply and whether it can be used to help you find your way through the forest of variations you face at every turn. If it does, a catchy rule of thumb can function as the foundation for your next move. That’s the real value of a principle: to give you a helping hand, to start you thinking.
Student: I guess principles are like the latest weather report. You can never treat them as absolutes, but it makes sense to consult them anyway.
Teacher: Principles are merely guidelines, and subject to exception after exception after exception. In the end, rather than submitting to the iron hand of ruthlessly imposed illogic, we have to determine our own fate if it’s to have any poetry, or music, or import at all. But let’s get back to our game. It’s White’s third move. What should he do?
Student: Well, what about opening up with 3. d4? If you answer me with 3 … exd4, I can take back, 4. Nxd4, bringing my knight to a center square.
Teacher: Now you’re getting into the spirit of things. You’re trying to look three half moves ahead. That is, you’re trying to find your move, your opponent’s likely response, and your possible answer to that. If you can follow this formula, trying to find your move, his move, and then your move after that, then you’re really playing chess.
Student: Since everything seems to have a name, does the move 3. d4 here, at this particular time, signify anything?
Diagram 176. After 3. d4—the Scotch Game.
Teacher: This opening sequence is known as the Scotch Game. This opening (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4) was first cited in a 1750 book written by the Italian master Ercole del Rio. The Scotch derived its name from several matches played in Edinburgh between 1824 and 1829. According to Joseph Henry Blackburne (1841-1924), the Scotch Game “gives birth to the sort of position that the young player should study.” Of course, chess experts often agree to disagree. The German grandmaster Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch (1862-1935) referred to i
t as “bright and lively but at the cost of solidity.” Both men are no longer with us, so we have some leeway here.
Student: That’s good to know. Can you tell me anything helpful about the Scotch?
Teacher: On the surface, the Scotch seems to give White movement in the center and quick development. But there are drawbacks. Black has chances for counterplay against the White e-pawn. Moreover, since Black has not had to play the blocking move d7-d6, impeding the f8-bishop, he’s not as cramped. Black also has the opportunity to play the freeing advance d7-d5 in one move, instead of wasting a tempo moving the queen-pawn first to d6 and later to d5. If you do play the Scotch, as Black, I am going to take your d-pawn, 3 … exd4 (diagram 177).
Diagram 177. After the actual 3 … exd4.
Student: Since I don’t want to lose my queen, I suppose I’m going to take back with my knight, 4. Nxd4 (diagram 178).
Diagram 178. After the actual 4. Nxd4.
Teacher: You may want to ask yourself this question: should Black force White to expose his queen by 4 … Nxd4 5. Qxd4 (diagram 179)?
Diagram 179. After the possibility of 5. Qxd4.
Student: That’s a good one. It looks like an earlier situation we’ve considered, namely the position occurring after 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4 (diagram 155), when Black could start harassing White’s queen by 3 … Nc6.
Diagram 180. After 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4.
Teacher: Actually, it does appear similar. But there’s also something quite different about it. In diagram 155 and now diagram 180, Black’s queen-knight can develop to c6, assailing White’s queen. In diagram 179, Black no longer has his queen-knight. Therefore, he can’t develop it to c6, attacking the White queen. You can’t move what doesn’t exist. This means that Black won’t be able to drive the White queen from the center conveniently in diagram 179.
Student: From diagram 179, couldn’t Black exploit the position of White’s queen by the advance 5 … c5 (diagram 181)?
Diagram 181. After the possibility of 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Nxd4 5. Qxd4 c5.
Teacher: You’re right. The only real try to chase the queen is 5 … c5. That would drive White’s queen from the center immediately. But 5 … c5 doesn’t develop a new piece, nor does it contribute significantly to any other piece’s development. The fact that the Black queen thereafter has access to the queenside along the d8-a5 diagonal is not terribly significant. Moreover, with a pawn now at c5, the f8-bishop’s diagonal is blocked. Another problem is that this less-than-desirable pawn move severely weakens Black’s potential to control d5 and d6. These points can never again be guarded by a Black pawn, and White will have an excellent chance to occupy them, especially d5, which is secured by a White pawn from e4.
Student: So it doesn’t matter very much that Black gains a little time by attacking the queen here.
Teacher: That’s essentially correct. In trying to take advantage of the White queen’s central position by playing c7-c5, Black has to accept a permanent liability—the weak squares along the d-file. A temporary gain in time for an enduring structural weakness is not a fair exchange.
Student: Perhaps money should be offered as well?
Teacher: Funny. But it’s interesting to note that this position constitutes yet another exception to a rule—in this case, the one that advises so strenuously against early development of the queen. Once Black has exchanged his queen-knight (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Nxd4 5. Qxd4—diagram 179), it’s perfectly satisfactory for White to have his queen out there in the middle of the board. Black has no effective way to attack it. White’s queen can sit in the center, striking out in all directions, while Black’s queen is unable to assume a comparable position by occupying his own queen-four square, namely d5. But developing the White queen two moves earlier (1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4—diagrams 155 and 180) would have been a different matter altogether, because the queen could then be dislodged effectively at once (by 3 … Nc6).
