This thread is devoted to discussing the various Schools of Chess.
A "school of chess" is a categorization of the ideas about how to play chess. Here, when we say "how to play chess", we are talking about the creation of some theory about the game that transcends turn by turn calculation. Indeed, it is the ideas you use to evaluate positions at the terminal nodes of a look-ahead calculation. Many people call this "positional evaluation"; others call it "chess strategy".
Historically, there were players and chess theoreticians that shared common ideas about how to play chess. People the categorized these into various schools. Wikipedia list 8 of these. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_chess
1 Philidor
2 Modenese school
3 English school
4 Romantic chess
5 Classical school
6 Hypermoderen school
7 Sovient hegemony
There is, of course, disagreement on the categories and their names.
Historically, there were players and chess theoreticians that shared common ideas about how to play chess. People the categorized these into various schools. Wikipedia list 8 of these. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_chess
1 Philidor
2 Modenese school
3 English school
4 Romantic chess
5 Classical school
6 Hypermoderen school
7 Sovient hegemony
There is, of course, disagreement on the categories and their names.
So what did I mean by "transcend turn by turn calculation"? While the schools of chess are concerned with the opening and middle game, the easiest way to see what I mean is to consider the endgame of King and Pawn versus lone King!
What could be simpler, right! Well it is only simple if you know the answer. Watch any novice player play this endgame and you'll see the issues. It is only in the very simplest of positions that someone can calculate, and by this I always mean turn-by-turn calculation look-ahead, to get a correct result. A result meaning you have arrived at a terminal node in the look-ahead were it is either mate, stalemate, or you get a Queen without mate/stalemate and you know that is a win. The novice knows no other method than the calculation method for getting a result.
So what are the ideas for playing this endgame correctly? Surprisingly there is not complete agreement on how to teach this endgame. Also, let's be clear - once you have learned this endgame, however you learned it, you no longer rely much on the ideas because you just know what to do!
The ideas used are:
1 Memorize key positions and their result.
2 Use the idea of "opposition" to know what to play.
3 Use Nimzovitsch's ideas, which he taught in "My System".
4 Use the ideas of key squares and corresponding squares to workout what to play.
Most teachers use a combination of 1 and 2, and teach the exceptions where opposition does not work.
There you have the example. 1-4 above transcend calculation. 1-4 are ideas about how to play chess. They attempt to give you the correct evaluation of the terminal nodes of any calculation. They may give you the correct evaluation and the move to play in the current position with no calculation required at all!
What could be simpler, right! Well it is only simple if you know the answer. Watch any novice player play this endgame and you'll see the issues. It is only in the very simplest of positions that someone can calculate, and by this I always mean turn-by-turn calculation look-ahead, to get a correct result. A result meaning you have arrived at a terminal node in the look-ahead were it is either mate, stalemate, or you get a Queen without mate/stalemate and you know that is a win. The novice knows no other method than the calculation method for getting a result.
So what are the ideas for playing this endgame correctly? Surprisingly there is not complete agreement on how to teach this endgame. Also, let's be clear - once you have learned this endgame, however you learned it, you no longer rely much on the ideas because you just know what to do!
The ideas used are:
1 Memorize key positions and their result.
2 Use the idea of "opposition" to know what to play.
3 Use Nimzovitsch's ideas, which he taught in "My System".
4 Use the ideas of key squares and corresponding squares to workout what to play.
Most teachers use a combination of 1 and 2, and teach the exceptions where opposition does not work.
There you have the example. 1-4 above transcend calculation. 1-4 are ideas about how to play chess. They attempt to give you the correct evaluation of the terminal nodes of any calculation. They may give you the correct evaluation and the move to play in the current position with no calculation required at all!
See my Beginner Course here for complementary discussion on the 5 principles of chess:
All of the schools of chess seem to have the following five principles in common: [principles = principle ideas]
1. King Safety.
2. Force.
3. Mobility/Space.
4. Time.
5. Pawn Structure.
They did not necessarily call them this, or have exactly these 5, but these are all incorporated in some way. Let's talk about why.
