Chess Strategy
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
© 101ChessTips.com. All Rights Reserved.
