1.

EVALUAREA
POZITIEI SI
PLANUL DE
JOC
DVORETSKY
In
assessing
a
position
the
experienced
player
never tries to take
into
account
its
peculiarities
immediately, and he
does not consciously
weigh up its pluses

and minuses (although this is

precisely
what
certain
manuals tell you to do). Such
work,if
it
is
to
be
performed,
should
be
subconscious.

RESHEVSKY

SPIEGEL: Aha. How many moves can

you calculate ahead?
Carlsen: That depends on the game
situation. Sometimes 15 to 20. But the
trick is to correctly assess the position at
the end of the calculation. One of the
most important things in chess is pattern
recognition: the ability to recognise

typical themes and images on

the board, characteristics of a
position
and
their
consequences.

GM Valery Beim
Intuition
to
work
well, two important
abilities
are
necessary:
the
ability
to
examine
the position, and to
calculate
without
error
so-called
'short-range
tactics'. Test your
ability to look and
see everything that
is important in the
position.
I
would
advise you to train
yourself to make this
examination
a
permanent feature of
your approach to any
position.

Peter Romanovsky
The
chess
game,
from
beginning to end, consists of
variations, consequently the
creative
thought
of
a
chessplayer
is
mainly
concentrated upon variations it creates them and puts them
into practice at the board.

The spirit of the position (the first

element of thinking) and the variation
(the second element of thinking) mutually
control one another and in this mutualcontrol, preeminence belongs to the
variation. Where the essence of the
position is more or less clear, thought
easily finds moves and variations ensuing
from it. When, however, difficulties arise
in determining the main thing in the
position, and a period of doubt and
hesitation approaches, then a variation
and variations must, as it were, go to the
assistance of the player's thoughts. In
such cases the variation supplements your
search for the "core" of the position with
new material , possibly playing a decisive
role in the preliminary evaluation, i.e. in
mastering the spirit of the position. Thus

, at times , the variation acts as

material, helping to determine the
spirit of the position, and this means
that the second element of thinking
should sometimes occupy , in a player's
thoughts , a place before the first.
It is a dangerous mistake to think that
calculation is possible only on forcing
variations . This is far from being so .
In calculating variations we have in
mind that reply of the opponent which,
in our view , meets the spirit of the
position , and represents , if not the
best, then a good , natural move .

BRONSTEIN

Chess
is
a
limitless
game;
to
avoid losing his way
in
it,
the
chessplayer will use
certain guideposts to
orient himself in the
evaluation
of
a
position
and
the
selection of a plan,
such as weak pawns,
open files, a lead in
development, good and
bad bishops, a poorly
placed king, and so
on.
It
is
worth
noting that one will
not
find
in
every
game such guideposts
as will allow one to
compare a position's
good and bad points
and
to
choose
a
proper plan on that
basis. Either chess
theory has not yet
found a quantity of
guideposts sufficient
to exhaust the game's
diversity,
or
else
there are positions
in which the balance
has been upset more
than
once,
and
guideposts are hard
to
discern.In
any
event, one frequently
finds
the
sort
of

game which must be played for

quite some time on nothing
more than gut feeling and
calculation, and this is the
hardest sort of game to play,
even for a grandmaster.

Tigran Petrosian
Mecking does not understand the
significance of weak and strong squares. I
have played him three times. In 1969 he
lost to me owing to the weakness of his
light squares. A year later he presented
me with all the dark squares and again
suffered defeat. And in the San Antonio
tournament of 1972, Grandmaster
Mecking again let me have dark-square
control, and with it - victory. What
distinguishes Mecking is lively piece play,
but he has no genuine grasp of the
underlying nature of a position; this is
what makes me have doubts about his
future as a player.

ANATOLY KARPOV
The inherent problem in Black's whole
strategic plan is he does not have control
of the CENTER, or a sufficient SPACE
ADVANTAGE on the kingside for his
attack to merit success. As a result, even
though he has a surplus of FORCE in the
area, his pieces experience congestion and
don't have proper entry points (lack of
MOBILITY). Thus with proper care and
vigilance by White, the Black attack
should fail according to the principles of
Steinitz!

