Chess Archives

John's Page  
Chess  

This stuff originally appeared on my Chess page.

Board Colors.  There aren't enough rules to chess, we have to have rules concerning the colors of the board.  Actually, if you're just playing chess in the kitchen with a friend, nobody much cares about the colors of the board.  It's only in tournament chess that the colors make a difference.

The reason for a rule on board colors in tournament chess, is because tournaments can go on for hours and hours, and it's considered unfair to subject competitors to the eye-strain that can result from odd, or brightly colored boards.

Black and white squares are considered acceptable.  The traditional black and red checkerboards are definitely not accepted.  Pastel colors are generally acceptable, depending on what the tournament officials will allow.

The current tournament favorite is a kind of sickly pastel green, and dirty yellow.  The reason for this revolting color combination is that of all the possible color combinations, this one seems to cause the least eye-strain.

On one of my computer chess programs, you could make the board about any color you liked, and I tended toward very bright colors.  The unusual consequence of this was the "polka-dot tie" effect, that being, when you looked away, you could still see the colors.  Of course, I'd change board colors every game, and after a few seconds, the effect would be gone.  I can see though, how playing hour after hour in a tournament, playing on various brightly colored boards could make you a little goofy.

For tournament chess, keep your board colors bland, and no red and black checkerboards!

Board Placement.  Believe it or not, there is a rule on how you place the board.  There should always be a White square in the upper left corner.  The reason for this seemingly tedious rule, is that a serious chess player can get used to the colors being in a certain position.  Certain pieces will always be on certain colors in certain positions.  It can be surprisingly disconcerting if the colors are suddenly no longer where they should be.

Another reason may be to help remind some of us which side of the King, the Queen sits on.  If the board is correctly placed, the Black Queen will always be on a Black square, and the White Queen will always be on a White square.

Folding chessboards are always made with the fold or split, going from left to right across the board.  It's only by a mistake in manufacture, that a correctly placed board will have the split running up and down the middle.  Out of some 70 sets, I only have one there the fold runs the wrong way.

The Freudian Aspect.  Yes, there are a number of Freudian aspects to the game of chess.  Extremists might go so far as to insist that each piece is like its own phallic symbol.  There are however, more subtle aspects as well.  The King is of course, the most valuable, in that his capture or entrapment ends the game.  The Queen on the other hand, is by far the most utilitarian piece on the board, by virtue of her superior mobility.  Even more subtle is the fact that if the board is placed correctly, the Queens sit on their own colors.  That is to say, the Black Queen sits on a Black square, and the White Queen sits on a White square.  Both Kings sit on the wrong, (opposite) colors.  The Queen may nobly sacrifice herself to win the game, or save her King.  The King must run from each and every attack, often spending most of the game cowering behind his defenders in a corner.

The most obvious Freudian aspect, is the issue of Pawn promotion.  In German, where nouns may be male, female, or neuter, the Pawn is known by the male, "der Bauer", meaning the farmer, or the peasant.  When a Pawn makes it successfully to the opposite end of the board, what is its reward?  He is not promoted to King.  He is promoted, or raised to the level of...a Queen.

You Touch It, You Move It.  OK, so most of us in a casual game around the kitchen table don't pay much attention to this rule, but it is one of the rules, and in tournament play, you must follow it.  There will be times when you realize that moving your piece will be a terrible mistake, and perhaps devastating to your game, but once you touch a piece, that's the one you have to move, if legally possible.

Even though I wouldn't have to follow this rule, and even though most of my opponents aren't even aware it is a rule, I try to follow it.  One reason is that while I may still suck at chess, I am serious about playing it correctly.  The other reason is more devious.  My opponents will often touch their piece, wobble it around, perhaps even pick it up, then decide it's not the piece they want to move, and leave it alone.  Moments later, they may again decide to move it.  On the other hand, I try never to touch a piece until I'm sure that's the one I want to move.  My opponents may never notice this difference, but then again, they might.  Even if they don't overtly notice, it's bound to register subconsciously, and the resulting unconscious line of thought might go something like, "Gee, I have so much trouble deciding which piece to move, and this guy seems to always be so sure."

Psychologically this might occasionally turn to my advantage, as it unconsciously promotes a lack of confidence in my opponent, or a false sense of how sure I am about my own play.  Of course, once in a while, adhering to this rule proves disastrous.  I may touch my piece and notice immediately that moving it would be a catastrophe.  Still, I take my goofs as a stern lesson, to always be sure about what I'm doing.

I'd never insist that my causal opponents stick to this rule.  It's not so important that they take the game as seriously as I do.  However, during one game in Bangkok Thailand, one player shot another because he touched a piece, then refused to move it.  As chess should rarely result in bloodshed, I'd try to adhere to the rule, "You touch it, you move it".

Ja Doube.  It's not a misspelling.  It's French for, "I adjust", and it's pronounced "zha doob".  You're in the park one day, playing a game with a plastic set, and a breeze comes up.  Your dog bumps the table grabbing the sandwich from your left hand.  Your cat chases a grasshopper and lands in the middle of your game.  Your frustrated opponent kicks the table leg.  The results are all the same.  Pieces get moved, sometimes scattering everywhere.  Sometimes just moving a piece or 2.  One piece may be half on one square and half on another.  The rules state that if you touch a piece you have to move it.  What can you do?

You calmly say, "Ja doube", then make the necessary adjustment.  Remember that you have to say, "Ja doube" before you move your piece.  Actually, chances are that your opponent in a casual kitchen game won't know what the fuck you just said, and may be ready to debate the point.  They may also insist that the piece was already where it was supposed to be.

Again, since chess should rarely lead to bloodshed, I wouldn't press the point against an obstreperous opponent.  In tournament play, you would be required to write down all your moves, and it would be easy enough to prove your point, not to mention official tournament observers who may support your position.  Either way, in the case of a piece that gets bumped or blown out of position, calling, "Ja doube" releases you from the, "You touch it, you move it rule.  Just try to make sure ahead of time that your opponent knows what the hell you're talking about.

Under-Promotion.  As I mentioned in "The Freudian Aspect", the ultimate reward for a Pawn, is to be promoted to a Queen.  It's not necessary to promote to a Queen however.  Your Pawn can promote to either Rook, Knight, or Bishop, as well as to Queen.  Of course, that begs the question, "Why would anyone want to promote to anything less powerful than a Queen?"  Well, there are several reasons.

One reason might be to give a break to an opponent.  The ethics of giving an opponent a break may be questionable, but I'm only out to play a game of chess, not to crush the spirit or confidence of a beginning player.  Another reason is that if you know your piece is going to be taken immediately, why hand over a Queen, when you can minimize their psychological boost by handing them a Knight or Bishop?  A further reason may be that promotion to a Queen may produce an accidental stalemate.

The best reason for under-promotion, is an immediate checkmate.  In the picture above, it's White's move.    White obviously wants to promote that Pawn, but promoting to a Queen simply makes it Black's move, and Black may win or possibly draw, by promoting the Black Pawn.  On the other hand, if White promotes the Pawn to a Knight, Black is checkmated.

Castling.  Castling is a vital part of virtually every chess game, and yet it's one of the most overlooked rules in chess by most beginners.  I can't begin to say how many games I've played with opponents who had no idea this rule existed.  Sooner or later though, you'll either want to utilize the Castling rule, or determine whether your opponent is using it correctly or not.  So like it or not, learn the Castling rule.

Castling is important for 3 reasons.  One, is that it removes your King from its centralized position.  The longer the King is in its original position, the easier it is for your opponent to take pot-shots at it, forcing you to move or defend it when you'd rather be doing other things.  The second reason is that it places your King behind a nice safe Pawn wall, (provided you haven't already mutilated your Pawn structure).  The third reason is that it connects whichever Rook you Castle with, with your other "power pieces".  Connected Rooks work much better together, than separately.

Even if your opponent knows about the Castling rule, there are bits and pieces of it that are often overlooked.  The King can not have yet moved, even it he moves, then moves back to its original position, the King is no longer eligible to Castle.  The Rook with which the King Castles can not have moved.  Again, even if it moves then moves back to its original position, the Rook is no longer eligible to Castle.  The King cannot Castle if it is in check, and the King cannot Castle if the square it crosses is attacked by another piece.  That is, the King cannot Castle through check.  Obviously, the King cannot Castle into check.

To Castle, you move your King 2 squares toward the Rook, and swing the Rook to the square on the opposite side of the King.  Castling on the King's side is slightly preferable to Castling on the Queen's side, the reason being, the King will be one square further from the center, and one square closer to protecting the Rook's Pawn.

