Pandolfini’s Ultimate Guide to Chess

by Bruce Pandolfini

  Teacher: Even Steinitz would want you to rely on standard values to help determine the worthiness of most captures and exchanges.

  Student: Could you go into how a calculation is actually made?

  Teacher: Some ground rules first. Generally, unless exchanging brings you non-material compensation—for example, an attack against the enemy king—you’ll want to get back at least as much material as you give up. So start evaluating an exchange of material by counting and comparing specific types of units for each side. Begin, for example, with the pawns. Then ascend up the scale in value, doing the same kind of calculating and comparing for each unit, going from minor pieces to rooks to queen(s). For this analysis, it’s often convenient to group bishops and knights together under the broader category of minor pieces, so that having a force of two knights and one bishop means you have three minor pieces. It doesn’t have to be done this way if you prefer comparing by specific piece, of course.

  Student: Could you run through an unambiguous example?

  Teacher: I’d be happy to. Let’s take a look at diagram 241. Begin by counting the pawns for each side. Then compare. White has six pawns and Black has five. Since we’re only concerned with noting differences, at this stage of the calculation you could say White is ahead by a pawn.

  Diagram 241. White has a bishop and pawn for a rook.

  Student: So far, that’s just pawns. What about the rest of the stuff?

  Teacher: Now you’re ready for stage two, counting and comparing minor pieces, which are worth about three pawns each. In diagram 241 White has three minor pieces (two bishops and one knight), while Black has two minor pieces (one bishop and one knight). So at this point of the calculation White has an extra bishop. Combine your first two calculating steps and you can conclude that White is ahead by a bishop and a pawn. But there’s still more to calculate—the rooks and queens.

  Student: Why can’t I just say I’m ahead by four points?

  Teacher: It lacks specificity. You should always try to state exactly what the differences are, because being precise tells you so much more.

  Student: Okay. So what about the rooks?

  Teacher: Here it’s Black who has the edge, two rooks to one. So if we restate the situation of our calculation so far, White has a bishop and a pawn for a rook. Since both sides have a queen, they balance out and need not be factored into the calculation. And there’s my point: there never was a need to total points. By specific comparison you can conclude that White has a bishop and a pawn for a rook. You could also say that Black is up a rook for a bishop and a pawn, or that White is down a bishop and a pawn for a rook. They all indicate so much more than saving that White is behind by a point—which could mean many things. Remember that the specific says so much more than the general, which can sometimes say nothing.

  Student: What was so wrong about saying that Black is ahead by a point? That’s what it seems to come to, after all.

  Teacher: That remark alone doesn’t really convey an accurate picture of the position. Being ahead by “a point” in value could mean different things.

  Student: What do you mean?

  Teacher: Think about it. If you claim you are ahead by a point you could be implying a number of possibilities. Like these:

  • One side has an extra pawn.

  • One side could have a bishop, the other two pawns.

  • One side could have a rook, the other a knight and a pawn.

  • One side could have a queen, the other a rook and a bishop.

  • One side could have two rooks, the other a queen.

  Student: It’s true. They’re all tantamount to the same difference, but they’re all different.

  Teacher: Each statement reflects circumstances where one side is ahead by about a pawn. Each is different, and each requires a different plan of action for both sides. To say that one is down by a single point to describe all of these situations is confusing and meaningless. It certainly would not help us assess accurately enough to formulate an intelligent plan of action.

  Student: I get the point—or should I say, I get the pawn? If you want to avoid muddled reasoning in your own games, always express material differences in concrete, specific terms. State exactly how much material you have or are getting, and what your opponent has for it or is getting.

  Teacher: Let me advise you about another habit you might want to avoid. Don’t calculate by counting the units standing off the board, thinking you’re basing your assessments on what’s been captured. You can’t rely on that because some of the captured units may not be there. They may have fallen off the board, or could even be in your opponent’s possession. And if you’re playing in a club or tournament, neighboring sets tend to mix with your own, further complicating rather than simplifying your task.