1. King Safety.
If you are checkmated the game ends. You cannot allow that. Otherwise you may be able to temporarily leave your King in an unsafe position. There would have to be great compensation - for example you have the opponent's King in a mating net and so he'll never have time to take advantage of your compromised King position. Of course if you know, without doubt, that you will mate your opponent, then your King is safe, by definition. But things are not always that clear cut in real life. Maybe you have not calculated to checkmate. If the opponent gets time while you finish your attack, will your compromised King lead to your defeat? Hence, the idea that having the King safe is a basic principle of chess.
2. Force
With sufficient Force (aka material) you can mate against the lone King. In more complex situations you can attack without your opponent being able to defend. For the sake of the novice beginner, a point value system has been created that allows him to calculate the amount of force he has: pawn=1, Knight and Bishop=3, etc. He can then evaluate the terminal node of a calculation, such as a sequence of exchanges, by simple arithmetic. It is important, of course, to not stop the calculation until it is quiescent. This method of evaluation works surprisingly well for beginners. Their games are almost always determined by the simplest of tactics; such as hanging pieces. With just a smattering of other rules-of-thumb for the game, beginners can play fairly well against one another.
Not surprisingly, as players get stronger, more and more exceptions to the point-value system for force are discovered. People have through the years argued about how to calculate force, but every school of chess considers force an important idea.
3. Mobility/Space.
In its simplest conception, mobility of a piece is just a count of how many squares it can move to. Does that count include squares only if they are safe to move to? Meaning the piece would not immediately hang? It should. Hence, hand-in-hand with mobility is the concept of Space; which itself comes in two meanings. The first being space to maneuver, and the second being control of squares. These ideas are so intertwined that they are usually considered together. Every school of chess must consider these ideas because with limited mobility/space your possibilities of success decrease.
4. Time.
Each opponent wants to make the best use of their "time" to play; i.e. their turn. It is this concept of "time" that is meant in the context of the principles of chess. There are ridiculous ways to fall behind in time; simply move your Knight back and forth such as 1.Nf3 2.Ng1 etc. The usual way to fall behind in time is to exchange a piece you have moved many times for one that has moved less. Falling behind in time can be fatal, hence it is a basic idea in all the schools of chess.
5. Pawn Structure.
Pawns move slowly, and they cannot move backward. They also can get in the way of the line-pieces (Bishop, Rook, and Queen). Hence, the location of the pawns on the board, the "structure" they form is more long lasting than other chess features and determines what the pieces can do. But there is more. The pawn structure determines what kind of plans are likely to be successful. There are features that the pawns determine that were the beginning of positional play in chess. Today, some schools of chess place some of those features in categories on their own, but each school of chess has had something to say about the play of pawns.
See Intermediate: Features Determined by Pawn Structure
and
Intermediate: (Soltis) Pawn Structures
All of the schools of chess seem to have the following five principles in common: [principles = principle ideas]
1. King Safety.
2. Force.
3. Mobility/Space.
4. Time.
5. Pawn Structure.
They did not necessarily call them this, or have exactly these 5, but these are all incorporated in some way. Let's talk about why.
1. King Safety.
If you are checkmated the game ends. You cannot allow that. Otherwise you may be able to temporarily leave your King in an unsafe position. There would have to be great compensation - for example you have the opponent's King in a mating net and so he'll never have time to take advantage of your compromised King position. Of course if you know, without doubt, that you will mate your opponent, then your King is safe, by definition. But things are not always that clear cut in real life. Maybe you have not calculated to checkmate. If the opponent gets time while you finish your attack, will your compromised King lead to your defeat? Hence, the idea that having the King safe is a basic principle of chess.