Student: I think the point is clear enough: all ideas in chess are a function of time and place. The same idea, played on a different move, is a different idea.
Teacher: That’s right. You have to be there. Astute chessplayers respect minor divergences. A slight change can make all the difference, transforming a bad situation into a good one in a single move.
Student: In this variation, after 5. Qxd4 (diagram 179), it seems that White didn’t have to exert himself to bring out his queen.
Teacher: That’s a cardinal point. For White to move his queen out would simply be a natural outcome of logical play. Black here causes his own problems by making a bad exchange with 4 … Nxd4. You can lose time by exchanging if you exchange a developed piece for an undeveloped one, or your opponent retakes with a developing move. You can even lose something substantial in an exchange if your opponent retakes with an already developed piece while positioning it on a more effective square. So taking the pawn (3 … exd4—diagram 177) is one thing, but trading knights (4 … Nxd4) is another. Clearly, after exchanging (3 … exd4 4. Nxd4—diagram 178) Black should now play a different fourth move.
Student: Could Black now play out his king-bishop, 4 … Bc5 (diagram 182), threatening White’s knight on d4?
Diagram 182. After the possibility of 4 … Bc5.
Teacher: Of course. This is a pragmatic developing move, which indeed menaces the knight at d4. If it’s played, White’s parry could be 5. Be3 (diagram 183), defending the d4-knight and preparing an unpleasant trap for Black. Can you see what White would then be threatening?
Diagram 183. After 5. Be3, threatening to win a piece.
Student: I’m not sure. The move 5. Be3 seems purely defensive, to guard the knight on d4.
Teacher: It’s defensive all right. But the move 5. Be3 also has an aggressive edge to it. This is usually the best way to go in chess: combining offense and defense with the same move. White very definitely has a threat. Given the opportunity, he could capture the queen-knight, 6. Nxc6. After Black recaptures on c6, White would then be able to snatch the bishop on c5 for free, 7. Bxc5, assuming Black’s fifth move didn’t secure the c5-bishop in some way. A piece up at that point, White would then be able to play for a win by exchanging pieces and avoiding complications where he might potentially lose the position’s thread. Keep it simple and under control—that’s the way to win when ahead by a piece.
Diagram 184. After the possible continuation 5 … Nf6? 6. Nxc6, and Black will lose at least the bishop on c5.
Student: If White plays badly after winning the bishop on c5, couldn’t Black find a way to come back and win?
Teacher: Black might be able to come back if he plays doggedly and, more particularly, if White doesn’t bother to play at all. But that’s the point. White would have to jettison his advantage. If White doesn’t blunder, Black will not be in a position to do anything about changing his ultimate fate. White would be in total command, with the ability to force the win no matter how well Black played thereafter, even if Black were Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov combined. You can’t defy gravity, no matter how light you are.
Student: I don’t understand. Shouldn’t you consider everything, even the possibility of the other side making mistakes?
Teacher: Remember my earlier point? It’s not really necessary to consider everything because most things simply aren’t worth it. You have to be careful not to base your strategy on false hopes. When evaluating a chess position, you should only consider the forces and actions that you can control, whether you can see deeply into them or not. In chess, if one side has an extra piece, and the other side has no significant compensation, as is the case here, the side with greater material should be able to win practically for sure by relying on typical simplifying methods and their corresponding principles. After securing the advantage of an extra bishop, correct play will lead to checkmate in 99 out of 100 cases. All other things being equal, the stronger chess army wins. It’s ugly, but it’s the simple truth.
Student: Wha
t is the winning technique with an extra piece?
Teacher: The same as it is in most instances when you’re ahead in material: exchange pieces and avoid complications. This emphasizes your advantage because if you trade efficiently unit for unit, your extra piece is likely to be the only meaningful survivor. Your extra thing will then be able to steal the other guy’s remaining things, and you’ll be ahead by more and more things until your juggernauting things can force checkmate. Moreover, “trading down” reduces the possibility of counterplay. If the opponent has nothing left, he can’t attack. Finally, by keeping it simple, you make it harder for your opponent to trick you into making a turnaround mistake.
Student: I thought chess consisted of things and thoughts, but now I see things are thoughts too, which leads me to an idea. I suspect this is more of an endgame question rather than an opening one. Suppose I’m not up by a piece and ahead by only the exchange. Say, for example, I’ve won a rook for a minor piece. How should I try to play for a win then?
Teacher: Your thoughts are wandering a little, but let’s respond anyway. Being up the exchange means more in some situations than others, but it always refers to cases in which one side has gained a rook for a bishop or a knight. Let’s also assume, for the purposes of this discussion, that the other forces on the board balance out for White and Black, the only difference being the rook for the minor piece.
Student: No problem. So how does the side with the exchange up try to win?
Pandolfini’s Ultimate Guide to Chess Page 11
