The game ofchess is commonly divided into three phases: theopening,middlegame, andendgame.[1] There is a large body of theory regarding how the game should be played in each of these phases, especially the opening and endgame. Those who write aboutchess theory, who are often also eminent players, are referred to as "chesstheorists" or "chess theoreticians".
"Opening theory" commonly refers to consensus, broadly represented by current literature on the openings.[2] "Endgame theory" consists of statements regarding specific positions, or positions of a similar type, though there are few universally applicable principles.[3] "Middlegame theory" often refers to maxims or principles applicable to the middlegame.[4] The modern trend, however, is to assign paramount importance to analysis of the specific position at hand rather than to general principles.[5]
The development of theory in all of these areas has been assisted by the vast literature on the game. In 1913, preeminent chess historianH. J. R. Murray wrote in his 900-page magnum opusA History of Chess that, "The game possesses a literature which in contents probably exceeds that of all other games combined."[6] He estimated that at that time the "total number ofbooks on chess,chess magazines, and newspapers devoting space regularly to the game probably exceeds 5,000".[7] In 1949,B. H. Wood estimated that the number had increased to about 20,000.[8][9]David Hooper andKenneth Whyld wrote in 1992 that, "Since then there has been a steady increase year by year of the number of new chess publications. No one knows how many have been printed..."[8] The world's largestchess library, theJohn G. White Collection[10] at theCleveland Public Library, contains over 32,000 chess books and serials, including over 6,000 bound volumes of chess periodicals.[11][12] Chess players today also avail themselves of computer-based sources of information.
The earliest printed work on chess theory whose date can be established with some exactitude isRepeticion de Amores y Arte de Ajedrez by theSpaniardLuis Ramirez de Lucena, published c. 1497, which included among other things analysis of eleven chess openings. Some of them are known today as theGiuoco Piano,Ruy Lopez,Petrov's Defense,Bishop's Opening,Damiano's Defense, andScandinavian Defense, though Lucena did not use those terms.[13]
The authorship and date of theGöttingen manuscript are not established,[14][15] and its publication date is estimated as being somewhere between 1471 and 1505.[16] It is not known whether it or Lucena's book was published first.[14] The manuscript includes examples of games with the openings now known as Damiano's Defence,Philidor's Defense, the Giuoco Piano, Petrov's Defense, the Bishop's Opening, the Ruy Lopez, thePonziani Opening, theQueen's Gambit Accepted, 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Bf5 (a form of theLondon System),Bird's Opening, and theEnglish Opening.[17] Murray observes that it "is no haphazard collection of commencements of games, but is an attempt to deal with the Openings in a systematic way."[18]
Fifteen years after Lucena's book,PortugueseapothecaryPedro Damiano published the bookQuesto libro e da imparare giocare a scachi et de la partiti (1512) in Rome. It includes analysis of the Queen's Gambit Accepted, showing what happens when Black tries to keep thegambitpawn with ...b5.[19] Damiano's book "was, in contemporary terms, the first bestseller of the modern game."[20]Harry Golombek writes that it "ran through eight editions in the sixteenth century and continued on into the next century with unflagging popularity."[21] Modern players know Damiano primarily because his name is attached to the weak opening Damiano's Defense (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6?), although he condemned rather than endorsed it.[22]
These books and later ones discuss games played with various openings, opening traps, and the best way for both sides to play. Certain sequences of opening moves began to be given names, some of the earliest being Damiano's Defense, theKing's Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4), theQueen's Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4), and theSicilian Defense (1.e4 c5).[23]
Damiano's book was followed by general treatises on chess play byRuy López de Segura (1561),Giulio Cesare Polerio (1590),Gioachino Greco (c. 1625),Joseph Bertin (1735), andFrançois-André Danican Philidor (1749).[24][25]
The first author to attempt a comprehensive survey of the openings then known wasAaron Alexandre in his 1837 workEncyclopédie des Échecs.[26] According to Hooper and Whyld, "[Carl]Jaenisch produced the first openings analysis on modern lines in hisAnalyse nouvelle des ouvertures (1842-43)."[27] In 1843,Paul Rudolf von Bilguer published the GermanHandbuch des Schachspiels, which combined the virtues of Alexandre and Jaenisch's works.[27] TheHandbuch, which went through several editions, last being published in several parts in 1912–16, was one of the most important opening references for many decades.[28] The last edition of theHandbuch was edited byCarl Schlechter, who had drawn a match for the World Championship withEmanuel Lasker in 1910.International MasterWilliam Hartston called it "a superb work, perhaps the last to encase successfully the whole of chess knowledge within a single volume."[29]