One opponent told me that he never Castled because he'd gotten into trouble that way.  I knew immediately what had happened.  At some point in a game, he had Castled, and his opponent had run a Rook or Queen down to the end of the board and trapped his King behind its Pawns.  This can most assuredly happen, and is called a "smothered mate".  You do have to watch for this possibility, but if you see that a smothered mate is imminent, you simply bring another piece to your defense, or create a "flight square", by moving one of your Pawns forward.  Sure enough, my opponent left his King in the center of the board, and I was able to take pot-shots at it, keeping him so busy on the defense, he never had a chance to attack, and fell after an embarrassingly short game.

A few beginners have heard of the Castling rule but just never bothered to learn it.  Definitely learn it.  It's an invaluable tool.

En Passant.  If Castling is an often overlooked rule, En Passant is without a doubt, the most overlooked rule in chess.  So many beginners are completely unaware of it, that whenever the possibility of using En Passant arises, I always ask my opponent if they're familiar with it, and probably more than 90% of the time, they don't have a clue, in which case, I may explain the rule, but won't take advantage of it, since they may not have set up that position had they been aware of the possibilities.  The En Passant rule is so universally unknown, that I keep a copy of the rules of chess in my pocket to reassure anyone who thinks I might be trying to "pull a fast one".

En Passant is French for, "In Passing".  One Pawn effectively captures another Pawn as it passes by.  To capture a Pawn En Passant, one of your Pawns must be on the fifth rank.  Since a Pawn is allowed to move one or 2 squares on its first move, an enemy Pawn may advance on its first move and sit directly next to your fifth rank Pawn.  When this happens you have the option of either capturing the Pawn En Passant, or leaving it alone.  If you don't capture En Passant on that move, you lose the option of capturing it En Passant later on.

To capture En Passant, you simply place your Pawn directly behind the enemy's Pawn, and remove the enemy Pawn from the board.

Bear in mind that it is not always advisable to capture a Pawn En Passant.  In fact your opponent may try to tempt you into an En Passant capture when such a capture may not be in your best interests.

In any case, be sure your opponent knows the En Passant rule before you use it.  Odds are, they won't know what you're talking about, and keeping a copy of the chess rules in your pocket may save you a lot of explaining, that your opponent may not believe anyway.

3 Move Repetition.  You're one move away from checkmate, but your opponent places you in check.  You've only got one place to move, so you go there.  Your opponent places you in check again, and to your horror, you can only move back to the square you started from.  Back and forth you go...into infinity.  Well, you would, if not for the 3 move repetition rule.

With the 3 move repetition rule, if you and your opponent make the same series of moves without variation, 3 times in a row, the game is declared a draw.  You won't be bound to an endless un-winnable/un-losable game.

There will be times however when your series of moves may be long enough to allow for some variation.  The 3 move rule may not kick in for years if you can keep changing the order of your variations.  Fear not.  There is a rule to cover this eventuality as well.  It's called the 50 Move Rule.

50 Move Rule.  The 50 move rule is another of those rules designed to keep a chess game from going on into eternity.  It closes a loophole left by the "3 move repetition" rule.  With the "3 move repetition" rule, if you could vary the series of moves, you didn't really repeat it 3 times.  Some endings were also more complicated than simply moving a piece to 2 or 3 different squares.  Sometimes you could chase an enemy piece all over the board.  Sometimes you could chase a lot of pieces all over the board...but still capture nothing.

The 50 move rule kicks in after each side has moved 50 times, (100 moves altogether) but neither side captures a piece in that 50 moves.  In this case, it's fairly obvious that unless or until one side or the other makes some mistake, nobody is going to get anywhere.  After 50 moves with no captures by either side, the game is declared a draw.

Time Rules.  2 chess players stare intently at the board.  12 hours go by.  One of the players gets a bit more "antsy" than the other and finally says politely, "It's your move you know."  The other player looks up in surprise and says, "Oh, I thought it was yours."  This actually happened in a World Championship game with Paul Morphy in the late nineteenth century.  From that point on, chess clocks have been used to time each player.

A chess clock is actually 2 clocks.  As soon as White makes a move, the player hits one of the 2 buttons at the top of the clock which starts Black's clock running.  When Black makes a move, that player hits the other button, which starts White's clock ticking.

While most of our "kitchen table" games rarely last more than an hour, tournament games may last hours longer.  Each player must make a certain number of moves in a certain amount of time.  Failure to make the required number of moves in the allotted time, means you lose the game.  If you make the required number of moves, your time is extended...to a point.  The individual tournaments will determine their own time rules, but in serious tournaments, the games may go on for several hours before one side or the other runs out of time.

"Speed" chess is a rather different animal than conventionally timed chess games.  Speed chess clocks may be set at all different times, usually 30 minutes or less.  Some games are set to play 10 minutes, and 3 minute games are not uncommon.  In speed chess, unless one player is much stronger than the other, there is rarely enough time to play through to checkmate.  The object then, is simply to grab as much material as possible before the clocks run out.  The points of the captured pieces are then counted.  In many internet speed chess games, the loser is simply the one whose clock runs out first, and the only skill that seems required, is not to get checkmated while making the other player's clock run out during their turn.

In speed chess, there is little time to consider long term strategies, or study the positional aspects of the game.  Many players do exceptionally well at speed chess, but fall completely apart in a full length game.  They may not have studied the subtleties of a positional game.  For example, speed chess players often bring out their Queen early, to conduct "Queen Raids", collecting as much material as possible before the clock runs out.  In a full length chess game, the Queen is not only considered a huntress, but also a potential target, and a Queen developed too early soon becomes a distinct liability.

Likewise, players may do exceptionally well at full length chess, and fall apart in speed chess.  The inability to employ lengthy thought on position will quickly run you short on time, and you start making stupid or useless moves.  Each style of play requires a vastly different way of thinking.

Most internet chess games can't be set for more than an hour on each player's clock.  Most tournament chess games may not ordinarily last so long, but may be set to allow for games that last hours on end.  If you're playing with a friend at the kitchen table, throw the clock out the window.

Notation.  Knowing chess notation is cool for several reasons.  One is that when you win a game, it's always a treat to go back and relive it.  Another is that when you lose a game, it's a good idea to go back and see why.  Without writing down your games, both wins and losses are lost forever.  Another, is going through the games of some of the great masters, Bobby Fischer, Garry Kasparov, Paul Morphy, etc. not only to relive their games, but get a grasp of their playing style.  In addition, if you ever intend to study chess, from newspapers, books, or the internet, you'll need to know it.  In addition, one of the rules of tournament play is, you have to write down all your moves.  The reason for this, is in case of any disagreements with your opponent.  A tournament judge would settle the dispute based on what each player had written.  (It also helps reset the game in case some goofball bumps into the table and knocks the pieces over.)

There are 2 styles of notation, the older descriptive notation, and the newer "algebraic" notation.  Descriptive notation is a bit more cumbersome, a bit more complicated, a bit more confusing, and a bit more prone to errors.  Algebraic notation is less cumbersome, less complicated, less confusing, and not quite as prone to errors.  Descriptive notation has all but disappeared in Europe, and isn't particularly popular in the United States, although as a few in Europe claim, "Algebraic notation is so simple and logical, the United States will probably never adopt it entirely."  Almost all chess books and articles are now done in algebraic.

Descriptive notation uses an abbreviation for each piece.  The pieces on the Queen's side are for example, the Queen's Bishop, Queen's Knight, and Queen's Rook.  The Pawns are named for the pieces they start in front of, like the Queen's Bishop's Pawn, Queen's Knight's Pawn, and so on.  The same goes for the King's side.  There are the King's Bishop, King's Knight, etc.  The squares are described as for example, Queen's Knight one, Queen's Knight 2, Queen's Knight 3, etc. numbering them from your own side of the board.  Part of the confusion stems from having 2 different names for each square.  Your Queen's Knight 2 square, is your opponent's Queen's Knight's 7.

The descriptive abbreviations are for example, QKt1-QB3, for the Queen's Knight on square one, to the square Queen's Bishop 3, or the third square on the Queen's Bishop's file.  Since there is already a K for the King, the Knight is abbreviated Kt.

Algebraic notation reminds me more of the game of "Battleship".  Each square has only one name, whether you're on White's side, or Black's side of the board.  It can take a little getting used to the square names being backward from the Black side, but you get used to it pretty quickly.  The squares starting on the lower left on White's side are A1, A2, A3, etc. then B1, B2, B3, etc.  From Black's perspective, the A1 square is on the upper right.  The H8 square is on Black's lower left.  In algebraic, it doesn't matter whether the piece is from the King's side or the Queen's side.  The specific piece is named with an R for Rook, B for Bishop, Q for Queen, K for King, P for Pawn, and rather than Kt for the Knight, the Knight is simply, N.  Pawns are sometimes not mentioned at all, as for example A2 to A4, would obviously be a Pawn, and not something else.