  Student: It always seemed so much easier to look to the side. I never considered these potential problems.

  Teacher: In addition to being impractical, it’s also bad form to count the pieces sitting on the side. Do you look to the side of the board to find a brilliant combination, or to find your next move? When you’re playing chess, the board is your universe. All your information should come from there and nowhere else. Always play the board—not the person or the side, unless winning and losing have no relevance to you.

  Student: Speaking of which, after 8 … d5 (diagram 242), is Black threatening to win material?

  Diagram 242. What is Blacks threat?

  Teacher: Yes, not by capturing White’s e-pawn right away, but by first reducing the number of defenders the pawn has through the exchange of b4-bishop for c3-knight. If given the opportunity—say White plays an irrelevant move such as 9. a3—Black will continue 9 … Bxc3 10. bxc3 dxe4 (also good is 10 … Nxe4), winning a pawn (diagram 243), because 11. Bxe4 would then lose the bishop to Black’s knight at f6.

  Diagram 243. After the variation 9. a3 Bxc3 10. bxc3 dxe4.

  Student: Isn’t 10 … Nxe4 just as good as 10 … dxe4?

  Diagram 244. If 10 … Nxe4 instead of 10 … dxe4.

  Teacher: Pretty much. But one reason for playing 10 … dxe4, instead of 10 … Nxe4, is that it forces White’s d3-bishop to move, allowing a favorable trade of queens from Black’s perspective. In this line, a queen trade would be desirable unless White chooses a different tenth move that might radically change the circumstances. The point is that, if you’re ahead in material, you’ll want to trade as many pieces as soon as possible, especially the queen. This will tend to make your material advantage more important while diminishing the significance or possibility of opposing counterattacks.

  Student: It almost seems that the bishop on b4 is attacking the e4-pawn more than it’s attacking the c3-knight.

  Teacher: That’s a very insightful observation. The possible move 9 … Bxc3 emphasizes the subtle chessic fact that one can attack the center indirectly by removing something that guards it. Once again, as you point out, it’s clear that a dark-square bishop can influence a light square.

  Student: So how should White save his threatened e-pawn?

  Teacher: He could advance his pawn, 9. e5 (diagram 245), which threatens Black’s knight.

  Diagram 245. After the possible advance 9. e5.

  Student: Couldn’t Black answer that by 9 … Ng4?

  Diagram 246. After 9 … Ng4.

  Teacher: Quite right. After 9 … Ng4, White’s safest protection for his advanced pawn would be 10. Bf4. Of course, that move leads to the exchange of the pawn after 10 … f6 (diagram 247), leaving Black the only pawn in the center after the exchange. It also opens the f-file for Black’s f8-rook, so that it could attack the White position.

  Diagram 247. After the variation 10. Bf4 f6.

  Student: What about after 9. e5 Ng4 if White were to reply 10. f4 (diagram 248)?

  Diagram 248. After 10. f4.

  Teacher: That would surely guard the e5-pawn with a pawn, when pawn protection tends to be more secure. But it exposes the White king to attack along the a7-g1 diagonal.
After 10 … Bc5+ 11. Kh1 Qh4 (diagram 249), White gets into serious trouble.

  Diagram 249. After 10 … Bc5͋ 11. Kh1 Qh4.

  Student: But couldn’t White defend himself with 12. h3 (diagram 250) to stop the mate? Diagram 250. After continuing the variation with 12. h3.

  Teacher: It doesn’t quite work. Among other things, Black has 12 … Qg3 (diagram 251), when the capture 13. hxg4 is crushed by 13 … Qh4# (diagram 252). That’s checkmate (see page 35).

  Student: This example reminds me that I wouldn’t want to move my f-pawn, out of fear of getting my king in trouble.

  Diagram 251. After 12 … Qg3.

  Diagram 252. After 13. hxg1 Qh4#.

