Chapter IV: The Opening (2)

on his third move, he prevents the Black KKt from reaching KB3, whence he might have moved to Q2. This is a desirable position, from which he could support the advance of P-QB4. But the Knight has other chances of development, to KR3 and B4, whence he can take his share in the attack on the White Pawn at Q4. In consequence White must postpone P-KB4 in order not to intercept the action of the QB on R6. Now, in that case White’s Pawn at his K5 has not sufficient support against the attack by Black’s P-KB3 (Diagram 31), and the latter move gives Black the advantage. The two main variations illustrative of these considerations are:

I

3. P-K5 P-QB4
4. P-QB3 Kt-QB3
5. P-KB4 PxP
6. PxP Q-Kt3
7. Kt-KB3 Kt-R3

II

3. P-K5 P-QB4
4. P-QB3 Kt-QB3
5. Kt-B3 P-B3

In both cases the initiative falls to Black, in the first through the attack on White’s Q4, the mainstay of White’s centre; in the second through attack on White’s K5, the White centre itself. We must therefore consider White’s advance of P-K5 on the third move as premature. Let us now find out whether it is advantageous to effect the same subsequently. A developing move can be interpolated, e.g. 3. Kt-QB3, Kt-KB3. If White plays P-K5 now he gains time for his advance of P-KB4, as Black’s Knight must retreat. On the other hand he cannot now maintain his pawn at Q4, as he has blocked his QBP. We arrive at the following plan of development:

3. Kt-QB3 Kt-KB3
4. P-K5 KKt-Q2
5. P-B4 P-QB4
6. PxP Kt-QB3

If Black were to play BxP at once, White could play Q-Kt4 with an attack on the Knight’s Pawn. That is the object of Black’s waiting move. White must either play 7. Kt-B3, which prevents his Q-Kt4, or 7. B-Q3, after which Black would take the pawn on B4 with his Knight, getting rid of the White Bishop. 7. Q-Kt4 at once would be answered by P-B4.

7. Kt-B3 BxP
8. B-Q3 P-B4

Black cannot castle yet, on account of the following threat, which I give in full because it occurs frequently in practice: 8. ... Castles; 9. BxPch, KxB; 10. Kt-Kt5ch, K-Kt1: 11. Q-R5, R- K1; 12. QxPch; 13. Q-R5ch; 14. Q-R7ch; 15. Q-R8ch; 16. QxP mate.

---------------------------------------
8 | #R | | #B | #Q | #K | | | #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | | #Kt| | | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | #Kt| | #P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | #B | #P | ^P | #P | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | | | | ^P | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | | ^Kt| ^B | | ^Kt| | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | ^P | | | | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | | ^B | ^Q | ^K | | | ^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H

Diag. 33

The position in the diagram seems favourable to Black as White cannot castle for some time.

For that reason another line of play has come to the fore in which White exchanges his inactive QB for Black’s troublesome KB.

3. Kt-QB3 Kt-KB3
4. B-Kt5 B-K2
5. P-K5 KKt-Q2
6. BxB QxB

---------------------------------------
8 | #R | #Kt|#B | | #K | | | #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | #P | #Kt| #Q | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | | | #P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | | #P | ^P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | | ^P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | | ^Kt| | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | ^P | | | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | | | ^Q | ^K | ^B | ^Kt| ^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H

Diag. 34

White has now the choice of two lines of development. He can either prepare for P-QB3 to support his QP. or he can develop his King’s side, holding the P at K5 only

I

7. Kt-Kt5 Kt-Kt3
8. P-QB3 P-QR3
9. Kt-QR3 P-QB4
10. P-KB4 Kt-B3
11. Kt-B2 Castles
12. Kt-B3 B-Q2
13. B-Q3 P-B4

The sacrifice BxPch, as mentioned above, was threatened.

14. Castles Kt-R5
15. R-Kt1 P-QKt4

If White does not wish to lose so many moves with his Kt, he can effect the intended protection of his QP as follows:

7. Q-Q2 P-QR3

not P-QB4 at once, because of Kt-Kt5.

8. Kt-Q1 P-QB4
9. P-QB3

II

7. P-B4 Castles
8. Kt-B3 P-QB4
9. B-Q3 P-B4
10. Castles Kt-QB3

and so on.