A typical algebraic move might be, NB1-C3.  Translated, this would be Knight on square B1 to square C3.  

While the old descriptive notation may sound a little more baroque, I'm strictly an "algebraic man" myself.

Piece Values.  In any exchange of pieces, the beginner has to do a lot of guessing, based on their perception of just how advantageous, (or disadvantageous) the exchange may be.  A Pawn for a Pawn, or a Knight for a Knight, is obviously an even trade.  But what about trading say, a Knight for a Rook?  Or a Rook for a Bishop and a Pawn?  Or 2 Pawns for a Knight?  In either of these exchanges, are you coming out ahead, behind, or even?  The beginner has to guess.  You don't have to guess however.  Each piece has a specific point value.

Pawn=One
Knight=3
Bishop=3
Rook=5
Queen=9

The King of course, is priceless, because its capture ends the game.  Knowing the point value of each piece, a simple first grade math problem can tell you whether or not it's a good idea to initiate a series of trades, or leave it alone, or when you might want to end a series of trades before you fall behind.

If you give up 2 Pawns to get a Bishop, have you come out ahead, behind, or even?  Giving up 2, one point Pawns to get a 3 point Bishop, leaves you ahead in the exchange by one point.  Giving up a 3 point Bishop and a 3 point Knight to get a 5 point Rook leaves you behind, as you've given up 6 points to get 5.  Of course all of this presumes that you're looking 2 or 3 moves ahead.  "If I take this, they'll take that, and I'll retake with this" etc.  It's not always easy to look so far ahead, and you may easily be mistaken in how your opponent replies to your capture, so be ready for anything.

Bear in mind as well, that while counting points is an excellent way to determine whether or not a series of exchanges is desirable, you must also consider position.  It does you precious little good to come out ahead in a series of exchanges, if the position leaves you vulnerable to serious weaknesses, or even Checkmate.

Doing a little first grade math, can leave you with a crushing material advantage that your opponent may never be able to overcome.

Game Phases.  A game of chess generally consists of 3 phases.  On occasion, a game may never make it out of the opening phase before an unwary opponent is the victim of a quick checkmate.  Most games however, make it at least to the middle phase.

The opening phase consists mostly of developing the major pieces from behind their Pawn wall.  On occasion, one side or the other will start making attacks right away, which rather blurs the point at which the opening phase changes to the middle phase, but 2 experienced players will spend the first 8 to 20 or so moves just developing their pieces, and jockeying for position.

The middle phase begins when the real trading starts.  This can be after considerable development and positioning, and middle games can be incredibly complex.  Some players consider the middle phase to begin when the Queen, the last of the major pieces, is finally developed.

The end phase begins when most of the pieces have been traded, and little real power is left on the board.  Some players consider the end phase to begin as soon as the Queens are traded, and with my fondness for precision, it would seem a tempting qualifier, but the Queens can be traded very early on, so it's not really a reliable benchmark.

The long and the short of it is, that there are no firmly reliable demarcations between the phases, but the strategies involved for each phase are very different.  The opening phase is that part of the game where your pieces are developed and positioned, the middle phase is the complex part of the game where the power is all out there and taking part, and the end phase is where most of the power has been traded away, and it's a battle between the remaining few pieces left on the board.

There was always some debate between serious players, as to whether beginners should study the opening, middle, or end phase first.  Some players argue that you should study the end phase first, as it can be terribly frustrating to play a long, hard-fought game, only to blow it in the end.  I belong to the camp that believes you should study openings first.  Partly because I believe in doing first things first, but also because it does you precious little good to be an expert in end games, if you never get past the first few moves!

Play To win.  Or Not?  At first glance, this seems like a "no-brainer".  When you play chess, you want to win, right?  Well, usually you do, but there are a few cases where you may not want to win.  For example, against someone who's just learning the game, do you want to smash them each and every time they play?  How about if it's a little kid just getting started?  What if it's someone who just plain sucks at it?  There are 2 schools of thought as to whether or not you should always play your best, particularly against these kinds of opponents.

One idea is, always play as though your life depended on it.  The argument goes that a weak player will never strive to improve if they're fooled as to how weak they really are.  At the same time, the weaker player may feel condescended to and insulted if they figure out somehow that you've given them a break.  Joshua Waitzkin, (portrayed in the movie, "Searching For bobby Fisher) wrote that his father trounced him in every one of hundreds of games, until Joshua started winning more often, and his father quit playing him altogether.  

Waitzkin himself, wrote that continually losing made him ever more determined to win, but that he didn't really think most beginners would handle losing so regularly in such a positive way.  They might soon become discouraged and give up playing entirely.  Anyone, even people who've played for years, if they lose every single game, may become discouraged and quit.  They may not quit playing altogether, but they might never want to play you again.

So which is it?  Should you grind beginners into the dirt and risk them leaving chess for good?  Or trounce them soundly and hope it encourages them to learn more about the game?  Joshua Waitzkin was probably right.  Some people might never play chess again after a few serious losses, and others may be even more determined to improve.  I guess it's really a judgment call.  Which do I do?  Well, if I told you, no matter which way I claimed, how would you know whether I was telling the truth?

Openings.  Just as there are 3 phases to most chess games, there are 3 main types of openings.  There is of course, the first opening move, which may be the King's Pawn, or the Queen's Pawn opening, or any of the other possible first moves, (there are 20 possible first moves in all) but an "opening" can also be considered the first series of moves by both players, known as "book openings".

Probably the most common "book opening", is known as the Ruy Lopez opening, named after a Spanish Bishop who happened to love the game, and made this series of moves popular.

The Ruy Lopez goes like this;
1.PE2-E4/PE7-E5
2.NG1-F3/NB8-C6
3.BF1-B5

The standard reply to the Ruy Lopez opening is 3...PA7-A6.  This is known as "putting the question to the Bishop".  In other words, "shit or get off the pot".  The White Bishop has to either take the Black Knight, back away to A4, or sit there and be needlessly captured.  The fact that there is a "standard" reply, also brings up the point that there are any number of variations to any opening series.  I once knew at least 6 variations to the French defense.

While White determines the opening move, Black gets to determine the characteristics of how the opening will progress.  There is for example, Queen's Gambit Accepted, and Queen's Gambit Declined, depending on how Black answers the gambit, (or sacrifice) offered by White.  As Black gets to determine the characteristics of the opening, many openings are known as "defenses", such as the King's Indian Defense.  Many beginners mistakenly assume that because an opening is known as a defense, that Black is playing a passive or defensive role, which may not be the case at all.  For instance, the King's Indian Defense, can be a very aggressive answer by Black.

I studied the hell out of openings, and at one time, knew literally hundreds of openings and their variations by heart, some as few as 6 moves by each side, and some as many as 16 moves each.  I eventually learned however, that whether you're playing a beginner, a master, or a computer, you almost never follow an opening all the way through.  Your opponent will almost always make a move that completely "leaves the book".

Even so, it is a good idea to familiarize yourself with a few of the most common openings, like Ruy Lopez, the French Defense, Sicilian, etc.

Bonehead Openings.  Bonehead openings are aptly, if a little harshly named.  The long and the short of it is, Bonehead openings are opening moves that have no bearing on the center.  For example, NB1-C3, is not a Bonehead opening because the Knight immediately exerts pressure on the center squares of the board.  On the other hand, NB1-A3 is a Bonehead opening, because the Knight threatens none of the central squares.

These are the Bonehead openings, and their names.  Know them very well...then ignore them completely!  You don't have to know the names.  It's just fun if you do.
PA2-A3  Anderssen Opening
PA2-A4  Ware
PB2-B3  Aaron Nimzovitch/Larsen Attack
PB2-B4  Orangutan
PC2-C3  Saragossa Spain
PD2-D3  Mieses
PE2-E3  Vant Kruys
PF2-F3  Barnes
PG2-G3  Benko
PG2-G4  Grob
PH2-H3  Clemenz
PH2-H4  Kadas
NB1-A3  Durkin
NG1-H3  American/Paris France

In every one of these moves, the center squares were left completely unmolested.  There are only 2 possible reasons to use a Bonehead opening, the first of which, is if you simply don't know any better.  The second of which, is if you're playing an opponent you know to be far weaker than yourself, and wish to give them a real break by opening with a weak move.