TheEnglishmasterHoward Staunton, perhaps the world's strongest player from 1843 to 1851,[30] included over 300 pages of analysis of the openings in his 1847 treatiseThe Chess Player's Handbook.[31] That work immediately became the standard reference work in English-speaking countries,[32][33] and was reprinted 21 times by 1935.[34] However, "as time passed a demand arose for more up-to-date works in English".[35]Wilhelm Steinitz, the firstWorld Champion, widely considered the "father of modern chess,"[36][37][38][39] extensively analyzed variousdouble king-pawn openings (beginning 1.e4 e5) in his bookThe Modern Chess Instructor, published in 1889 and 1895.[40] Also in 1889,E. Freeborough andC. E. Ranken published the first edition ofChess Openings Ancient and Modern; later editions were published in 1893, 1896, and 1910.[41] In 1911,R. C. Griffith andJ. H. White published the first edition ofModern Chess Openings. It is now the longest-published opening treatise in history; the fifteenth edition (commonly calledMCO-15), byGrandmasterNick de Firmian, was published in April 2008.[42]
According to Hooper and Whyld, the various editions ofModern Chess Openings, the last edition of theHandbuch, and the fourth edition ofLudvig Collijn'sLärobok i Schack ("Textbook of Chess") inSwedish, with groundbreaking contributions by Rubinstein, Reti, Spielmann and Nimzowitch, "were the popular reference sources for strong players between the twoworld wars."[35] In 1937–39 former World ChampionMax Euwe published a twelve-volume opening treatise,De theorie der schaakopeningen, inDutch. It was later translated into other languages.[43]
In the late 1930s to early 1950sReuben Fine, one of the world's strongest players,[44] also became one of its leading theoreticians, publishing important works on the opening, middlegame, and endgame. These began with his revision ofModern Chess Openings, which was published in 1939.[45] In 1943, he publishedIdeas Behind the Chess Openings, which sought to explain the principles underlying the openings.[46] In 1948, he published his own opening treatise,Practical Chess Openings, a competitor toMCO.[47] In 1964,International MasterI.A. Horowitz published the 789-page tomeChess Openings: Theory and Practice, which in addition to opening analysis includes a large number of illustrative games.[24]
In 1966, the first volume ofChess Informant was published inBelgrade,Yugoslavia, containing 466 annotated games from the leading chess tournaments and matches of the day.[48] The hugely influentialChess Informant series has revolutionized opening theory. Its great innovation is that it expresses games in languagelessfigurine algebraic notation and annotated them using no words, but rather seventeen symbols, whose meanings were explained at the beginning of the book in six different languages. This enabled readers around the world to read the same games and annotations, thus greatly accelerating the dissemination of chess ideas and the development of opening theory. The editors ofChess Informant later introduced other publications using the same principle, such as the five-volumeEncyclopedia of Chess Openings andEncyclopedia of Chess Endings treatises.Chess Informant was originally published twice a year, and since 1991 has been published thrice annually. Volume 100 was published in 2007.[49] It now uses 57 symbols, explained in 10 languages, to annotate games (seePunctuation (chess)), and is available in both print and electronic formats. In 2005, former World ChampionGarry Kasparov wrote, "We are all Children of theInformant."[50]
In the 1990s and thereafter, the development of opening theory has been further accelerated by such innovations as extremely strongchess engines such asFritz andRybka,software such asChessBase, and the sale of multi-million-game databases such as ChessBase's Mega 2013 database, with over 5.4 million games.[51] Today, the most important openings have been analyzed over 20 moves deep,[52] sometimes well into the endgame,[53][54] and it is not unusual for leading players to introducetheoretical novelties on move 25 or even later.[55][56][57]
Thousands of books have been written on chess openings. These include both comprehensive openings encyclopedias such as theEncyclopedia of Chess Openings andModern Chess Openings; general treatises on how to play the opening such asMastering the Chess Openings (in four volumes), by International MasterJohn L. Watson;[58] and myriad books on specific openings, such asUnderstanding the Grünfeld[59] andChess Explained: The Classical Sicilian.[60] "Books and monographs on openings are popular, and as they are thought to become out of date quickly there is a steady supply of new titles."[61] According toAndrew Soltis, "Virtually all the new information about chess since 1930 has been in the opening."[62]
Middlegame theory is considerably less developed than either opening theory or endgame theory.[63] Watson writes, "Players wishing to study this area of the game have a limited and rather unsatisfactory range of resources from which to choose."[64]
One of the earliest theories to gain attention was that ofWilliam Steinitz, who posited that a premature attack against one's opponent in an equal position could be repelled by skillful defence, and so a player's best bet was to slowly maneuver with the goal of accumulating small advantages. Emanuel Lasker inLasker's Manual of Chess and Max Euwe inThe Development of Chess Style outlined theories that they attributed to Steinitz.