2. Force
With sufficient Force (aka material) you can mate against the lone King. In more complex situations you can attack without your opponent being able to defend. For the sake of the novice beginner, a point value system has been created that allows him to calculate the amount of force he has: pawn=1, Knight and Bishop=3, etc. He can then evaluate the terminal node of a calculation, such as a sequence of exchanges, by simple arithmetic. It is important, of course, to not stop the calculation until it is quiescent. This method of evaluation works surprisingly well for beginners. Their games are almost always determined by the simplest of tactics; such as hanging pieces. With just a smattering of other rules-of-thumb for the game, beginners can play fairly well against one another.
Not surprisingly, as players get stronger, more and more exceptions to the point-value system for force are discovered. People have through the years argued about how to calculate force, but every school of chess considers force an important idea.
3. Mobility/Space.
In its simplest conception, mobility of a piece is just a count of how many squares it can move to. Does that count include squares only if they are safe to move to? Meaning the piece would not immediately hang? It should. Hence, hand-in-hand with mobility is the concept of Space; which itself comes in two meanings. The first being space to maneuver, and the second being control of squares. These ideas are so intertwined that they are usually considered together. Every school of chess must consider these ideas because with limited mobility/space your possibilities of success decrease.
4. Time.
Each opponent wants to make the best use of their "time" to play; i.e. their turn. It is this concept of "time" that is meant in the context of the principles of chess. There are ridiculous ways to fall behind in time; simply move your Knight back and forth such as 1.Nf3 2.Ng1 etc. The usual way to fall behind in time is to exchange a piece you have moved many times for one that has moved less. Falling behind in time can be fatal, hence it is a basic idea in all the schools of chess.
5. Pawn Structure.
Pawns move slowly, and they cannot move backward. They also can get in the way of the line-pieces (Bishop, Rook, and Queen). Hence, the location of the pawns on the board, the "structure" they form is more long lasting than other chess features and determines what the pieces can do. But there is more. The pawn structure determines what kind of plans are likely to be successful. There are features that the pawns determine that were the beginning of positional play in chess. Today, some schools of chess place some of those features in categories on their own, but each school of chess has had something to say about the play of pawns.
See Intermediate: Features Determined by Pawn Structure
and
Intermediate: (Soltis) Pawn Structures
"The Soviet school agreed with Tarrasch and emphasized mobility. A weakness that could not be attacked was not a real weakness. The Soviet school was based on teachings of Mikhail Chigorin (1850–1908)." - Wikipedia
The weaknesses the Classical School were teaching had exceptions. Also, having one or more pawns in the center, as the Classical School taught, might hinder piece mobility. Mobility of pieces in the center and the ability to put those pieces there was the actual point of central control. Hence, the Soviet School started looking for exceptions. Many exceptions were to be found in the opening. The supposed weaknesses could be shown to be an exception either by static analysis of the position or by calculation. Similarly for central control.
But of course the proponents of the Classical School knew there were exceptions. One has only to play through Tarrasch's games and read his annotations to see that. However, I'm sure that having in mind some dogma, whether you realize there are exceptions or not, predisposes you to missing things.
The weaknesses the Classical School were teaching had exceptions. Also, having one or more pawns in the center, as the Classical School taught, might hinder piece mobility. Mobility of pieces in the center and the ability to put those pieces there was the actual point of central control. Hence, the Soviet School started looking for exceptions. Many exceptions were to be found in the opening. The supposed weaknesses could be shown to be an exception either by static analysis of the position or by calculation. Similarly for central control.
But of course the proponents of the Classical School knew there were exceptions. One has only to play through Tarrasch's games and read his annotations to see that. However, I'm sure that having in mind some dogma, whether you realize there are exceptions or not, predisposes you to missing things.
Before we leave the topic of calculation for a while, let's consider the current situation in the early 21st century; the time I am writing this (2020).
Computer chess playing programs today are of two types; a) the ones that mostly use brute force calculation of the tree of variations from a given position, use an opening book, and use an endgame tablebase, and b) the ones that train on a selected large database of games, and possibly playing against itself to improve. I'll refer to the first as "CALC" (calculation) and the second as "NN" (neural net). Hybrids are, of course, possible as is turning off some of the features; like turning off the tablebase.