Eccentric Openings.  Obviously, Bonehead openings should only be used against weaker opponents to whom you wish to give a break.  Conventional openings are those openings proven strongest after centuries of fully annotated and heavily analyzed chess games.  There is however, an "in between" group of openings, known as the Eccentric openings.  Why on Earth would you ever want to use an Eccentric opening, if it's neither the weakest, nor the strongest?

The reason is, serious chess players study the past games of their opponents to determine which openings or which answers, work best against them.  If for example, they tend to do well against a French defense, but poorly against the Sicilian, you'd naturally use the Sicilian.  Well, serious chess players know that serious opponents will study their past games and find those weaknesses.  So every once in a while, they'll want to throw a "monkey wrench" into the works, and bring all that serious studying by their opponents, to naught.  This is when you throw in an Eccentric opening.

NB1-C3 is the Van Geet opening, and NG1-F3 is the Richard Reti opening, (known to a few as the Zukertort opening).  While the Van Geet and Richard Reti openings are technically Eccentric, they tend to turn into one of the Conventional openings in the next few moves.

PC2-C4 is the English opening, and PF2-F4 is the Byrd opening.  The English opening and Byrd opening, are the true Eccentrics.  They threaten the center squares from the flank, rather than directly.  The Eccentric openings can be very strong in the hands of an experienced player, but dangerous and risky in the hands of the rest of us.

When Garry Kasparov was losing his match to the computer, "Deep Blue," he tried throwing the "wrench" into the works by using the English opening.  He had used it in past games, but only rarely, and was hoping to confuse his computer opponent with games for which it had very little data.  It didn't work.  Not doing as well as he expected, he resigned before anyone could really tell whether he might win or not.

While an Eccentric opening might confuse or frustrate an opponent who had spent countless hours studying your Conventional openings, they are not the strongest possible openings, and therefore carry an inherent risk, even in the hands of the masters.  While you should at least familiarize yourself with the Eccentric openings, for most of us Patzers, an Eccentric opening, like brain surgery, is best left to the professionals.

Conventional Openings.  Conventional openings are the strongest of all the 20 possible opening moves.  The only reason to use anything but the 2 Conventional openings, are either to give a weak opponent a break with a Bonehead opening, or to frustrate an opponent who has put entirely too much time into studying your past games by throwing in an Eccentric opening.

The Conventional openings are either the King's Pawn opening, (PE2-E4) or the Queen's Pawn opening, (PD2-D4).  Notice that in both openings, the Pawns advanced 2 squares, never one.  There are 2 reasons for this.  One is that advancing only one square exerts absolutely no influence whatsoever, over the central squares.  The second, is that advancing only one square unnecessarily blocks in one of your Bishops.

So, if there are only 2 Conventional openings, which one is the strongest?  Well, chess games have been written down and analyzed for centuries, and based on the statistics gathered from this exhaustive analysis...they're about equal.  Even so, you don't have to flip a coin to determine which you should use.

Chess Master Milton Hannauer asserted that since were of relatively equal strength, he chose the one that gave the illusion of being the strongest.  This was his reasoning.  The Queen's Pawn opening gave the King's Bishop an immediate 4 squares of control, and the Queen gained 2.  However, a King's Pawn opening gave the Queen's Bishop the same number of 4 squares, but the Queen gained 4 rather than only 2.  Why is this apparent 2 square advantage only an illusion?  Because the next few moves tend to equalize things.

Present chess theory is that if you happen to be a positional player, (building small positional advantages with each move) the Queen's Pawn opening might be your best bet.  If you happen to be more of a "Berserker", (one who likes a good, fast-paced, slugfest) the King's Pawn might be your choice.

If you plan to play a lot of tournaments, where your moves are written down and your opponents are likely to study your past games, you'll need to know both Conventional openings well, and have some grasp of the Eccentrics as well.  If you're more of a "kitchen" player like me, and nobody is likely to pay much attention to anything you've done before, it's a good idea to have some familiarity with the Eccentrics and one of the Conventional openings, but to concentrate heavily on one Conventional opening, whichever that may be.

The more often you play a particular opening, the more difficult it will be for your opponent to surprise you with tricky answers.

Computer Practice.  I've played a lot more on my computer than I ever have against humans.  I don't have to feel guilty if I beat someone, or embarrassed if I lose.  Of course, therein lies part of the problem.  There's far less stress involved in playing a computer, which is fine, but if you're used to playing computers, the stress of a game with another human can be rather surprising.  That stress can lead to a lot of distraction and goofy moves you'd never make against a computer.  The stress level of playing someone over the internet may be higher than that of playing a computer, but still nowhere near the stress levels of that face-to-face opponent.

Stress factors notwithstanding however, practice with a computer can help improve your game enormously.  If you wake up in the middle of the night in the mood to play, you can't usually call your buddy up on the telephone and have them come over for a 2:00 AM game, but you can always fire up the computer.  The computer doesn't laugh at you while you're learning, or get mad when you're winning.

There is one thing to beware of when playing the computer on a regular basis.  Most computer programs will by default, offer to let you play White.  This is fine, but if you always accept White, then suddenly find yourself playing Black, you'll be shocked at the difference in perspective.  The whole game will seem somehow backwards.  Alternate between White and Black on a regular basis.

Computers also offer different levels.  What I generally do is start out as White on the lowest possible level.  If I win, I play Black on the same level.  If I win again, I play White on the next level.  If I lose, I play Black on the lower level.  I reward or punish myself by advancing or declining, color by color and level by level.  Eventually you may find yourself playing the highest level consistently.  Computers however, have advanced to such a point, that it's becoming rare for even the best players to beat them on their highest levels on a regular basis.

Computer levels are determined by how long, or how many calculations the computer is allowed to make before it's forced to make the best move found at that point.  The higher the level, the more calculations the computer can make before it has to move.  One old program I used to use, moved almost instantaneously on the lower levels, but could take between 2 and a half and 3 hours to move on the highest level!  Thankfully, computer programs and the processors they run through, are considerably faster now.  I feel marginally better losing after an hour or so, than I do after 3 or 4 hours.

Romantic And Positional.  There are basically 2 styles of play, Romantic, and Positional.  The Romantic style doesn't mean that the players will sit there blowing kisses to each other over the board.  Rather, the Romantic style is an older style of play, where the "Romantic" player gets in and starts slugging away at their opponent until either they run out of things to hit with, or their opponent runs out of things to defend with.  The Romantic style may have been named for the way chess spectators adored watching a game played this way.  It's a lot more fun watching someone ruthlessly sacrificing pieces, or placing valuable material in danger, than it is to watch a more thoughtful, slower paced, "Positional" game, and players who use the Romantic style are also known as "Berserkers".  While a Romantic game may be more fun for the spectator to watch, it's a risky style, and by no means the surest way to victory for the serious player.

The Positional style is more complicated, slower paced, and generally more boring for the spectator to watch, but by far, the preferred method of any serious or advanced player.  Rather than nerve shattering sacrifices or relentlessly slugging away at your opponent, a positional player will tend to make small, calculated moves, the reason for which are not so readily apparent to the beginner.  The middle of the board is likely to appear more chaotic, although the exact opposite is true.  Positional moves tend to be looking further into the future than the flurry of tactical moves made by the Romantic Berserker.

Make no mistake about it.  At some point, when the most advantageous positions are achieved, the Positional player will then let loose with their own flurry of attacks and possibly sacrifices.  Unfortunately for a crowd of easily distracted spectators with short attention spans, it takes Positional players a lot longer to reach that point.  A serious player however, will make sure their pieces are well positioned before mounting an unplanned, "fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants" attack.  A Romantic player will throw caution to the wind, and hope their tactical moves can overwhelm the strategic moves of the Positional player.  As any Romantic player can tell you, "Sometimes the magic works.  Sometimes it doesn't."

Some players are great tacticians, and often beat a more strategically minded Positional player, but a good Positional player will almost always beat a good Berserker, because they're thinking farther ahead.

Specialty Sets.  Every week I show one of my chess sets here, and most of them can be considered "specialty sets".  The standard chess pieces you find in any $5 chess set are known as "Staunton" style pieces, named for an English chess master.  Anyone familiar with chess is familiar with the Staunton style pieces.

I love specialty sets, but in actual play they do present problems.  You may be familiar with your own specialty set, but for someone who's never seen it before, the pieces can be confusing.  After a while, anyone can get used to the pieces in a specialty set, but some of them take some serious "getting used to".  Many specialty sets have such unusual pieces, that even someone quite used to them can be easily confused, such as with the "Star Wars" sets, or "Lord Of the Rings" sets.  In sets like these, the pieces on one side may not be at all like the pieces on the other.  They seem to have no bearing in size or shape to the pieces they're supposed to represent.  In cases like these, the manufacturers actually have to stamp the Staunton style symbols on the base of each piece, to make their sets even remotely playable, and I emphasize the word remotely.  I consider many of my sets pretty much worthless for actual play.