In both cases White has an easy development, whilst Black has no convenient square for his Queen’s Bishop.

To avoid this drawback Rubinstein has evolved the following variation, in which provision is made from the first for the freedom of action of the Queen’s Bishop:

3. Kt-QB3 Kt-KB3
4. B-Kt5 PxP

to open the diagonal for the Bishop at QKt2, e.g.:

5. KtxP QKt-Q2
6. Kt-KB3 B-K2

followed by P-QKt3 and B-Kt2.

We will now leave the French defence and turn our attention to the Caro-Kann, of which the initial position was shown in Diagram 28. Here also we find two essentially different systems of development, according to whether White plays P-K5 or gives Black the option of exchanging pawns by 3. Kt-QB3. In the first case a very noticeable difference from the French defence is, that Black can bring out his Queen’s Bishop. Here the process of development may be:

3. P-K5 B-B4
4. B-Q3 BxB

Not B-Kt3, because White could play P-K6! and paralyse the whole of Black’s game by preventing his playing the King’s Pawn.

5. QxB P-K3
6. Kt-K2 or KR3

Through this the move P-KB4, which fits into this pawn formation, is kept in reserve.

While White’s development is easy and natural, Black has difficulty in finding good places for his King’s side pieces. The game can proceed generally speaking on the lines of the French defence. Only Black can hardly attack White’s centre with P-B3, since the Pawn at K3 would be weak in the absence of the Queen’s Bishop. On the other hand, Black would be a move behind with an attack on the Queen’s side, since to reach QB4 his pawn would have made two moves instead of one as in the French defence. A certain compensation lies in the fact that White’s attacking King’s Bishop has been exchanged.

In practical play it has nevertheless been shown that White’s attack is more likely to succeed, and for this reason a variation introduced by Niemzowitsch has been tried several times; it aims at the exchange of Queens in order to weaken and retard White’s threatened attack, and to gain time for Queen’s side operations.

6. ... Q-Kt3
7. Castles Q-R3 or Kt4

But after 8. Kt-B4, QxQ; 9. KtxQ, White is so much ahead with his development that Black’s chance of equalising the game would seem questionable.

If White plays Kt-KR3 on his sixth move, he foils at once Black’s attempt of forcing an exchange of Queens, as he could play 8. Q- KKt3.

On the whole we can conclude that in the Caro-Kann defence White obtains a good game by 3. P-K5.

A line of play which used to be in vogue, namely, 3. Kt-QB3, PxP; 4. KtxP, Kt-B3; 5. KtxKtch, KPxKt or KtPxKt, gives Black an even chance, for although he loses his centre pawn he obtains a good development, and later in the game he has opportunities of exercising pressure on White’s QP through his open Q file.

Except the French defence and the Caro-Kann, there is no game in which an irregular reply to White’s 1. P-K4 necessitates any special considerations either in development of pieces or pawn formation. In all such cases it is sufficient to maintain the pawn centre and to occupy such squares with the pieces, whence they cannot be driven away with the loss of a move. Just one example: If Black plays 1. ... P-QB4 (Sicilian defence), White will not play his King’s Bishop to B4, because Black can reply P- K3, and gain a move by P-Q4.

B. Let us now consider the openings in which the first move is 1. P-Q4 on either side. Here the centre cannot be cleared as early as in the openings beginning with 1. P-K4, P-K4. The advance of a second centre pawn, which there led to a clearance, is not feasible in this case. White does not command his K4, and for some time to come he will be unable to advance the K pawn beyond K3. In consequence the K file does not seem a likely opening for the Rooks, and another file must be found for them. The conclusions arrived at for Black in the French defence hold good for both sides in the opening now under consideration, and accordingly the QB file is that most advantageous for the Rooks. The advance of the QBP strikes at the opposing centre, and, that being of paramount importance, the Queen’s Knight must not be developed at B3 before the QBP has been pushed on. Another development might be conceivable for the Rooks; viz. on the KB file, and also the KKt or KR file; here, as we shall see, an occasion may arise for storming the opposing King’s side by a pawn attack. But in this case, too, although it seems unnecessary to play the QBP, it is advisable to develop the Knight via Q2, as there is a constant threat of the QB file being forced open subsequently by the opposing forces.