These programs are widely available as are databases of master games, opening book databases, and the 7-man tablebase. Hence, many people use these as "the word" on what is the "best move" in a position or in giving them a line to play in the opening. But there are issues with this.
Only the tablebases are really sure to have the theoretical best move. And I say "theoretical best move" even here because that move may not be best for *you*! It may not be the best for you for several reasons - the time control involved, the opponent you are facing, or other conditions of the venue. Indeed, I have seen a CALC program in a position with 8-men where it is a Queen up, intentionally hang the Queen because it knows that the resulting 7-man position is a win! Yet the resulting 7-man position is so complex that no human would find the win. Humans instead would keep the Queen and make moves to simplify to a position they know *they* can win.
Leaving the endgame and going to the opening, are you really going to play a line indicated by the computer even if you do not understand the resulting position? And the computer cannot explain the position to you in any terms that you would understand. The CALC program would only be able to tell you it looked at billions of nodes, did a sophisticated min/max using its eval function at terminal nodes, and here is the answer; a line of moves and a score from the eval. Or several such lines and scores. The NN program would only be able to tell you exactly what most GMs will tell you; "I just know the answer from experience."
The situation is actually what occurred even before computers. Playing rote moves out of some opening book has always been known to be a "bad idea". You would not understand why the moves are being played and what to do with the final position. Similarly, playing moves by rote in the endgame will result in the same problem.
Hence, we are back to square one. Humans need some sort of theory of chess in addition to the ability to calculate. They need procedures that can be understood as well. They learn and navigate by pattern recognition and paying attention to exceptions.
P.S.
There are people using these programs to find theoretical novelties (TNs); moves in the opening that are not played or not normally played. This is very much in the spirit of the Soviet School. Once found by the program, these people make their own evaluation and understanding of what is going on.
There are also people who are using these programs to try to find the theoretically best move in an opening. They assume that if the computer looks at every possible move, and the evaluation has not missed a much further win by the opponent in the future, and the score is high enough, then they have found a win.
Interestingly, it is currently possible that a CALC program could solve chess. Suppose that a CALC program that examines every move, returns an evaluation of checkmate for White! Then chess would be solved; at least the initial position. However, this is unlikely. CALC programs have already looked wide and deep and no such evaluation has been returned.
Computer chess playing programs today are of two types; a) the ones that mostly use brute force calculation of the tree of variations from a given position, use an opening book, and use an endgame tablebase, and b) the ones that train on a selected large database of games, and possibly playing against itself to improve. I'll refer to the first as "CALC" (calculation) and the second as "NN" (neural net). Hybrids are, of course, possible as is turning off some of the features; like turning off the tablebase.
These programs are widely available as are databases of master games, opening book databases, and the 7-man tablebase. Hence, many people use these as "the word" on what is the "best move" in a position or in giving them a line to play in the opening. But there are issues with this.
Only the tablebases are really sure to have the theoretical best move. And I say "theoretical best move" even here because that move may not be best for *you*! It may not be the best for you for several reasons - the time control involved, the opponent you are facing, or other conditions of the venue. Indeed, I have seen a CALC program in a position with 8-men where it is a Queen up, intentionally hang the Queen because it knows that the resulting 7-man position is a win! Yet the resulting 7-man position is so complex that no human would find the win. Humans instead would keep the Queen and make moves to simplify to a position they know *they* can win.
Leaving the endgame and going to the opening, are you really going to play a line indicated by the computer even if you do not understand the resulting position? And the computer cannot explain the position to you in any terms that you would understand. The CALC program would only be able to tell you it looked at billions of nodes, did a sophisticated min/max using its eval function at terminal nodes, and here is the answer; a line of moves and a score from the eval. Or several such lines and scores. The NN program would only be able to tell you exactly what most GMs will tell you; "I just know the answer from experience."
The situation is actually what occurred even before computers. Playing rote moves out of some opening book has always been known to be a "bad idea". You would not understand why the moves are being played and what to do with the final position. Similarly, playing moves by rote in the endgame will result in the same problem.