Since familiarity with your own specialty set can give you a serious advantage, at least in the beginning, and unfamiliarity can give your opponent such a crippling disadvantage, specialty sets are never allowed in tournament play.  All tournaments accept only the traditional Staunton style pieces, giving both sides an equal advantage.  Save your specialty sets for display, or a friend who also thinks they're cool.

Develop Those Lazy Pieces.  If you had a football team with 11 players, it would be stupid to send one or 2 of them out on the field and leave the rest sitting on the bench, (unless the other team were really really bad).  You want every player out there working to win.  Likewise, it's a waste to get one or 2 of your chess pieces out from behind your Pawn wall and expect them to do all the work.

This is exactly what a lot of beginners do.  A Knight, and maybe a Bishop will break out and start attacking.  The experienced player may have to fend off some of these attacks, but that shouldn't be too hard, particularly if you're trying to bring out a new piece with each move.  Sometimes that's possible, sometimes it's not, but if you can, try to develop a new piece with each opening move.

Knights and Bishops will be the first pieces out, and in releasing these pieces, you would do well to remember that moving a center Pawn out only one square can unnecessarily block a Bishop.  Rooks of course, by virtue of their position buried deep behind the Pawn wall, will take a little longer to bring out.  It rarely pays to try to bring Rooks out from the sides, as so much is usually going on in the center.

Queens should never be brought out too early, the reason being that while extremely powerful and mobile, they're also highly seductive targets, and you can lose a lot of valuable move time dodging whatever pot-shots your opponent may take at her.

Get those lazy pieces out and put them to work as quickly as possible, and you should be able to beat any opponent who tries to do everything with a Knight or a Bishop, or even a Queen.  It would do precious little good to put your quarterback on the field, while the linemen are all sitting on the bench sucking down Gatorade.

Increase Space Coverage.  A Knight sitting on a corner square is only attacking 2 squares.  Move that Knight up to the third or fourth rank, but still on the edge of the board, and it covers 4 squares.  Move that Knight to one of the 4 center squares, and it covers a full 8 squares.  It's obviously better to have your Knight covering 8 squares from the center of the board, than it is to have it covering 2 squares from one of the corner squares.

The same holds true for any piece.  A Bishop sitting in a corner covers 7 squares.  From a center square, it covers 13.  Even the King, sitting in a corner, only covers 3 squares.  From the center, the King covers 8.  Moving one piece out from behind another, may increase its space coverage dramatically.

The more squares you cover, the more hazardous it is for your opponent just to move around, or even stay where they are.  As you make your opening moves, developing your pieces, (getting them out and putting them to work) try as much as possible to increase your space coverage, (the number of squares your pieces attack) with every move.  In the later parts of the game, if you can safely move 2 pieces, move the one which most increases your space coverage.

One caveat here, is that although bringing out your Queen early dramatically increases your space coverage, bringing her out too early simply makes her a target, and whatever space coverage you may have gained in bringing her out, will be lost, as your opponent forces her to duck and dodge attacks while they simultaneously increase their own coverage by bringing out attacking pieces.  Likewise, the King's vulnerability and lack of mobility make it  imperative that he stay tucked away safely in the back ranks until late in the game, when the number of attackers has diminished considerably, and he can more safely take advantage of his 8 square covering ability.

You can think of the squares your pieces cover, as being covered by metaphorical artillery, and the more squares you have covered the better.  It actually helps to count the squares you cover, as opposed to the squares your opponent covers, trying to increase the number you control, and decrease the number your opponent controls.  Don't just look at tactically covering enemy pieces.  Look at strategically covering squares as well.

Gain A Tempo.  This does not mean tapping your foot during the game.  White is always considered to have a slight advantage over Black, for the simple reason that White makes the first move.  Unless White throws away this first move with a Bonehead opening, all Black can do is react to it, and continue to react to White's moves until Black sees the chance to go over to the offensive, thereby making White do the reacting.  Likewise, once Black seizes the initiative, it's up to White to do the reacting, until White can again, turn the tables.  This "table turning" is usually due to one side "gaining a tempo".

A perfect example of gaining a tempo occurs in the Scandanavia opening.
1.PE2-E4/PD7-D5
2.PE4XPD5/QD8XPD5
3.NB1-C3

If you don't have a chess board handy, White brought out the King's Pawn, and Black brought out the Queen's Pawn to meet it.  White captured the Queen's Pawn, and was in turn, captured by the Black Queen.  At this point, White brings out the Knight, immediately attacking the Black Queen.  Black would really prefer to develop another piece, but doesn't have the time.  White has gained a tempo by not only bringing out a piece, but attacking the Queen, which is too valuable to lose over a Pawn, and so must move.  Moving the Queen means Black doesn't get the chance to develop another piece, but as it's White's turn, White does.

Gaining a tempo may not happen all that often in a game, or it may happen on a regular basis, but whenever you can force your opponent to react to one of your moves, rather than initiating their own attack, you've gained a tempo.

Prevent Castling.  I once played a man who told me most emphatically, that he never castled, because you could get into big trouble doing that.  Well, you could get into big trouble whether you Castle or not, but your chances of having trouble increase if you don't.  Without telling me why, I knew immediately why my friend was "Castle shy".  At some point, or maybe any number of times, he'd probably castled, then found his King trapped behind his own Pawn wall, in what is known as a "Smothered Mate".

Well, Smothered Mate is a danger you should always be on the lookout for, and it can happen at any point in the game after you've Castled.  In always being on the lookout against suffering a Smothered Mate, one simple way to avoid it, is to create what is known as a Flight Square.  I always thought of it more as a safety valve.  Whenever it looks like your opponent may be about to trap your King behind your Pawn wall, simply move one of the Pawns ahead to give your King an exit.

Castling is usually a critical defensive move, and you shouldn't let the fear of a Smothered Mate keep you from using it.  Being a critical defensive move however, it's always nice when you can prevent your opponent from using it.  Since the rules of Castling state that the King can not have moved, the simplest way to keep it from castling is...to make the King move!  If you can place the enemy King in check, at a point where it cannot be defended or blocked off by another enemy piece, the King will have to move, and therefore, be ineligible to Castle.

Another rarer, more difficult, and insidious method of preventing castling, is to attack the square the King would need to move across in the castling move.  As the rules state, a King may not Castle it it's in check, but neither may it Castle if the square it passes over is attacked.  You cannot Castle through check.

Castling is critical for 3 reasons.  One, is that it gets the King away from the center of the board, where it becomes increasingly likely that the enemy will start taking pot-shots at it.  2, is that it tucks the King away behind a nice safe Pawn wall.  It takes a surprising amount of power to break through a solid Pawn wall.  (Of course, this is what makes the King susceptible to Smothered Mate as well, but we already covered that.)  3, is that it frees up a Rook, which is otherwise trapped behind that Pawn wall, and connects your Rooks.  Connected Rooks always work better than Rooks acting individually.

A King which has had to move, and is therefore ineligible to Castle, has the added problem of waiting for the Rook to be freed before it can then run to safety.  As castling is so critical and beneficial, it stands to reason that preventing your opponent from castling adds to their problems.  By all means, you want to add to your opponent's problems, and therefore if possible, keep them from Castling.

Knights Before Bishops.  In the early parts of a game, Bishops are usually blocked by all the material still in the way.  Knights on the other hand, are able to hop around a lot of that material.  In the later stages of the game when the board is less cluttered with material, the short range movements of the Knight become more apparent.  It takes the Knight a good 6 moves to get from one corner of the board to the other.  When the board is less cluttered, the long range capabilities of the Bishop become more apparent.  The Bishop can sit on one corner of the board, and without even moving, attack the opposite corner.

Since Knights are often more active than Bishops on a cluttered board, it makes sense that the Knights should be utilized more actively in the early parts of the game.  The Bishops, being more long range pieces and preferring a less crowded board, are better utilized in the later parts of the game.

Of course, different positions may dictate different options, but generally, if one or the other must be sacrificed, it's slightly better to lose a Knight before a Bishop, as the Bishop will be more mobile than the Knight in the latter stages of the game.  Use or lose your Knights before you use or lose your Bishops.

Draw Out The King.  The whole purpose of Castling, aside from connecting your Rooks, is to get your King away from the center of the board where the enemy can take pot-shots at it, and tuck it away behind a nice, safe Pawn wall.