We will start with the games in which the QB Pawns are played in the earliest stages of the opening, so that the pawn skeleton in Diagram 35 forms the basis of development. The sequence of moves is of moment, because the advance of the KP, whether forced or not, determines the possibility of bringing out the Q Bishops. The simplest process of development based on Diagram 35 is the following, in which both sides block up the QB.

---------------------------------------
8 | #R | #Kt| #B | #Q | #K | #B | #Kt| #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | | | | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | | | #P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | #P | #P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | ^P | ^P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | | | | ^P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | | | | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | ^Kt| ^B | ^Q | ^K | ^B | ^Kt| ^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H

Diag. 35

2. P-K3 P-K3
3. Kt-KB3 Kt-KB3
4. P-B4 P-B4
5. Kt-B3 Kt-B3
6. B-Q3 B-Q3
7. Castles. Castles

The only useful square for the QB’s on either side is now at Kt2, and 8. P-QKt3, P-QKt3 are indicated. To play P-QKt3 before castling is very dangerous, because Black can play PxQP and pin the White QKt with B-Kt5, forcing B-Q2, when B-Kt2 was the move intended, e.g. 6. P-QKt3, BPxP; 7. KPxP, B-Kt5; 8. B-Kt2, Kt-K5; 9. Q-B2, Q-R4; 10. R-QB1, QxP.

In order not to relinquish the square at QKt4 to Black, White can also try the following manœuvre:

6. PxBP BxP
7. P-QR3 Castles
8. P-QKt4 B-Q3
9. B-Kt2

If Black imitates White’s moves, viz. 9. ... PxP; 10. BxP, P-QR3; 11. Castles, P-QKt4; 12. B-Q3, B-Kt2, the result is the symmetrical position in Diagram 36.

---------------------------------------
8 | #R | | | #Q | | #R | #K | |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | | #B | | | | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | #P | | #Kt| #B | #P | #Kt| | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | #P | | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | ^P | | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | ^P | | ^Kt| ^B | ^P | ^Kt| | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | | ^B | | | | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | | | ^Q | | ^R | ^K | |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H

Diag. 36

When treating of the middle game, we shall find that even in this apparently fully equalised position the influence of the first move is still at work.

In order to obtain a more thorough understanding of the Queen’s Pawn game, we must now turn our attention very closely to the opening moves. Already on the second move White can play 2. P-QB4 and turn the game into a Queen’s gambit, which Black can either accept or decline. Black would be justified in playing 2. ... PxP, and so furthering White’s object of getting his (Black’s) Queen’s Pawn away, if he could permanently hold the gambit pawn, or if the giving up of the square at Q4 fits into a reasoned system of development. The latter was, for instance, the case in the play leading to the position shown in the Diagram 36. But Black is well advised to wait until White has moved the King’s Bishop before taking the pawn on his QB5. This forces the Bishop to move twice, and Black regains the move he lost in his development, when he played PxP.

It would be quite incorrect to try to hold the pawn by P-QKt4 as follows:

2. P-QB4 PxP
3. Kt-KB3 Kt-KB3
4. P-K3 P-QKt4
5. P-QR4

---------------------------------------
8 | #R | #Kt| #B | #Q | #K | #B | | #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | | #P | | #P | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | | | | #Kt| | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | #P | | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | ^P | | #P | ^P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | | | | ^P | ^Kt| | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | | ^P | | | | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | ^Kt| ^B | ^Q | ^K | ^B | | ^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H

Diag. 37

If now Black answers PxP, White simply plays BxP and the P at R5 is lost very soon. If Black plays instead: 5. ... P-B3, White wins back his pawn with 6. P-QKt3, PxKt P; 7. PxP, PxP; 8. BxPch by QxP, and moreover is much ahead with his development.