Hence, we are back to square one. Humans need some sort of theory of chess in addition to the ability to calculate. They need procedures that can be understood as well. They learn and navigate by pattern recognition and paying attention to exceptions.
P.S.
There are people using these programs to find theoretical novelties (TNs); moves in the opening that are not played or not normally played. This is very much in the spirit of the Soviet School. Once found by the program, these people make their own evaluation and understanding of what is going on.
There are also people who are using these programs to try to find the theoretically best move in an opening. They assume that if the computer looks at every possible move, and the evaluation has not missed a much further win by the opponent in the future, and the score is high enough, then they have found a win.
Interestingly, it is currently possible that a CALC program could solve chess. Suppose that a CALC program that examines every move, returns an evaluation of checkmate for White! Then chess would be solved; at least the initial position. However, this is unlikely. CALC programs have already looked wide and deep and no such evaluation has been returned.
The Modenese school per wikipedia was due to the recommendations of three 18th-century players known as the Modenese Masters. But their style of play was to follow the ideas of chess writers from the 16th-century! They played the Italian Game opening. One of those writers was Gioachino Greco (who actually lived in the early 17th-century).
Greco recommended rapid development, and sacrifices, with aggressive attacks on the opponent's King. Greco could be considered the father of the Romantic era. Greco's may have been the first to record entire games.
Kasparov says that all chess players must go through the phase where they play in this style. What beginner has not played Scholar's Mate? What beginner does not play the Italian game?
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gioachino_Greco
Greco recommended rapid development, and sacrifices, with aggressive attacks on the opponent's King. Greco could be considered the father of the Romantic era. Greco's may have been the first to record entire games.
Kasparov says that all chess players must go through the phase where they play in this style. What beginner has not played Scholar's Mate? What beginner does not play the Italian game?
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gioachino_Greco
The ordering given in #2 (lichess.org/forum/team-jomegas-tabia/the-schools-of-chess#2) is from Wikipedia. It is in chronological order. This is the way it happened historically. There is nothing to say it had to happen in this way - that is, the ideas of the later schools can be understood in a different order than chronologically, so they could have been invented earlier. Indeed, Wikipedia says:
"Staunton pioneered the use of flank openings and the fianchetto of the bishop. After Staunton practically retired in 1853, these ideas were neglected."
Of course this means neglected by most. Those ideas of Staunton would come again, in a slightly altered way, with the Hypermodern School in the 1920s.
Now comes obvious questions about learning the ideas of the various schools of chess.
Q1: What order should the student learn the ideas of the various schools?
Q2: Do some of the ideas supersede others, and if so is there any reason to learn the superseded ideas?
Q3: How does the student know when they are ready to learn one of the ideas?
Q4: What is the best way to learn the ideas?
Q5: How does the student measure their success at learning the ideas?
I will address these questions in posts below.
"Staunton pioneered the use of flank openings and the fianchetto of the bishop. After Staunton practically retired in 1853, these ideas were neglected."
Of course this means neglected by most. Those ideas of Staunton would come again, in a slightly altered way, with the Hypermodern School in the 1920s.
Now comes obvious questions about learning the ideas of the various schools of chess.
Q1: What order should the student learn the ideas of the various schools?
Q2: Do some of the ideas supersede others, and if so is there any reason to learn the superseded ideas?
Q3: How does the student know when they are ready to learn one of the ideas?
Q4: What is the best way to learn the ideas?
Q5: How does the student measure their success at learning the ideas?
I will address these questions in posts below.
Before answering the questions in #8, let's address the statement in Wikipedia there that said
"After Staunton practically retired in 1853, these ideas were neglected."
Unless "neglected" means "not expanded on", this statement seems incorrect. The flank openings and fianchetto of the Bishop were not forgotten and they were played; if "neglected" was meant as either "forgotten" or "not played".