It stands to reason then, that if you can draw the King out of its Castling position, or keep it from Castling altogether, you're going to soon start taking shots at it with your own pieces.  Once the King is drawn out from behind its protection and toward the center of the board, relentless attacks against it are bound to succeed eventually.

It may not always be possible, but whenever you can, draw that King out into deeper water where you can soon sink it.

Activate Bishops.  In the early parts of the game when the board is cluttered, Bishops are often blocked in, as often by their own pieces as by the enemy.  As soon as possible, you'll want to open lines for your Bishops.  One way to make sure there will be open lines for your Bishops, is to avoid posting Pawns on the same color squares as a Bishop, to make sure your Bishop can slip easily through any Pawn chains.  Another way to make sure your Bishop isn't blocked in any longer than necessary, is to make sure you don't open the King's Pawn or Queen's Pawn only one square until after your Bishop is developed.

Opening a Bishop to a post with a commanding view of the board is obviously desirable, and that usually means opening to somewhere near the center, but opening toward the outside, (unlike with most other pieces) can also give the Bishop a nice long shot at the opposite corner.  This is called "fianchettoing" the Bishop.

Either way, it's obviously a good idea to have nice long open lines for a long range piece like the Bishop, and to make those lines open as soon as possible.

Open Files For Rooks.  Rooks, like Bishops, are long range pieces.  They work best on uncluttered boards, without a lot of other pieces in the way.  They start out at a distinct disadvantage anyway, being rather neatly trapped behind the Pawn walls, and it's only after several other pieces are moved around that they're able to peek out from behind everything.  It rarely works to try to free up your Rooks early.  Trying to open the Pawns in front of them wastes valuable moves that need to be made in the center of the board.  On top of that, trying to free your Rooks on the flanks too early is usually frustrated by your opponent's Bishops aiming down their throats from the opposite side of the board.

That being said, there will obviously be a time when the Rooks can be freed.  Whether they're freed on the flanks or in the center is secondary to the fact that you do want to set them loose, usually after most of your other pieces have been freed.

Being a long range piece, the Rook likes long open files.  Aim your Rooks down these open files like artillery.  Any open file is a good place to post a Rook as they exert considerable control over any open file.

Create Batteries.  We're not talking about little electric cells here.  A battery is 2 or more pieces lined up on a rank, file, or diagonal, and all aiming at the same point.  For example, a Queen and Bishop lined up on a diagonal constitute a battery.  2 Rooks lined up on the same rank or file, constitute a battery.  One or 2 Rooks and a Queen lined up on a rank or file constitute a battery.

Rooks work far more effectively together than they do individually, so any battery of Rooks will be strong.  Add a Queen to this battery and it's virtually unstoppable.  Of course, in any battery in which the Queen is playing a part, the Bishop or Rooks should take the lead.  You don't want the Queen to be the first target in a battery in case your opponent decides to take the Queen then ignore the rest of the battery.

Any battery is usually aimed along a file, (up and down) but it may be on a diagonal with a Queen and Bishop, or it may be on a rank, (left or right).  A pair of Rooks on the seventh rank is considered so strong as to have earned a special designation; "Pigs on the seventh".

Trade With A Material Advantage.  Obviously it's a good idea to trade pieces if the piece you're giving away is smaller than the piece you're getting, but if you think about it, it can't always be a good idea to trade pieces even up.  So when is it a good idea to make even trades?

If you continually make even trades, you'll both end up with nothing left but Kings, which makes the whole game a rather frustrating waste.  There is however a time to intentionally make even trades, and a time to positively avoid them if possible.

As soon as you achieve material superiority, do your absolute best to force your opponent into a series of even trades.  The closer to the end of the game you get, the more important your slight material superiority becomes.  Keep trading your opponent evenly, (if possible) until there's nothing left but your material superiority.

Likewise, if your opponent has the material superiority, avoid those even trades as much as possible, for the exact same reasons.  The less material there is on the board, the stronger any material advantage becomes, so hang on to your pieces if possible, until you can regain material equality, or surpass it.

Who has the material superiority?  Simply count the point value of the captured pieces.  Remember that it's 5 for a Rook, 3 for a Knight, 3 for a Bishop, 9 for a Queen, and one for a Pawn.  This is one area where a beginner has to guess, but you on the other hand, know exactly what to do, what not to do, and when to do it.

Trade Queens With A Material Advantage.  It's always a good idea to make even trades when you have a material advantage, and a good idea to avoid them is you're behind in material.  As soon as you get a material advantage however, start looking for a way to trade Queens.

The reason to trade Queens with a material advantage, is that the Queen keeps the game complicated.  If you're looking to win based on a material advantage, large or small, you want to keep the game as simple as possible, and that means eliminating the enemy Queen.

If you're behind in material, you want the game to stay complicated, in hopes that the complications will allow you to regain material equality, and hopefully gain an advantage.  The Queen helps keep the "waters muddied" as it were.

If you're ahead in material, try to get your opponent to trade Queens.  If you're behind in material, hang on to her as best you can.

Trade Bad Pieces For Good.  There may be cases when each of you have a particular piece, but your opponent's piece is in a better, or more threatening position than yours.  If possible, trade your piece for theirs!  If the material trade is even, but your opponent's position is better than yours, an even material trade may also lead to an evening of your position.  This can apply to any piece, although Bishops are often the subject of this kind of trade.  Trade your badly positioned pieces for their well positioned ones.

Trade When You're Cramped.  Once in a while, you'll find yourself rolling over your opponent, snatching up pieces by the handful.  Sometimes you're the steam-roller...but sometimes you're the road.  Sometimes your opponent will have their pieces well advanced and you may find your position a bit cramped, with few if any good places to move.

When this happens, you may be able to free up your position by making some even-up trades.  It would be very rare that you'd want to trade a better piece for a lesser piece, and it's almost always a good idea to trade lesser pieces for better ones, (there are few absolutes in chess).  You'll find though that if your position is cramped for space, making some even-up trades will open things up surprisingly, and maybe you can take your turn at being the steam-roller again.

Attack With A Lead In Development.  Of course, one of your first goals in any game should be to develop those lazy pieces.  Get them out and put them to work.  A lead in development however, is a temporary advantage, and the better your opponent is, the faster that advantage will dissipate.  Once you have a fair lead in development, and hopefully before your opponent can catch up, find your opponent's weak points, apply your strengths, and go for the attack.

Counter Attacks With Attacks.  Once in a while, probably as often as not, you'll find yourself under attack.  Hopefully your opponent's attack will be premature or ill-conceived, but even if it's not, as the saying goes, the best defense is often a good offense.

I say often, because it's not always possible or advisable to mount any kind of offense.  Sometimes it's better to simply brush away attacks while you build your own offensive capabilities.  On occasion however, an attack cannot simply be "brushed away", and in this case, a strong attack elsewhere on the board may be enough to draw your opponent's attention away from wherever they were hitting you, and hopefully giving you enough time to blunt their attack.

Cheap Tricks.  A chess player was once asked the best way to gain an advantage over your opponent, and his answer was, to play with your back to the Sun.  This is not always practical, and I'm not altogether sure he was serious.  A number of chess players however, do rely on cheap tricks to distract their opponent.  One player would continually bump his knee against the table leg, making the pieces wobble with every bump, but only during his opponent's turn to play.  Another would continually tap his pencil, or exhort his opponent to "hurry up" and make their moves faster, and still worse, wave his hands in his opponent's face in a sort of "Come on, hurry up" motion.

The whole idea behind these cheap, dishonorable, and unethical tricks, is to distract your opponent, sometimes to the point of angering them.  Of course, if your concentration can be regularly broken, or you can be angered to a sufficient degree, or if you can be rushed into making hasty and un-thoughtful moves, your moves are going to suck.  No ethical player would use these kinds of tricks, and they're most often used by players who aren't particularly confident in their own abilities.

If you know your opponent is most likely not confident in their own abilities, it makes it a lot easier to concentrate through their distractions.  If you can actually beat such an opponent, you've knocked whatever fragile ego they had in the dirt.  There are some things however, that you simply can't concentrate through.  If my opponent is wobbling the pieces around by bumping the table during my turn, if they won't stop when asked, I may just discontinue the game.  If my opponent were to wave their hand in front of my face, I might suggest that they move it, or lose it.  If my opponent tries tricks like this and really sucks on top of it, I'll grind them into the ground.

Some players will try this kind of crap during a tournament, but only when the tournament judges aren't looking.  Most tournament judges would dismiss any player using such unethical tactics.  Chess is all about how well you play, not how big an ass hole you can be.

With A Closed Center, Attack With Flank Pawns.  Very often, you'll find the center of the board locked tight.  Nothing can really maneuver there.  This is usually because the King and Queen's Pawns are facing each other in the center, and one can't find a way around the other.