These considerations point to the conclusion that after 2. P-QB4 there is no inducement for Black to take the pawn. On the contrary, he will cover his centre pawn, which White wishes to tempt away, either with P-K3 or P-QB3. The attempt to develop the Queen’s Bishop before playing P-K3 is not to be recommended, because the Q Kt’s pawn remains unprotected and open to an immediate attack by 3. Q-Kt3. Of the two remaining replies, 2. ... P-K3 and 2. ... P-QB3, I will first discuss the former, as being the more natural of the two, since P-QB3 does not fit into the scheme for opening the QB file for the Rooks. White, on the other hand, can bring out his QB before playing P-K3, in this way:

2. P-QB4, P-K3; 3. Kt-QB3, Kt-KB3; 4. B-Kt5, and the game might proceed as follows: 4. ... Q Kt-Q2. (Diagram 38.)

No fault can be found with this move, although it blocks the Bishop, since the latter can only be developed effectively at Kt2. Moreover, the Knight at Q2 supports the projected P-B4. White cannot win a pawn now with 5. PxP, PxP; 6. KtxP, because of KtxKt; 7. BxQ, B-Kt5ch. Therefore 5. P-K3 must be played first, and after B-K2; 6. Kt-B3, Castles; 7. R-B1, P-QKt3; 8. PxP, PxP; 9. B-Q3, B-Kt2, all the pieces have found rational development.

---------------------------------------
8 | #R | | #B | #Q | #K | #B | | #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | #P |#Kt | | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | | | #P |#Kt | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | | #P | | | ^B | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | ^P | ^P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | |^Kt | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | | | ^P | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | | | ^Q | ^K | ^B |^Kt | ^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H

Diag. 38

Quite a different system of opening ensues, when Black does not delay pushing the P to QB4 until after his pieces are developed, but makes the advance on his third move.

Here Black has the advantage of being able to avoid the pinning of his Knight by the opposing QB.

2. P-QB4 P-K3
3. Kt-QB3 P-QB4
4. Kt-B3 Kt-QB3!

Now Black threatens QPxP with an attack on White’s Queen’s Pawn. If White plays P-K3 we get the position mentioned in connection with Diagram 35. If he wishes to bring out his QB first, he must anticipate Black’s threat by BPxP.

After

5. BPxP KPxP

the third of the typical main positions in the Queen’s gambit ensues, and is given in Diagram 39. Two continuations must now be considered. White can either develop his KB at Kt2, and concentrate on the Black QP, which is somewhat weak, or he can place the KB on one of the available squares between B1 and R6. In the first instance, the KP need not be played at all, and the QB

---------------------------------------
8 | #R | | #B | #Q | #K | #B |#Kt | #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | | | | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | |#Kt | | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | #P | #P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | | ^P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | |^Kt | | |^Kt | | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | | | ^P | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | | ^B | ^Q | ^K | ^B | | ^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H

Diag. 39

retains the option of developing at Kt5, B4, and even K3. In the second, where the K must make room for the KB, White must decide at once between B-B4 or Kt5, and only B4 can be seriously considered on account of

6. B-Kt5 B-K2
7. BxB KtxB

which only furthers Black’s development. White would only be justified in this course if he could now win a pawn with 8. PxP, but Black would win it back and have the superior game after

8. ... P-Q5
9. Kt-K4 Castles

followed by B-B4 and Q-R4ch. The correct move in this variation is consequently 6. B-B4, and a possible continuation would be: Kt-KB3; 7. P-K3, B-K3; 8. R-QB1 or B-QKt5 or B-Q3.

With this we will close the discussion of the variations initiated by 2. P-QB4, P-K3, and study the reply 2. ... P-QB3. The first question which arises in our mind is: Which file will Black be able to utilise for his Rooks? An attempt to free the King’s file through P-K4 is conceivable. But White can prevent this by simply playing Kt-KB3.

Two other possibilities present themselves: after playing P-K3, Kt-B3 and QKt-Q2, Black could steer into a line similar to the Queen’s gambit accepted with PxP and P-QB4, or he could keep the centre closed with P-KB4 and Kt-B3, with the intention of playing Kt-K5 and using the KB file for activating his Rook via KB3. Diagram 40 gives the position reached after:

3. Kt-KB3 P-K3
4. P-K3 Kt-KB4
5. Kt-K5 Kt-B3

---------------------------------------
8 | #R |#Kt | #B | #Q | #K | #B | | #R |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | | | | | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | #P | | #P |#Kt | | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | | #P |^Kt | #P | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | ^P | ^P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | | | | ^P | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^P | | | | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R |^Kt | ^B | ^Q | ^K | ^B | | ^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H

Diag. 40

White would not accomplish much with 6. P-KB4. The more or less symmetrical lineup of the pieces would most likely lead to a draw after Black properly prepares freeing his hemmed-in Bishop with P-QKt3 and B-Kt2. A better plan would be 6. P-B3, preventing Kt- K5 and preparing the eventual advance of the King’s Pawn to K4. In reply to 6. ... , QKt-Q2 White would then rather play 7. Kt-Q3 than exchange Knights, as after this exchange it would not be too difficult for Black to bring his Bishop into play on the King’s wing via K1. Both of White’s Bishops would be best placed on Kt2.