It seems worth quoting the premier proponent of the Classical School, chess writer, teacher, and player Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch. From his book "The Game of Chess" [TGC], let's first see a quote on the opening:
"But in the Opening we can combine with the development of the pieces, always the most important object to keep in view [ed: see Greco's advice in post #7], the aim of gaining command of the center, of occupying it with one or even more pawns. This is important, since the main struggle of the Opening and of the Middlegame, as long as there is no attack on a castled position, is fought out in the center. He who has pawns in the center is, in this struggle, the stronger. Formerly, the term pawn center was understood to mean two pawns, at e4 and d4. However, many decades ago now, I stated that it was a very real advantage to have even only one pawn in the center. Therefore, our first move is to advance a center pawn, our e-pawn or d-pawn, two squares. ... it is faulty to exchange it [ed: the center pawn] (unless one is forced to do so or gains some advantage thereby) for immediately the entire hold on the center is lost and the opponent, who maintains a pawn there, at once gains the upper hand."
Now let's look at a quote from Tarrasch from his famous book "Three Hundred Chess Games". The quote is from his annotation after his 5th move in his game. B. Englisch - Tarrasch, 1885. Tarrasch plays the King's Indian Defense (KID), which is an opening that features a fianchetto of Black's King Bishop.
"I confidently copied [ed: meaning he had memorized the first 5 moves and just played them] all these moves, which Louis Paulsen successfully made in his match against A. Schwarz [ed: so Paulsen had not forgotten the fianchetto], but to my growing amazement I saw how my opponent, without paying attention to the disdainful comments in the "Schachzeitung" [ed: i.e. Englisch was thinking for himself], was able to generate a vehement attack - pawnstorm. This was not at all in character with his usual playing style. This essentially made a shambles ot this touted Defense system [ed: i.e. the King's Indian Defense]. This conventional belief in the soundness of the defensive system, caused me to lose numerous games later on and even more recently."
So Tarrasch in 1885 was trying out the KID under the assumption that it was sound, because of "conventional belief" and not having good results with it. Of course today the KID is still considered sound.
So Tarrasch in [TGC] says this:
"It is also possible to adopt a totally different strategy [ed: to the opening ideas Tarrasch expounded earlier in TGC]. One can reverse almost all the principles developed up to now and proclaim as correct the very opposite. One can place material advantage above everything else and say 'I want to be a pawn ahead, then I will defend with care and tenacity and if my tactics are good, I shall soon win'. One can say 'No pawns in the center for they can be attacked and I shall have to defend them. Rather shall my opponent have the pawn center and I will attack it.' I personally, consider all these doctrines to be heresy. To many - and this is a matter of temperament and character - rather than the direct attacking strategy, the reverse will appeal. As a matter of fact, in the last few years as arisen a School [ed: the Hypermodern] that preaches the holding back of the center pawns. It is very significant that the strongest players - the present World's Champion, Dr. Alekhine, the former champions, Capablanca and Dr. Lasker, and also Bogoljubow - do not belong to this School. Quite a century ago this idea, now proclaimed as new, was tried in the "Fianchetto", as it is called, but was soon dropped because the opponent's center pawns were too harassing."
This shows that Tarrasch and Paulsen, and probably others, had not neglected the fianchetto. Paulsen was getting good results with the KID while Tarrasch was not. Then Tarrasch in [TGC] comes to the conclusion that the fianchetto, and by extension the Hypermodern ideas about the center, are not best.
Tarrasch's argument contains well know logical fallacies. He uses the fallacy "Either/or" which oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices. Examples: you either put pawns in the center or not, you put material advantage above everything else or not. His appeal to authority, the World Champions, is totally transparent as a logical fallacy as applied to the realm of chess. At best this is circumstantial evidence. Much better is Tarrasch's argument that the fianchetto was tried and dropped because the opponent's center pawns were too harassing. Of course, methods were eventually found to deal with this and today the KID is a respected opening for Black.
"After Staunton practically retired in 1853, these ideas were neglected."
Unless "neglected" means "not expanded on", this statement seems incorrect. The flank openings and fianchetto of the Bishop were not forgotten and they were played; if "neglected" was meant as either "forgotten" or "not played".
