Chess
By PHILIDOR No. 109. Specially contributed by C. C. L. SELLS (Durham)
BLACK (8 men) WHITE (12 men)
WHITE to play and mate in two moves: solution next week. Solution to last week's problem by Holladay: R-K 3. Fine 'no threat' problem with excellent key. I ... Kt-Kt 5; 2 Q-R 1. 1 ... Kt any other; 2 Q-B 3. 1...Q x Q; 2 Kt-K 7. 1 . . . Q-K 4; 2 Kt-B 4.
1 P x R; 2 Q-Q 1. 1 . . P-Q 6; 2 R x P. 1 ....B-Q 1; 2 R x B. 1 ... B any other; 2 Kt-Kt 6.
STYLE Any attempt to describe the changes in style over the past hundred years in a couple of articles will inevitably involve gross over-simplification. Still, it may give a rough approximation to the truth and will, I hope, be of sufficient general interest to be worth while.
First, there is the pre-Morphy period—key word, attack. Although there are exceptions amongst the players (e.g. Staunton) and many very dull games, the classic pattern was a gambit by White accepted by Black, and then a violent direct attack on the king by White defended by Black (with counter-attack if possible) as best he could. Development (though naturally it took place) was incidental almost to the attack and defence and tended to be directly related to immediate threats. In the next period, Morphy's, the key word was development. It was Morphy who first showed that by rapid development combined with vigorous challenge in the centre and, if necessary, refusal of gambit pawns or acceptance and later return of the material, Black could obtain an equal game with much less danger than in earlier forms of defence. This demonstration in the end killed the gambits and the attacking open game as a serious weapon in top- class play (except for occasional use as a weapon of surprise), and the third period was one of manoeuvre: instead of attempting an immediate attack in an open position (where sensible development by defence was too likely to lead, through exchanges on open lines, to a draw), players kept the position more closed and built their game up gradually, only attacking after much preparation and preliminary sapping of the enemy position. While, of course, many brilliant attacking games were played, the general theory was that the way to win was through the accumulation of small advantages. The greatest player in this period was Lasker, but he was not typical; his strength lay not so much in style or technique but in character— his immense determination, stamina and resourceful- ness in difficult positions. I should be more inclined to say that Capablanca was the apotheosis of this period—the player who couldn't lose because his technique was so perfect that he never created any weaknesses in his own position and who ruthlessly exploited any that his opponents made. Capablanca made the game seem easy—not to say exhausted—and it is significant that he is the one of the world champions who wanted to change the rules. Since his day chess has got harder again, and now there seems to be much more to learn than there was thirty-five years ago. In the next article I will say something of the changes that have caused this.
Previous page