This “Stonewall” opening can also be played by White, who is then a move to the good in the variation just shown. But this opening has practically disappeared from modern tournament games, simply because the QB cannot easily be brought into play.

The following variation is reminiscent of the “Stonewall” in the formation of the centre pawns. White develops his Queen’s side just as Black did in the opening shown in connection with Diagram 38.

2. Kt-KB3 P-QB4
3. P-K3 Kt-QB3
4. B-Q3 Kt-B3
5. P-QKt3 P-K3
6. B-Kt2 B-Q3
7. QKt-Q2 PxP
8. PxP Castles

---------------------------------------
8 | #R | | #B | #Q | | #R | #K | |
|---------------------------------------|
7 | #P | #P | | | | #P | #P | #P |
|---------------------------------------|
6 | | | #Kt| #B | #P | #Kt| | |
|---------------------------------------|
5 | | | | #P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
4 | | | | ^P | | | | |
|---------------------------------------|
3 | | ^P | | ^B | | ^Kt| | |
|---------------------------------------|
2 | ^P | ^B | ^P | ^Kt| | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|---------------------------------------|
1 | ^R | | | ^Q | ^K | | | ^R |
---------------------------------------
A B C D E F G H

Diag. 41

White can now settle his Knight at K5, and initiate a violent King’s side attack after castling, by P-KB4, Q-B3, which could be continued with P-KKt4, K-R1, R-KKt1, and so on. Once the position in Diagram 41 has been reached, Black’s resources against the dangerous onslaught of the White forces are scanty. Yet he can retaliate, not by making the simplest and most obvious developing moves, as mentioned before, but in the following way:

If White plays 5. P-QKt3 before castling, Black exchanges pawns and checks with the Queen. Now White has the disagreeable choice between B-Q2 and P-B3. The former must be bad, being contrary to the plan of development as intended by P-QKt3. The latter blocks the very diagonal on which the Bishop was meant to operate. White can open up the diagonal by playing P-QB4 after castling, nor would it really imply the loss of a move to have played the BP twice, since Black must move his Queen again from R4, where she has no future. But in any case there remains the disadvantage that White was forced to play the BP, whilst before he had the option of withholding its advance until a more opportune moment.

Another possible subtlety in Black’s sequence of developing moves would be to withhold the advance of his KP until White has played P-QKt3, and then to play the QB to Kt5. For, as I have already remarked, the objection to developing Black’s Queen’s Bishop lies in White’s threat to attack Black’s QKtP with Q-Kt3. That possibility disappears after P-QKt3.

Before bringing the discussion of the Queen’s Pawn opening to a close, I may remark that in tournaments it has become usual for White not to play P-QB4 at once, but to play Kt-KB3 as a preliminary, in order to avoid the complications of the Queen’s counter gambit: 2. P-QB4, P-K4.

If White plays 3. PxKP, Black’s reply is P-Q5, and the obvious move 4. P-K3 fails on account of the following pretty combination: B--Kt5ch; 5. B--Q2, PxP; 6. BxB, PxPch; 7. K-K2, PxKtch!!; 8. RxKt, B-Kt5ch, etc.

Instead of 4. P-K3, White should play P-KKt3 and develop his KB at Kt2. Black could now try to regain his pawn with Kt-K2-Kt3, but he can also sacrifice a pawn by P-KB3, with a view to rapid development.

It now only remains for us to discover whether Black has any other answer to P-Q4 which would necessitate close analysis on White’s part.