  Teacher: Beginners are often quite afraid to move their f-pawns early in the game. Possibly that’s because most teachers and books try to discourage them from doing so. Their argument makes some sense, but sometimes such an advance can be necessary and even good. If you operate in a climate of fear, you’ll wind up taking no risks at all, and possibly fritter away your opportunities to achieve anything distinctive or outstanding. In the world of chess, as in many other domains, it’s not the mindless principles that intrigue us, but their exceptions. It’s too bad that often we don’t start to think until something doesn’t make sense. At that point it may be too late.

  Student: I’m still going to be careful about moving my f-pawn, though I won’t shy away from doing so if it seems purposeful in the position before me.

  Teacher: That’s right. Be cautious, but don’t be afraid to move the f-pawn if it significantly helps your attack without causing too much weakness. Moving the f-pawn may be unwise in the first few moves of the game, when development is crucial. But as many discussions in this book imply, changing circumstances can and should force you to modify principles whenever necessary.

  Student: It all depends.

  Teacher: That’s right. In one case we were talking about the positive effects of moving the f-pawn for Black, to open the f-file for the f8-rook. In a contrasting instance, we saw how moving the f-pawn to defend the e5-pawn (diagram 248) left the a7-g1 diagonal exposed. It helps to know what the good and bad are like, and then to see what applies in the situation before you.

  Student: I get the point. It’s a matter of which is more significant: what you get or what you have to surrender to get it.

  Teacher: This brings us back to White’s ninth move and how he should defend against the threat to his e-pawn.

  Diagram 253. How should White avoid losing the e-pawn?

  Student: Couldn’t White add protection to his e-pawn either by 9. f3, 9. Qf3, or 9. Re1?

  Teacher: Yes, not that any of them are spectacular. But have you considered not defending the pawn at all? Rather than defend it or push it, why not exchange it for equal value? Then you’d never have to guard it again because it wouldn’t be on the board. Think of the toil White would save.

  Student: You mean, just play 9. exd5 (diagram 254), losing the pawn?

  Diagram 254. After taking Black’s pawn on d5.

  Teacher: That’s not losing the pawn. That’s exchanging the pawn for equal value, which can be as good as defending, while saving a lot of trouble. By exchanging in this manner, 9. exd5, very likely followed by 9 … cxd5, White gains time because Black had to expend a move to take back. After Black takes back, it’s White who has the next free move. If White had defended his e-pawn instead of exchanging it, as we considered, then Black would have the next free move.

  Student: A free move is one in which a player doesn’t have to respond in a particular way, or possibly at all, right?

  Teacher: Exactly. Although White’s exchange eliminates Black’s doubled c-pawns, they were never a serious drawback anyway. White would have had to wait some time before trying to exploit them, and at this point, gaining the initiative is more significant. Also, 9. exd5 is an answer to Black’s threat of winning a pawn. Good decision.

  Student: Should Black, instead of replying 9 … cxd5, play 9 … Nxd5 (diagram 255), taking back with the knight?

  Diagram 255. After the possible take-back 9 … Nxd5.

  Teacher: Taking back with the c6-pawn makes more sense, for it would allow Black to get rid of his doubled pawns without too much trouble, as a natural course of play. Why get unnecessarily fancy when a perfectly good move would do?

  Student: I’d like to try to analyze the new position myself. Let’s see: (1) It’s White’s move, and he still has the initiative; (2) Black has the only pawn in the center, thus a better chance to control the region; (3) White might be able to complete his development sooner; (4) White’s pieces seem to be bearing down on the Black kingside. I’d say, especially since White has the initiative, that he stands slightly better here.

  Teacher: Not a bad analysis. While we’re on the subject, let’s define the subject. Analysis is the process of determining by careful examination the best moves in a variation or position. The ability to analyze is an essential tool in a chessplayer’s arsenal. The art of problem-solving itself involves two types of reasoning: specific calculation and general judgment. Chessplayers use specific calculation to consider particular moves and variations, evaluating them, weighing their strengths, weaknesses, and consequences. They make general judgments to decide which types of moves or plans, rather than what specific ones, they wish to consider.