CECIL PURDY
- The other way of evolving
moves,
apart
from
combinations, is by planning.
The essence of planning is the
visualisation of a future
position of some or all of your
pieces. You then seek to play
for that position; you do not
worry much about your
opponent's replies except to
make sure that your plan is
feasible.
- In "Guide to Good Chess" I
said, "Position play is the art
of improving your position in
small ways when no sound
combination is possible."
That is quite true. It does not
contradict anything I have
said here. But perhaps it lays
emphasis rather on the
strengthening of one's own
position than on weakening
the enemy's, whereas the
emphasis should be equal. It
depends purely on the
circumstances
of
any
particular position which of
the two it is best to try to do.

JOHN NUNN
Today's players focus much
more on activity and are fully
aware that static advantages
are difficult to exploit if your

opponent has active pieces which

continually disturb the quiet manoeuvres
required to exploit purely positional
advantages. It's also notable how
players of the early to mid-20th century
often defended quite poorly, playing
passively and doing little to interfere
with
their
opponent's
plans.
A
consequence of this is that players who
did understand the value of activity,
such as Lasker, were very successful, even
though their successes were often
attributed to 'luck' or
some other
extraneous factor-a sure indication that
other players simply didn't understand
the logic behind their play.

Alex Yermolinsky

GM Grischuk
-I

realized that the

main thing in chess
is to attack various
enemy
pieces
with
every move. Following
this
method,
I
endeavour to create
threats,
which
are
especially
efective
with
time
trouble
imminent.
CAPABLANCA

You might say, with regard to

the openings, that the main
principle is rapid and efficient
development. You must not
lose sight of the fact that when
you bring out your pieces you
must put them in the right
places. In the middle game,
the main thing is the
coordination of pieces, and
this is where most players are

weak. Many try to attack with one piece

here and another there without any
concerted action, and later they wonder
what is wrong with the game. You must
co-ordinate the action of your pieces, and
this is a main principle which runs
throughout.

LASKER

- Here then we have the conception that

should mould the plan of the player:
Force. Strange as it may seem, the human
mind has taken a long time to learn how
to apply the concept of force to chess. The
mistake committed was to confound force
and effect. Force is composed of two
factors, the one of them effect, the other
one a thing susceptible to the efect. An
effect and a target combined make a
force. A position, as a rule, contains
elements strongly susceptible to effects.
The technical term for such an element is
a "weak" point or "weakness/ Thus the
position of the King is weak when
Aggressors find few obstructions in the
Kings quarter, and a player discerns a
weak point in the opponents camp when

he sees that the opponent

cannot assail a piece placed on
that point- If that point is
occupied by a man which
from there exerts strong force
the player has occupied a
"strong point,". Weakness
may be mobile or stationary. A
concentration of effect on a
weakness will pay only if that
weakness is stationary, for
otherwise, by simply the
shifting of the weakness, the
concentrated effect would hit
an empty spot and therefore
be
wasted.
Stationary
weaknesses are, a King who
can no longer castle and is
defended by relatively few
pieces, or to whom access is
easy; a pinned piece, a piece of
little mobility-for instance one
which has been shut in, or
whose movement would entail
heavy loss, or, a frequent case,
a blocked pawn.
- The outcome of a move is
often uncertain because we
cannot take all possibilities
into consideration. Therefore
we have often to be content
with the common sense
procedure of strengthening
our force so as to be ready to
meet unforeseen emergencies,
but in positions which we can
completely analyse we should

attempt to arive at deductions because

analysis is definite and convincing, and in
that respect superior to commonsense.
- However, it matters not by what process he
conceives an idea; the important point to
understand is that an idea takes hold of the
master and obsesses him. The master, in the
grasp of an idea, sees that idea suggested and
almost embodied on the board. An idea does
not arise accidentally in the mind of the master,
but has
its raison d 'etre on the board. It is not enough
to know that a combination is a sequence of
forcible moves; one must be able to give a
reason for the existence of that combination. If
in the position, examined by the master, a
combination is hidden, there is a reason for its
existence;

- "Never forget that the chess board has

sixty-four squares and that, therefore,
you will probably have to gain control of
more than thirty-two squares in order to
get the better game." He told me that this
principle of controlling as many squares
as possible was his guide at every stage of
the game. A practical example he gave me
was the placement of Knight and Bishop
in middle and end-game positions. He
said: "In the majority of cases it is
probably best to have Knight and Bishop
on squares of the same color, because then
they control squares of opposite colors.
- . This position nicely exemplifies one
of the valuable lessons I had learned from
casual remarks of Emanuel Lasker. He
had counseled me always to try to

maintain as many options as

possible in placing my pieces
in the early middle game ; not
to commit myself to a
developing move with a piece
which had a choice, as long as
there were other developing
moves available which had to
be made in any case.
- One of the lessons I had
learned fr om Emanuel
Lasker: He had once said to
me: "One of the logical
principles frequently violated
in chess games, is to take the
initiative always on that side
of the board on which one has
more territory or greater
fighting force.

attack by sudden accumulation of forces.

