Chess 483
PHILIDOR
L. I. Losh nski (Tihischrift v. d. Ned. Schaak, 1930). Wh'te to play and mate in two moves; solution next week.
Solution to No. 482 (Maslar-2K 5/4P3/Rlp I p3/ IBp5/2bIklp1/2rRP3/N6B/IqbnIQN1): R-Q5!, threat 2 R-K5. 1 . . . BP x R; 2 R x P. 1 . . . KPxR;2P-----Q.1...BxR;2Q-B4.1...KxR; 2 BxP.1...RxP;2QxB. I ...BxP; 2Q-Ka. I . . Kt x P; 2 Kt x R. 1 . . . K xP; 2 Q-B4. In this very fine problem the Black captures block a vital flight square for his king.
The rivals
I remember many years ago arguing the relative merits of chess and bridge with Terence Reese on Network Three. I can't remember what intemper- ate remarks were made on either side but — what are the similarities and differences? Clearly
there is a lot in common—good bridge players are statistically better-than-average chess players and vice versa—but there are real differences in the mental qualities required.
The differences arise from two broad causes: (a) in chess complete information is available to the players, in bridge partial information only; (b) in chess the unit (a game) is much bigger than the unit in bridge (a hand).
The effect of (a) is that you get in bridge a mixture of deduction and judgment of a kind that is wholly absent in chess; the argument of the kind 'if he had had such and such a card he would have done so-and-so but he hasn't done this, therefore ' or 'unless he has such and such a card I can't make the contract, therefore I must assume he has it' don't occur—nor do the decisions on partial information such as 'will it pay me to double?' or 'shall I make a sacrifice?' occur in chess.
On the other hand, the incompleteness of the information limits the depth of the analysis you can make; in chess, with complete information, the intellectual and psychological depth is only limited by the mental capacity of the player.
Bridge brings in a wider range of qualities, chess has a greater depth and gives greater scope to the creative imagination.
This is accentuated by (b)—the difference in length of units; in bridge you are constantly being presented with new problems, unconnected with those of ten minutes ago—in chess you are pursuing over a period of many hours some kind of coherent, if gradually changing, plan. You cannot, it seems to me, play on quite the same scale in bridge as you can in chess.
Perhaps all this is why the leading chess players tend to be markedly younger on average than the leading bridge players; I remember noticing with interest a year or two ago a comment that we had a particularly young bridge team with an average age of thirty-eight—the oldest player in our five- player team for the Clare Benedict tournament at Paignton next month is thirty-six and none of the others is over twenty-six. The kind of judgment, experience and knowledge of people that is of great value to the bridge player grows until well on in middle age; the intellectual power and cutting edge that the chess player needs above all else— that, alas, declines.
A footnote for those, good or bad and of any age who live in London and enjoy chess. Try the new chess centre which has just opened: 'The Arche Chess Studio' 207 Wcstboume Park Road W11; it is open daily from 2 pm to 2 am—thus meeting a longfelt need—and it is very much in the interests of 1.ondon and visiting players that it . should succeed. . ,
Previous page