  Diagram 256. After the actual 9 … cxd5.

  Student: In many cases I think I’d rather just play the move that seems right, without too much analysis.

  Teacher: In many places you should go with your intuition, but not before you’ve tried to analyze. You should rely on intuition mainly when analysis doesn’t seem to be working. Anyhow, the real purpose of analysis is this: Until you know precisely where you stand, you can’t decide what your best course of action should be. So first you analyze the situation, and then you choose a plan that is consistent with it. In other words, as with any problem-solving situation, you determine what is given, decide what your goal is, and then develop a plan of action that seems to bring you to that goal. And as I’ve said, if analysis doesn’t get you where you want to be, you can always fall back on intuition.

  Student: So there are two types of analysis: specific and general.

  Teacher: Grandmaster Alexander Kotov, a top Russian chess teacher for many years who is, lamentably, no longer with us, used to suggest being systematic in your thought processes. When it’s your turn, try to find the best move, answering the opponent’s threats, maintaining your own, and doing whatever the exigencies of the position require. When it’s your opponent’s turn and he’s doing the thinking, use your time to make general plans, considering the strategy and ideas that might be worth trying if chances should later materialize.

  Student: How should you go about conducting a general analysis?

  Teacher: The process for eliciting information can be more important than the elements of the process. When trying to analyze generally, ask probing questions that help you construct a picture of the position, particularly in terms of strengths and weaknesses, possible attacks, piece placements, and so on. This technique, known as the analytic method or the Socratic method, is the basis of problem-solving and can be traced back thousands of years to the Greek philosophers and thinkers.

  Student: So I should ask myself internalized questions to help understand things better. But what kinds of questions?

  Teacher: It depends a little on whose move it is. If it’s your move, you ask one group of questions. If it’s your opponent’s move, you might ask a different group of questions.

  Student: Can you show me what you mean?

  Teacher: Sure. For example, if it’s your turn, you might ask questions such as this:

  • Does my opponent’s last move threaten me in any way?

  If it does, this should lead automatically to the next question, or a similar one:

  • What can I do about it?

  When you have answered this question satisfactorily, you’ll have found your next m
ove. The next question(s) to ask might be:

  • Has my opponent responded adequately to the threat contained in my previous move?

  • If not, can I now execute my threat to good effect?

  • If not, why not?

  And so on. You need not ask only these questions, nor do you have to phrase them this way. But your questions should direct your attention to what’s important. If they’re appropriate for the immediate situation, they will more or less suggest the answer or at least a way to get at it. In this sense they serve the same purpose as principles. They do no more and no less than activate and direct the thinking process.

  Student: What about when it’s my opponent’s move?

  Teacher: In those situations, when you’re not as pressed to find a particular answer to your opponent’s last move and your mind is freer to wander about, you might turn to other factors. You could ask yourself questions like these:

  • Have I successfully completed my development?

  • Does my position contain any weak points?

  • If so, what can I do to strengthen them?

  • What targets should I be focusing on in my opponent’s camp?

  • How should I go about assailing them?

  Student: I think I see, therefore I exist to play chess. On my turn, I should try to be specific. I should try to get down to business and deal with what’s happening. On my opponent’s turn, I can explore possibilities in a way I couldn’t do as well on my own turn, when I’m trying to figure out my next move.

  Teacher: That’s right. Clearly, your questions form a mixture of the specific and the abstract. Usually, the specific pertain to immediate concerns; the abstract to long-range possibilities and future plans. Both types of questions are useful and necessary in any analysis. You should try to incorporate them into your thinking at once. This technique takes practice. Use it and eventually you should find yourself improving your overall gameplay. And if it doesn’t eventually lead to mastery of the most challenging and entertaining game ever invented, it should at least goad you into asking questions, none of which can be posed or answered until we get to Lesson 13.