- At any rate, I learned a great

deal fr om this game (Edward
Lasker vs Alekhine, 1913). It
taught me that when the
principle of rapid
development
seemed to clash with the
principle of maintaining a
Pawn in the center, the latter
was apt to be the more
important of the two. It also
taught me that when the
opponent had more mobility, I
should not lose any
opportunity to exchange
pieces, in that way weakening
the threat of an

ALEKHINE

(Edward Lasker, in cartea Chess Secrets I

learned from the masters)

(ICS SCHOOL - GM ISTRATESCU)

- The superiority of the forces has a huge
importance too. A chess game usually
consists of more local battles. It is always
convenient to fight in those local battles
by having a superiority of the forces in
that area. Creating a local superiority of
the forces is directly correlated with
finding the best plan of play. When you
look for a plan of play you must always
ask yourself Where would it be better to
challenge my opponent for a local
battle?

EUWE

morning, and established a simple rule:

the white king has to be on the same rank
as the black king, or on an adjacent one.
Once I had found this rule, everything was
clear to me when I went to resume play in
the morning. Minev wasn't aware of the
rule. All he knew was the very complicated
analysis by Keres. He was armed with
stacks of positions and variations. And
Minev very quickly lost. In a case like that,
Keres's analysis is as much use as a
computer's. A chess master needs to know
rules.

2.FAZA DE
DESCHIDERE
LASKER Manual of Chess

BOTVINNIK
In 1954, in the Amsterdam
Olympiad, I was playing Minev
of Bulgaria. We reached an
endgame with queen and pawn
against queen. I analysed the
position until two in the

PURDY

BRONSTEIN
Remember only: all openings
are divided into four main
types - Open,
Semi-Open,
Semi-Closed and Closed. In
each section prepare for
yourself a favourite variation
and then ... off you go!

RUBEN FINE

A corollary of our rule is that one must

get rid of the opponent's
center
Pawns
whenever
and
whereverpossible.
EUWE

4. How can one get control

of the center? The answer to
this is quite
simple from a theoretical
point of view: by playing up
both center
Pawns as soon as convenient.
However, since chess is a
game which
should be drawn with perfect
play by both sides, control
which confers
a marked advantage is
possible only if the opponent
plays weakly.
If control is not feasible (this
is especially important for
Black) one
should at least secure
equality.

ZNOSKO BOROVSKY

3.TACTICA, CALCUL
VARIANTE
- Players should use what de Groot terms
"progressive deepening." That means a
player should not spend all his time on
one final candidate, but instead look
around and examine all the candidates at
progressively deeper levels. This is a
much more efficient way of trying to
either eliminate candidates or identify one
as clearly best.
Suppose there are three final candidates
"A", "B", and "C". If a player initially
spends all of his analysis time just
considering A, then he has no information
as to how good "A" is compared to "B"
and "C". There may be information he
can derive from quickly examining "B"
and "C" that could either: . eliminate
"A" - by making it clear "B" or "C" is
clearly superior, and spend the rest of his
time examining only "B" and "C", or
eliminate both "B" and "C" - in which
case once "A" is established as remaining
safe, it could be played. In each of those
cases a player would save an enormous
amount of time because he would not

have to examine "A" nearly as

deeply. Keep in mind that the
goal is to find the best move
possible, not to identify
exactly how good "A" is.
Therefore,
progressive
deepening by examining each
move a little deeper and
deeper in turn is much more
efficient
than
completely
examining candidate "A"
first.

pentru dezvoltarea puterii de calcul

a sahistului.

STEINITZ

- I am fond of solving
chess problems and,
particularly,
chess
studies. Chess problems
are full of paradoxes and
original ideas.