Attacking the center with flank Pawns will have one and maybe 2 results.  It may or may not open the center, but it should open whichever flank you attack from.  You can't initiate a serious attack until either the center or a flank are opened.

Attack On The Strong Side.  In the course of a game, eventually you'll end up with more power on one side of the board than the other.  This isn't necessarily to say that you'll have more pieces on that side of the board, but that you'll have more pieces aimed at it.  A Bishop for example, can be situated on one side of the board, but exerting pressure on the opposite side.

It makes sense then, to initiate an attack on that side of the board where you're the strongest.  This will often be the case even when your opponent's King is on the other side.  A successful attack, whether it be on the same side as their King or on the opposite, will essentially weaken your opponent everywhere.

Attack With All You Can.  It's all too tempting when you see that you have an enemy piece, or a particular area of the board over-powered, to launch a quick attack.  In fact, sometimes you have to before your advantage dissipates.  Too often though, these attacks are made while other pieces are left languishing in the background, taking no part in the attack at all.  This would all be well and good, except that you can too easily be surprised.

The attack that at first appeared to be so overwhelming can be stopped dead in its tracks if the enemy can bring up surprise defensive, and sometimes offensive reinforcements.  A serious player will bring every possible piece into battle.  Extra pieces brought to the battle will also be available for other work that may come up unexpectedly.  The surest way to guarantee your attack will be successful, is to remember the adage, never use a tack hammer, when a sledge hammer will do.

Stalemated Kings.  A Stalemate in chess, is when the King is not attacked by an enemy piece, but neither the King nor any of his pieces have any legal moves.  A stalemated game is over, but a King may be stalemated before the game is.  By this, I mean that the King may not be able to make any legal moves, but his other pieces can, so the game is not yet over.

If you see an enemy King unable to move, he's ripe to be attacked.  Any piece attacking an immobilized King will succeed, as long as the attacker can't be taken.  At any rate, a player with a stalemated, or immobilized King, will have their hands full fending off any attacks., so be on the lookout for stalemated Kings.

Immobilized Pieces.  Immobilized pieces have a good solid position on the list of potential targets.  An immobilized piece is obviously, any piece that can't move.  It may be blocked by its own pieces, or it may be in a crucial position, such as defending a critical piece, or blocking another piece from your attacks.  An immobilized King, otherwise known as a "stalemated" King, is certainly the grand prize, but any immobilized piece, from the King to the Pawn, is a potential target.  Of course, it stands to reason, you want to keep your own pieces as fluid, free, and mobile as possible.

Overextended Defenders.  From time to time you may spot 2 separate targets, but both seem to be defended.  On closer examination, you may find that both pieces are defended by the same piece.  If this is the case and you can attack both targets, the poor overworked defender can't be everywhere at once, so you will gain 2 pieces at the expense of only one.

Defenders Are Targets.  There's a big juicy piece out there, just waiting to be picked off...but your attack is frustrated because it's defended by another piece.  It's often not enough to set your sights on a target.  You must also target its defender.  Knock off the defender, and the target will fall.

Backward Or Isolated Pawns.  A backward Pawn, is a Pawn at the back end of any Pawn chain, or any Pawn that is too far back to be protected by another Pawn.  An isolated Pawn, is a Pawn that cannot be protected by any other Pawn no matter how far forward or back it may be.

Since backward or isolated Pawns cannot be protected by other Pawns, they must be protected by bigger pieces, if at all.  This being the case, attacking a backward or isolated Pawn will either tie up a bigger piece to its defense, or the Pawn will simply be lost.

Undefended Pieces.  It's OK to have an undefended piece hanging out there, as long as it can't be attacked, or has a good place to run to if it is.  Often though, it may not have a good place to run, and even if it does, you would have to spend a turn moving it, and that turn might be better spent doing something else.  From the other perspective though, undefended pieces make attractive targets for the same reasons.  You should be able to make your opponent waste a move by attacking it, or bringing another piece to its defense.  If a piece is brought to its defense, the defender is then prevented from doing other work it might rather be doing.  Look for those undefended pieces as potential targets.

Squares With Your Unopposed Bishop.  As a Bishop can never change the color of squares it sits on throughout a game, one Bishop is often referred to as the "light-squared" Bishop, and the other, the "dark-squared" Bishop.  If for example, you have a light-squared Bishop and your opponent does not, your Bishop is then considered an "unopposed" Bishop.

The Bishop is also considered a long-range piece, as it can attack squares all the way across the board, unlike the short-range Knight who must hop around to attack from one side of the board to the other.  This long-range capability makes it possible for the Bishop to cover, or attack, a higher number of squares.  It's obviously easier to cover or attack those squares when your Bishop is unopposed.  Use your unopposed Bishop to attack as many squares and pieces as possible.

Pins And Skewers.  Pins and skewers are some of the most common attack tactics.  They're closely related, but still opposites.

A pin occurs when you're attacking a piece which can't move, because moving it would expose a more valuable piece behind it.  A skewer is the opposite, in that you're attacking the more valuable piece which must move, thus exposing the less valuable piece behind it.

Pins and skewers happen on a regular basis, so definitely be looking for them, and of course, bear in mind that you could also be the victim of these tactics if you don't watch it.

Forks.  Forking your opponent has nothing to do with silverware or sex.  The fork is another common and frequent tactic.  A fork occurs when one piece simultaneously attacks 2 pieces.  The Knight is considered the "king of forks", not only because it can, (any piece can fork) but because of the difficulty in predicting its attacks.  It's easy enough to see the squares a Knight attacks, but more difficult to predict the squares it will be attacking if it moves.

A fork can leave your opponent with a difficult choice.  Can both attacked pieces be defended?  Can one move?  They certainly can't both move.  Of course, if the King is the victim of a fork, the defensive possibilities are even more limited.

Build Pressure.  It's obvious that the more pressure you can use against your opponent, the easier your game will be.  You can exert pressure on a piece, a square, or even an area of the board.  Simply exerting pressure however, may not always be enough.  It does little enough good to exert pressure on a square, piece, or area, that is more than adequately defended or controlled.  Often, you must build pressure, bringing more force to bear on your target one piece at a time, whether your target be that piece, square, or area of the board.  Don't simply exert pressure, build on it.

Obstructions.  We tend to think of obstructions as stuff our opponent puts in our way, and our opponent often does this.  Obstructions however, can also be our own stuff, and we're often able to move it out of the way.  Look not only at the pieces you have on the front lines, but the pieces behind them.  Think of their possibilities if you didn't have more of your own material between yourself and your opponent.

Look not only for your opponent's obstructions, but obstructions of your own, that you can simply move out of the way.

Double Discovered Checks Or Attacks.  A discovered check or attack occurs when a piece moves, opening an attack by the piece behind it.  Closely related to removing an obstruction, in this case the piece moved either joins in the attack, or enables the attack of 2 or more other pieces.  If the double attack is against an enemy piece, that piece may well be doomed.  If the double attack is against the King, the entire enemy army is frozen in place.

The enemy army is frozen because you cannot interpose anything between 2 separate attacking pieces, and you cannot capture both pieces.  The King then, must run away is possible, and if it's not possible, of course it's a checkmate.  They can be hard to spot, but look for the possibility of a double discovered check or attack.

Corral Sidelined Knights.  This is one of those tactics that doesn't come up too often, but often enough to bear the possibilities in mind.  It's a cardinal rule that Knights, or indeed any piece, operate better from the center of the board, (except for the King in the early parts of the game).  On occasion though, you or your opponent will end up with one along the edge of the board, perhaps because of a capture, or while it's en route to a better position.

If you end up with a Knight along the edge of the board, get it away from there as soon as possible.  If your opponent does, you just may be able to "corral" it.  For example, if the Knight is on the A4 square, positioning a Bishop on D4 corrals the Knight.  Every square the Knight might run to is covered by the Bishop.  This pins the Knight in place until something can come to its rescue, or until you can mount an attack against it.  Hurry up and mount that attack though, before something comes along to scare off your Bishop.

Advance Pawns Sparingly.  This does not mean never advance your Pawns at all.  A lot of beginners think they need to do as much as possible while advancing Pawns as little as possible.  There are times to get your Pawns "rolling" on one side or another.  This can help increase your territory, as well as cramping the enemy.

Until and unless you see a good opportunity for a "rolling Pawn advance", it's highly recommended that you advance your Pawns sparingly, for 2 reasons.  One is that Pawns can never go backwards, and once they've passed over territory, they can no longer attack it.  2, is that an advanced Pawn structure may cramp the enemy, but if the enemy manages to sneak a piece in behind your Pawn wall, they can do tremendous damage before or if they can be stopped.