It seems worth quoting the premier proponent of the Classical School, chess writer, teacher, and player Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch. From his book "The Game of Chess" [TGC], let's first see a quote on the opening:
"But in the Opening we can combine with the development of the pieces, always the most important object to keep in view [ed: see Greco's advice in post #7], the aim of gaining command of the center, of occupying it with one or even more pawns. This is important, since the main struggle of the Opening and of the Middlegame, as long as there is no attack on a castled position, is fought out in the center. He who has pawns in the center is, in this struggle, the stronger. Formerly, the term pawn center was understood to mean two pawns, at e4 and d4. However, many decades ago now, I stated that it was a very real advantage to have even only one pawn in the center. Therefore, our first move is to advance a center pawn, our e-pawn or d-pawn, two squares. ... it is faulty to exchange it [ed: the center pawn] (unless one is forced to do so or gains some advantage thereby) for immediately the entire hold on the center is lost and the opponent, who maintains a pawn there, at once gains the upper hand."
Now let's look at a quote from Tarrasch from his famous book "Three Hundred Chess Games". The quote is from his annotation after his 5th move in his game. B. Englisch - Tarrasch, 1885. Tarrasch plays the King's Indian Defense (KID), which is an opening that features a fianchetto of Black's King Bishop.
"I confidently copied [ed: meaning he had memorized the first 5 moves and just played them] all these moves, which Louis Paulsen successfully made in his match against A. Schwarz [ed: so Paulsen had not forgotten the fianchetto], but to my growing amazement I saw how my opponent, without paying attention to the disdainful comments in the "Schachzeitung" [ed: i.e. Englisch was thinking for himself], was able to generate a vehement attack - pawnstorm. This was not at all in character with his usual playing style. This essentially made a shambles ot this touted Defense system [ed: i.e. the King's Indian Defense]. This conventional belief in the soundness of the defensive system, caused me to lose numerous games later on and even more recently."
So Tarrasch in 1885 was trying out the KID under the assumption that it was sound, because of "conventional belief" and not having good results with it. Of course today the KID is still considered sound.
So Tarrasch in [TGC] says this:
"It is also possible to adopt a totally different strategy [ed: to the opening ideas Tarrasch expounded earlier in TGC]. One can reverse almost all the principles developed up to now and proclaim as correct the very opposite. One can place material advantage above everything else and say 'I want to be a pawn ahead, then I will defend with care and tenacity and if my tactics are good, I shall soon win'. One can say 'No pawns in the center for they can be attacked and I shall have to defend them. Rather shall my opponent have the pawn center and I will attack it.' I personally, consider all these doctrines to be heresy. To many - and this is a matter of temperament and character - rather than the direct attacking strategy, the reverse will appeal. As a matter of fact, in the last few years as arisen a School [ed: the Hypermodern] that preaches the holding back of the center pawns. It is very significant that the strongest players - the present World's Champion, Dr. Alekhine, the former champions, Capablanca and Dr. Lasker, and also Bogoljubow - do not belong to this School. Quite a century ago this idea, now proclaimed as new, was tried in the "Fianchetto", as it is called, but was soon dropped because the opponent's center pawns were too harassing."
This shows that Tarrasch and Paulsen, and probably others, had not neglected the fianchetto. Paulsen was getting good results with the KID while Tarrasch was not. Then Tarrasch in [TGC] comes to the conclusion that the fianchetto, and by extension the Hypermodern ideas about the center, are not best.
Tarrasch's argument contains well know logical fallacies. He uses the fallacy "Either/or" which oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices. Examples: you either put pawns in the center or not, you put material advantage above everything else or not. His appeal to authority, the World Champions, is totally transparent as a logical fallacy as applied to the realm of chess. At best this is circumstantial evidence. Much better is Tarrasch's argument that the fianchetto was tried and dropped because the opponent's center pawns were too harassing. Of course, methods were eventually found to deal with this and today the KID is a respected opening for Black.
Questions from #8.
Q1: What order should the student learn the ideas of the various schools?