Garry Kasparov
- BOTVINNIK
recomanda,
de
asemenea, rezolvarea de
studii
si
probleme

EUWE

LIPNITZKY
Today the concrete, creative
approach to assessing a
position reigns supreme.
Soviet players relying on
this method have achieved
exceptional successes.
The foregoing examples show
that in evaluating "settled"
positions, the calculation of
variations plays a secondary,
subordinate role, conceding
the central place to various
positional factors. It is a much
more complicated matter to
evaluate positions which have
not
assumed
a
settled
character.
It is these unclear, as yet
unsettled, positions that I
propose to call critical . The
vast majority of positions that
a chessplayer encounters fall
within the "critical" category.
To assess a critical position
correctly and disclose its
content,
positional
considerations
alone
are
inadequate. A position of this
kind has to be subjected to
diligent analysis - in other
words, you have to resort to
calculating
a
range
of
variations. Analysis permits

you to envisage the various ways in which

the position may develop further. It is
only after studying the dynamics of a
critical position that you can judge it
correctly and select an effective plan or
move. Thus, the true evaluation of a
critical position is very largely dependent
on analysis. On the other hand, analysis
itself means evaluating the positions that
arise one after the other in the process of
calculating variations. A kind of closed
circle is formed: analysis leans on
evaluation, and evaluation flows from
analysis.

VALERI BEIM
- Examinarea detaliata a pozitiei
precede identificarea mutarilor
(ideilor, posibilitatilor) candidat.
Mutarile
violente
(atacurile,
amenintarile, capturile etc.) trebuie
calculate primele. Fiecare varianta
trebuie calculata pana cand pozitia
devine linistita.
EMANUEL LASKER
The consideration of forcible moves is
necessary because in this way a short road to
victory, provided it is on the board, can be
discerned. The method is also practical
because it eliminates all consideration of the
immense multitude of nonviolent moves and
concentrates the attention upon a few
possibilities which the human mind can
easily digest.

4.

great, but I am not a big fan of his. Maybe

its just my taste. Ive studied his games a
lot, but I much prefer Capablanca and
Morphy.

INTERVIURI,
SFATURI

BOBBY
FISCHER
INTERVIU 2006

"In chess so much depends on

opening
theory,
so
the
champions before the last
century did not know as much as
I do and other players do about
opening theory. So if you just
brought them back from the
dead they wouldnt do well.
Theyd get bad openings.
Memorisation is enormously
powerful. Some kid of fourteen
today, or even younger, could get
an opening advantage against
Capablanca, and especially
against the players of the
previous century, like Morphy
and Steinitz. Maybe they would
still be able to outplay the young
kid of today. Or maybe not,
because nowadays when you get
the opening advantage not only
do you get the opening
advantage, you know how to
play, they have so many
examples of what to do from this
position. It is really deadly, and
that is why I dont like chess any
more."
Morphy and Capablanca had
enormous talent, Steinitz was
very great too. Alekhine was

KRAMNIK
Steinitz mainly concentrated on individual
positional elements. For instance, if he had a
better pawn structure along with a
promising attack on the enemy's king, he
thought his advantage was almost decisive.
But Lasker understood that different
positional components could offset each
other. He realized that different types of
advantage could be interchangeable: tactical
edge could be converted into strategic
advantage and vice versa.
I think that Lasker had a more extensive
knowledge of chess than Steinitz.Lasker was
an impressive person. He managed to
understand a lot in chess. He was the first to
understand the importance of psychological
factors and started to pay attention to them.
He began to adapt his strategy and, to a
certain extent, his style to different
opponents.
By the way, not everyone knows that Lasker
denied exerting "psychological influence" on
his opponents by saying: "My success is
primarily based on the understanding of the
pieces' strength, not on the opponent's
nature".
Alekhine definitely was a workaholic. He
had a strategic talent and was the first
player who had a conscious feel for
dynamics. He proved that it was possible to
take advantage of dynamics by following
main positional principles: to start weaving a