Leading player and theoristAron Nimzowitsch's[65] influential books,My System (1925),[66]Die Blockade (1925) (inGerman),[67] andChess Praxis (1936),[68][69] are among the most important works on the middlegame.[64] Nimzowitsch called attention to the possibility of letting one's opponent occupy the centre with pawns while you exert control with your pieces as in the Nimzo-Indian or Queen's Indian defences. He pointed out how in positions with interlocking pawn chains, one could attack the chain at its base by advancing one's own pawns and carrying out a freeing move (pawn break). He also drew attention to the strategy of occupying open files with one's rooks in order to later penetrate to the seventh rank where they could attack the enemy pawns and hem in the opponent's king. Another of his key concepts was prophylaxis, moves aimed at limiting the opponent's mobility to the point where he would no longer have any useful moves.
In 1952, Fine published the 442-pageThe Middle Game in Chess, perhaps the most comprehensive treatment of the subject up until that time.[70] The mid-20th century also saw the publication ofThe Middle Game, volumes 1 and 2, by former World ChampionMax Euwe and Hans Kramer,[71][72] and a series of books by theCzechoslovak-German grandmasterLuděk Pachman: three volumes ofCompleteChess Strategy,[73][74][75]Modern Chess Strategy,[76]ModernChess Tactics,[77] andAttack and Defense in Modern Chess Tactics.[78]
Another key turning point in middlegame theory came with the release ofAlexander Kotov's bookThink like a Grandmaster in 1971. Kotov outlined how a player calculates by developing a tree of variations in his head, and recommended that players only examine each branch of the tree once. He also noted how some players seem to fall victim to what is now known as Kotov's Syndrome: they calculate out a large range of different lines, become dissatisfied with the result, and realizing that they are short on time, play a completely new candidate move without even checking whether it is sound. More recently, Jonathan Tisdall, John Nunn and Andrew Soltis have elaborated on Kotov's tree theory further.
In 1999, Watson'sSecrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances Since Nimzowitsch was published, in which Watson discusses the revolution in middlegame theory that has occurred since Nimzowitsch's time.[79]
Many books on specific aspects of the middlegame exist, such asThe Art of Attack in Chess byVladimir Vuković,[80]The Art ofSacrifice in Chess byRudolf Spielmann,[81]The Art of theCheckmate by Georges Renaud and Victor Kahn,[82]The Basis ofCombination in Chess by J. du Mont,[83] andThe Art of Defense in Chess byAndrew Soltis.[84]
Many significant chess treatises, beginning with the earliest works, have included some analysis of the endgame. Lucena's book (c. 1497) concluded with 150 examples of endgames andchess problems.[85]
The second edition (1777) of Philidor'sAnalyse du jeu des Échecs devoted 75 pages of analysis to various endgames.[86] These included a number of theoretically important endings, such as rook and bishop versus rook, queen versus rook, queen versus rook and pawn, and rook and pawn versus rook. Certain positions in the endings of rook and bishop versus rook, rook and pawn versus rook, and queen versus rook have become known asPhilidor's position. Philidor concluded his book with two pages of (in the English translation), "Observations on the ends of parties", in which he set forth certain general principles about endings, such as: "Two knights alone cannot mate" (seeTwo knights endgame), the ending with a bishop and rook pawn whose queening square is on the opposite color from the bishop is drawn (seeWrong rook pawn § Bishop and pawn), and a queen beats a bishop and knight (seePawnless chess endgame § Queen versus two minor pieces).[87]