A1: Many of the questions in #8 depend on the student! This is why I emphasize in the Beginner Course that the student should find a mentor. A mentor is not necessarily a teacher. Google "mentor vs teacher".
When I teach (or mentor) someone about the ideas from the schools, I pick the ideas that I think they are ready to be introduced to. They do not at that point have to completely understand the ideas. Repeated exposure will clear up the inevitable ambiguities of language, exceptional cases, and create links among the ideas, games, and position that have been seen.
As an example consider the Wikipedia statement that the Romantic School featured "brash sacrifices and open, tactical games". A novice who has just learned the rules will have a very hard time understanding what that means. They first have to understand something of the importance of Force(i.e. material). They have to be told what the words "sacrifice", "open", and "tactical" mean in chess. While these could be explained, is this really what that novice needs at that moment?
This brings us to the third question, which we'll skip to.
Q3: How does the student know when they are ready to learn one of the ideas?
A3: The best way is to have their mentor suggest when they are ready. But if they are exposed to the idea in some other way and find it interesting, their mentor may begin bringing them down the road of understanding the idea.
Q2: Do some of the ideas supersede others, and if so is there any reason to learn the superseded ideas?
A2: I do not think this is the best way to look at it. All the ideas have uses. I'm having a hard time thinking of an idea that truly superseded another. It seems we have another case of the "either/or" fallacy when we think this way. Consider for example the case of the idea of "opposition" vs "corresponding squares" in the endgame. Both are still used. The famed argument over how to control the center is another "either/or" fallacy.
Q4: What is the best way to learn the ideas?
A4: There is almost universal agreement on this. Annotate your own games. Annotate master games. Then go over your annotations with the strongest player you can find. Preferable a player that can explain using theory what is going on - someone who does not talk in only variations. Pick games that have the ideas you are trying to learn.
Q5: How does the student measure their success at learning the ideas?
A6: See the answer to Q4. If the ideas have been learned then when they show up in new games, and your comments show whether you have learned them, then you will know.
Q1: What order should the student learn the ideas of the various schools?
A1: Many of the questions in #8 depend on the student! This is why I emphasize in the Beginner Course that the student should find a mentor. A mentor is not necessarily a teacher. Google "mentor vs teacher".
When I teach (or mentor) someone about the ideas from the schools, I pick the ideas that I think they are ready to be introduced to. They do not at that point have to completely understand the ideas. Repeated exposure will clear up the inevitable ambiguities of language, exceptional cases, and create links among the ideas, games, and position that have been seen.
As an example consider the Wikipedia statement that the Romantic School featured "brash sacrifices and open, tactical games". A novice who has just learned the rules will have a very hard time understanding what that means. They first have to understand something of the importance of Force(i.e. material). They have to be told what the words "sacrifice", "open", and "tactical" mean in chess. While these could be explained, is this really what that novice needs at that moment?
This brings us to the third question, which we'll skip to.
Q3: How does the student know when they are ready to learn one of the ideas?
A3: The best way is to have their mentor suggest when they are ready. But if they are exposed to the idea in some other way and find it interesting, their mentor may begin bringing them down the road of understanding the idea.
Q2: Do some of the ideas supersede others, and if so is there any reason to learn the superseded ideas?
A2: I do not think this is the best way to look at it. All the ideas have uses. I'm having a hard time thinking of an idea that truly superseded another. It seems we have another case of the "either/or" fallacy when we think this way. Consider for example the case of the idea of "opposition" vs "corresponding squares" in the endgame. Both are still used. The famed argument over how to control the center is another "either/or" fallacy.
Q4: What is the best way to learn the ideas?
A4: There is almost universal agreement on this. Annotate your own games. Annotate master games. Then go over your annotations with the strongest player you can find. Preferable a player that can explain using theory what is going on - someone who does not talk in only variations. Pick games that have the ideas you are trying to learn.
Q5: How does the student measure their success at learning the ideas?
A6: See the answer to Q4. If the ideas have been learned then when they show up in new games, and your comments show whether you have learned them, then you will know.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.