Here must be mentioned: 1. ... Kt-KB3, 1. ... P-QB4, and 1. ... P-KB4. The former move prepares P-Q3, followed by P-K4. In this opening there is no reason why White should play P-QB4, as there is no prospect of opening the QB file for the Rooks. Furthermore, Black has relinquished the square Q4 and made K4 the basis of operations. It will be more advisable to prevent Black from playing P-K4 as far as this can be achieved in conformity with a logical development, e.g. 1. P-Q4, Kt-KB3; 2. Kt-KB3. Not 2. Kt- QB3, because Black could then lead into the Queen’s gambit by playing P-Q4 and P-QB4, after which White has the disadvantage of not being able to open the QB file. 2. ... P-Q3; 3. B-B4, QKt-Q2; 4. P-K3. Now Black can only enforce P-K4 after P-B3 and QB2. Meanwhile White mobilises all his pieces, whilst Black’s QB remains blocked and the Kt must remain at Q2 to cover the KP. If, on the other hand, Black exchanges pawns in order to free the Knight, there is no Black centre left.

With regard to the second irregular reply to 1. P-Q4, namely, 1. ... P-QB4, two ways are open to White. One is to turn the opening into an ordinary Queen’s gambit by playing P-K3, on which Black can play P-Q4. The second is to play 2. P-Q5. Black will then develop his King’s side with P-KKt3 and B-Kt2. The Bishop is well posted here, and can frequently take up an attacking position at K4 or Q5. (See Game No. 45, Rubinstein v. Spielmann.)

If White plays 2. PxP, we have after 2. ... P-K3 a Queen’s gambit accepted by White, and, as pointed out before, this line of play is not commendable.

The last of the three irregular answers mentioned above: 1. ... P-KB4 leads to two entirely different plans, according to the second move chosen by White.

White can confine himself to a simple development such as: Kt- KB3, B-Kt5, P-K3, QKt-Q2 (Kt-B3 would only be good if preceded by P-B4, because Black would again lead into a Queen’s gambit with P-Q4 and P-QB4). The other possibility is the following: in view of the fact that 1. ... P-KB4 does absolutely nothing to aid development, White can initiate a violent attack by giving up his King’s Pawn (P-K4) and thus accelerate his own development. The play might be as follows: 2. ... PxP; 3. Kt-QB3, Kt-KB3; 4. B- KKt5, P-B3 (P-Q4? 5. BxKt followed by Q-R5ch); 5. P-B3. If Black takes the pawn he lays himself open to an attack hard to meet. It seems best to play 5. ... P-K6, which calls back the White QB and leaves White’s BP as a hindrance to the development of the KKt.

IRREGULAR OPENINGS

Many openings in which neither P-K4 nor P-Q4 is the first move lead to well-known positions by a simple transposition of moves. For instance, a Queen’s gambit may well have the following opening moves: 1. P-QB4, Kt-KB3; 2. Kt-KB3, P-K3; 3. Kt-B3, P-B4; 4. P-K3, P-Q4; 5. P-Q4, or a French defence these: 1. Kt-QB3, P- Q4; 2. P-Q4, Kt-KB3; 3. B-Kt5, P-K3; 4. P-K4.

There are, of course, systems of opening which deviate absolutely from those which have been proved sound and are in general use, and it is those openings that puzzle the beginner most of all. He says: What is the good of learning correct openings, if my opponent plays incorrectly and wins all the same? This line of thought is wrong from its inception. The student is not supposed to “learn” openings by heart, but to UNDERSTAND how the general principles of Chess Strategy are applied to any opening. Such knowledge can never be obtained from a tabulated analysis, but can only be arrived at by the application of common sense. If a player succeeds in winning in spite of an inferior opening, it only proves that subsequently he has played a stronger game than his opponent, who, after playing the opening according to the book, did not know how to proceed further. And herein lies the weakness, and not in the absence of knowledge of the analysis of openings. The latter is rated far too highly. Any player will hold his own in the opening, as soon as he has grasped the real meaning of those principles which I cannot repeat often enough, viz.: 1st, quick development of pieces and avoidance of lost moves; 2nd, the maintenance of a pawn centre, hampering the development of the opposing forces, and the avoidance of pawn moves that do not contribute to the development of pieces.

How to conduct the middle game and end-game is not entirely a matter of deduction from such general rules. In order to play the end-game correctly, one must know certain things and positions which arise from and may be said to be peculiar to the purely arbitrary rules of chess. The same applies to the middle game, as in most cases it must be played with a view to the end-game which ensues, unless there be a chance of mating the opponent before. The student should have, therefore, a knowledge of the end-game before he can hope to be able to conduct the middle game efficiently. For this reason I have decided to treat of the end- game first.