Staunton'sThe Chess-Player's Handbook (1847) includes almost 100 pages of analysis of endgames.[88] Some of Staunton's analysis, such as his analysis of the very rare rook versus three minor pieces endgame, is surprisingly sophisticated. At page 439, he wrote, "Three minor Pieces are much stronger than a Rook, and in cases where two of them are Bishops will usually win without much difficulty, because the player of the Rook is certain to be compelled to lose him for one of his adversary's Pieces. If, however, there are two Knights and one Bishop opposed to a Rook, the latter may generally beexchanged for the Bishop, and as two Knights are insufficient of themselves to force checkmate, the game will be drawn." Modern-dayendgame tablebases confirm Staunton's assessments of both endings.[89] Yet Reuben Fine, 94 years after Staunton, erroneously wrote on page 521 ofBasic Chess Endings that both types of rook versus three minor piece endings "are theoretically drawn." GrandmasterPal Benko, an authority on the endgame and like Fine a world-class player at his peak, perpetuated Fine's error in his 2003 revision ofBasic Chess Endings.[90] GrandmasterAndrew Soltis in a 2004 book expressly disagreed with Staunton, claiming that the rook versus two bishops and knight ending is drawn with correct play.[91] At the time Benko and Soltis offered their assessments (in 2003 and 2004, respectively), endgame tablebases had already proven that Staunton was correct, and that Fine, Benko, and Soltis were wrong, although the ending can take up to 68 moves to win.[92]
Staunton's conclusions on these endgames were anticipated by the British masterGeorge Walker, who wrote in 1846 (and perhaps earlier):
Although the two Bishops and Kt win, as a general proposition, against Rook, yet the two Knights with a Bishop cannot expect the same success; and the legitimate result of such conflict would be adraw. The Bishops, united, are stronger than the Knights, as they strike from a greater distance. When the two Knights are left with a Bishop, the Rook has also the chance of exchanging for the latter, which can hardly be avoided by his adversary, and the two Knights, alone, have not the mating power.[93]
In 1941 Reuben Fine published his monumental 573-page treatiseBasic Chess Endings, the first attempt at a comprehensive treatise on the endgame.[94] A new edition, revised byPal Benko, was published in 2003.[95]Soviet writers published an important series of books on specific endings:Rook Endings byGrigory Levenfish andVasily Smyslov,[96]Pawn Endings byYuri Averbakh and I. Maizelis,[97]Queen and Pawn Endings by Averbakh,[98]Bishop Endings by Averbakh,[99]Knight Endings by Averbakh andVitaly Chekhover,[100]Bishop v. Knight Endings by Yuri Averbakh,[101]Rook v. Minor Piece Endings by Averbakh,[102] andQueen v. Rook/Minor Piece Endings by Averbakh, Chekhover, and V. Henkin.[103] These books by Averbakh and others were collected into the five-volumeComprehensive Chess Endings in English.
In recent years, computer-generatedendgame tablebases have revolutionized endgame theory, conclusively showingbest play in many complicated endgames that had vexed human analysts for over a century, such asqueen and pawn versus queen. They have also overturned human theoreticians' verdicts on a number of endgames; for example by proving that the twobishops versusknight ending, which had been thought drawn for over a century, can be a win for the bishops (seePawnless chess endgame § Minor pieces only andChess endgame § Effect of tablebases on endgame theory).
Several important works on the endgame have been published in recent years, among themDvoretsky's Endgame Manual,[104]Fundamental Chess Endings byKarsten Müller andFrank Lamprecht,[89]Basic Endgames: 888 Theoretical Positions byYuri Balashov and Eduard Prandstetter,[105]Chess Endgame Lessons by Benko,[106] andSecrets of Rook Endings[107] andSecrets of Pawnless Endings byJohn Nunn.[108] Some of these have been aided by analysis from endgame tablebases.
| Outline | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equipment | |||||||||
| History | |||||||||
| Rules | |||||||||
| Terms | |||||||||
| Tactics | |||||||||
| Strategy | |||||||||
| Openings |
| ||||||||
| Endgames | |||||||||
| Tournaments | |||||||||
| Art and media | |||||||||
| Related | |||||||||