kind of net from the very first

moves,
threatening
and
attacking at every step without
looking
for
a
long-term
advantage.
Botvinnik definitely represented
a new era in chess. I would call
him the first true professional.
He was the first to realise that
chess performance was not only
dependent on chess skills. He
developed
comprehensive
preparation for competitions
which consisted of opening
studies along with healthy sleep,
daily routine and physical
exercises. He was a pioneer in
this field.
Smyslov
plays
correctly,
truthfully and has a natural
style. I would recommend a
study of Smyslov's games to
children who want to know how
to play chess because he plays
the game how it should be
played: his style is the closest to
some sort of 'virtual truth' in
chess. He always tried to make
the strongest move in each
position. He has surpassed many
other of the World Champions
in the number of strongest
moves made.
He was a master of positional
play
and
surpassed
his
predecessors in this area.
Probably, he was the first chess
player to reach the highest level
of accuracy. To a certain extent,
Smyslov was the pioneer of this

style, which was later brilliantly developed

by Karpov, i.e. the gradual mounting of
positional pressure based on the most
accurate calculation of short lines.
Fischer was the first chess player to mount
tension from the first till the last move
without giving his opponent even the
slightest break. He had a similar precept for
both positional and tactical games: he tried
to set as many tasks for his opponent as he
could. He played very 'vigorous' chess.
I can't say that Fischer had clear
handwriting - he was a versatile player. In
fact I would rather call it a cumulative style.
In his better days he combined Smyslov's
accuracy with Spassky's universalism and
Alekhine's energy... His rationalism was his
only weak spot, he was not that good at
irrational and unsound positions.

Botvinnik
Garry (n.r. Kasparov) now plays worse
than he did ten years ago and his style
has changed. He used to play like
Capablanca, as I taught him, by position,
but a few years ago I noticed that in the
interest of safety he was going in for
simplifications, and after the position had
been simplified, he would employ his
tactical talent.
Who do I rate more highly, Kasparov or
Karpov? Of course,
they
are both
outstanding talents , but the one with the
more versatile talent is Karpov. Have you
seen my book Anatoly Karpov: His Road to
the World Championship? He
played
fantastically in these matches. How he
won against Spassky! Spassky was still
very strong. A few months before their
match he had won the
1973 USSR

Championship. And what a

Championship! Nevertheless in
their match Karpov simply
crushed him. But then Karpov
stopped playing at full strength.
Why? I don't know. Perhaps in
the money-chess combination,
money became more important.
But what he showed recently
at the tournament in Linares
indicates that he has retained
his talent.
No, chess has not changed, it
has not become different . This
is
all fairy-tales, for young
children. It is only that the
initial information is now easier
to obtain, but the process of
analysis has remained the same.
A chess player should himself
analyse, and a lot, and nothing
can replace analysis.
BRONSTEIN

GM VLADIMIR AKOPIAN

I simply always had the impression that

in the past chess players played better
than they do today. And I mean played,
rather than reeling off computer moves
with machine-gun speed. Their chess
understanding was superior. Alekhine,
Capablanca, Spassky, Petrosian, never
mind Fischer. In my view you simply
cant arbitrarily say that Alekhine or
Fischer was mistaken. Its just not
possible, as they also understood a thing
or two! And having analysed it I realised
that the mistaken conclusion was the new
one and not the previous one. Of course,
the greats also blundered, but not the way
people claim nowadays.
When I say that people used to play
better than they do today Im in no way
whatsoever thinking of Garry Kasparov
himself. Its more a matter of some young
chess players who are now portrayed as
stars. Ive spent my whole life studying
the classics in the way I was taught by my
first trainers. Ive looked at and analysed
a lot and seen that people understood
chess very well.
The best, of course, was Fischer. The
second is probably Alekhine, and the
third is Kasparov. That top-3 is quite
clear. Then Capablanca, and then at
about the same level Spassky, Karpov,
Botvinnik, Petrosian, Tal It turns out
Im naming only World Champions, but
thats probably how it should be. I also
have a very high opinion of the play of
Larsen and Stein. Those are all chess

players from the past; I think

any of them would be stronger
than the majority of chess
players
in
the
current
generation. Again, I mean in
terms of chess understanding,
and not being armed with
stunning novelties. Nowadays
people sometimes make moves
in the endgame that wouldnt
even have crossed the minds of
any of those past players.
Their general chess culture
and education wouldnt have
allowed them to make such
moves.
GM JOHN NUNN

A games collection, for

example, requires more
effort because the lessons
are not handed out on a
plate to the reader.
Nevertheless, I feel that a
good games collection can
offer more instructional
value than almost any other
type of book. The important
point is that after each
game, the reader should ask
himself what he has learnt
from the game and how it
might be possible to apply
these ideas in his own
games.