Pawn Islands.  Where do old Pawns go when they retire?  To Pawn Islands?  While no man is an island, Pawns can be, but you don't want any more Pawn islands than absolutely necessary.  What is a Pawn island, really?

Any time you have a file, (a vertical line of squares) without a Pawn on it, the Pawns on either side of that file constitute an island.  For example, the King's Pawn is often one of the first Pawns to disappear, leaving the King's file bereft of Pawns.  All of the Pawns to the left of this file constitute one Pawn island, and all the Pawns to the right constitute another.  It's not uncommon to have at least 2 Pawn islands, one to the left and one to the right of  one of the center files.  In fact, it almost always starts out that way.

One thing to bear in mind is that while having at least 2 Pawn islands is virtually unavoidable, you want as few Pawn islands as possible.  A gap in the center of your wall of Pawns allows your own pieces through, (and the enemy's if you're not careful) but a second or third gap in your Pawn wall means that your Pawns are becoming isolated.  That is, they can no longer protect each other and must be protected by bigger pieces.  Your bigger pieces have more important work to do than stand around guarding Pawns.

Keep your Pawns connected for mutual protection and try not to have more than 2 Pawn islands if possible.  At the same time, if you can so decimate your opponent's Pawn wall, creating as many Pawn islands or isolated Pawns as possible, your opponent is going to have a tough time defending all these helpless Pawns, and their ability to attack will be severely limited when their big pieces are relegated to guarding the lowly Pawns.

Isolated Pawns.  Isolated Pawns are Pawns that cannot be protected by other Pawns.  This happens when there are no Pawns on the files to either side of its own file.  Since an isolated Pawn cannot be protected by another Pawn, it must be protected by larger pieces, and you don't want to tie those pieces down to "guard duty", as they usually have more important work to do.

Some players consider a Pawn isolated even if there are Pawns on the adjacent files, but the Pawn is too far advanced to use them as protection.  Strictly speaking, I suppose there is some truth to this, but I still consider it protected as long as another Pawn can eventually reach it.

While you don't want your Pawns isolated any more than absolutely necessary, it is of course, a good idea to try and isolate your opponent's Pawns.  Often, your opponent won't have any idea what you're doing until they find the isolated Pawn under attack, and even then, they may not guess that you isolated it on purpose.

Do Not Focus.  That may seem like a strange thing to say, concerning a game that if you intend to play it well, requires an enormous level of concentration.  What I mean however, is definitely focus on the game, but don't fall into the common trap of concentrating on one aspect of it.

All too often, we'll initiate an attack, or build a defense, or direct our attentions to one area of the board or another, only to be blindsided by something flying out of nowhere.  In narrowing our focus to an attack, defense, or area of the board, we forget to watch for what should be an obvious attack from somewhere else.

Likewise, if your opponent seems to be concentrating on an attack, a defense, or an area of the board, you should be looking for attack possibilities from an area they might not be thinking about.

Never Remove Defenders.  Actually, never may be too strong a word here.  On occasion you may find it worth removing a defender to facilitate an attack.  The point here is, all too often we see a good chance to attack using one of our pieces, only to realize too late that the piece we used was defending another critical piece.  If you're going to use a defending piece to attack or simply to reposition, make sure it's not defending something from where it is, and if it is defending something, you better be prepared to lose it.

Keep Rooks Hemmed In.  Rooks are "free range" pieces.  They like to be out in the open with open ranks and files, and they like to be connected.  Connected Rooks operate much more efficiently than they do independently.  This is why Rooks don't usually have much to do in the early parts of a game.  They're hemmed in by their own Pawn wall, and kept apart by their own pieces.

Beginners often try to free their Rooks too early, and the results are a waste of time.  I've seen beginners open with, 1.PA2-A4, in an effort to free up their Rook immediately.  Their theory is that they want to open with the "big guns", and Rooks are most assuredly, "big guns".  What may look good on paper however, rarely works in practice.  The easy answer to this is PE7-E5, aiming a Bishop right down the Rook's throat.  Even if Black lets the Rook out, it then becomes a target, constantly dodging attacks by lesser pieces.  Rooks need to be patient.  They'll get their turn, and if used effectively, they'll be devastating...eventually.

Outside Pawns.  In a lot of games, particularly if the players are fairly evenly matched, it often comes down to a King and a few Pawns each.  If you're very lucky, or very farsighted, (or both) you'll both have a few Pawns on one side, while you have an extra Pawn on the opposite side of the board.

If this is the case, your first course of action is to position your King on the crowded side, then start advancing your "outside Pawn".  The enemy King will have no choice but to crawl over to the other side of the board to stop it.  In the meantime you can use your King and Pawns to attack and break through the enemy Pawns, eventually queening one of yours, and the game will be all but over.

If you're fortunate enough to have an outside Pawn, position your King then use your outside Pawn to draw the enemy King away from the real action.

Watch For Stalemates.  More times than I can count or want to admit, I've been on the verge of kicking someone's ass, and stupidly placed them in a stalemate.  I was never sure whether I was lured into this position, or just stupidly stumbled into it, but after a very few times, I learned the lesson.

If you find yourself losing a game, you can in some rare instances, trick your opponent into stalemating you.  This can happen when you "give away" all your moves, for example, working a King into a position where it has no legal moves, running all your Pawns up against the enemy Pawns and giving away all your free moving pieces.  Your unsuspecting opponent may unthinkingly block your Pawns and take your freely offered pieces, stalemating you before they know what they've done.

Likewise, don't let your opponent do this to you.  Especially toward the end of a game, make sure you don't have all their Pawns locked in place, or that they're still able to move at least one piece.  Watch those last few moves you make, because it's surprisingly easy to accidentally place your opponent in a stalemated position, wasting all the hard work you did to get there.

Bobby Fischer.  Russia had absolutely dominated the chess world until Bobby Fischer came along and knocked them off the throne.  He was an American hero, congratulated by President Nixon, met and praised by Kings, and actually making money, which was never easy to do in the world of chess.  But he didn't start out that way, and he didn't end up that way.

Fischer was born March 9, 1943, 65 years ago in Chicago Illinois.  There is some debate about the identity of his father, however both candidates were physicists.  In 1945 at 2 years old, his parents divorced and he was raised by his mother and older sister, Joan.  At 5 years old, in 1948, the family moved to Mobile Arizona, then at 6, in 1949, they moved to Brooklyn New York.  Later that same year he learned to play chess.  In 1950 at 7 years old, he started taking chess lessons.

In 1955 at 12 years old he was awarded the official title of "National Master".  In 1956 at 13, he became the youngest United States Junior Chess champion in history.  In January 1958 while still 14 years old, he became the youngest United States chess champion in history, earning the title, "International Master".  Fischer was a high school classmate of Barbra Streisand, but dropped out of school in 1959 at 16.  In all, Fischer was United States chess champion 8 times, never once losing the championship.

In 1972 at 29, Fischer beat Russia's Boris Spassky to be world champion in Reykjavik Iceland.  Up to that point, the United States hadn't paid much attention to chess, but an American beating a Russian, at the height of the Cold War, and at a game absolutely dominated by Russia, made chess, and particularly Bobby Fischer, enormously popular.  But that wouldn't last.

In 1975 at 32, Fischer was called on to defend his title against Russia's Anatoly Karpov, but made a series of 64 demands, (some as silly as insisting that nobody entering the hall could wear a hat).  The crux of this biscuit is that the demands would not or could not be met, so Fischer refused to play.  The International Chess Federation in Paris France consequently awarded the title to Karpov.  Current chess champion Garry Kasparov, having studied Fischer's and Karpov's earlier games, believes that Karpov had a good chance of winning, inferring that Fischer might have known that and suffered a case of "cold feet".

Fischer didn't play again until 1977 at 34, when he played MIT's super-computer in Cambridge Massachusetts.  He won all 3 games.

On May 26, 1981, at 38, Fischer was walking down a street in Pasadena California when he was suddenly arrested and handcuffed, accused of committing a bank robbery.  Injured during the arrest, he was further assaulted and interrogated for the next 2 days before being released.  This may have been enough to send Fischer over the edge of paranoia.

During the early 1980s, Fischer lived in the San Francisco California home of a friend, a Grand Master from Canada, who claims that in play with Fischer he could never even reach an end-game.

By 1992 at 49, most people figured that Fischer had been away from competitive chess too long to be a serious contender, but he came out of 20 years of obscurity to challenge Boris Spassky to a match in Belgrade Serbia.  Fischer won with 10 wins, 5 losses, and 15 draws.  Serbia at the time however, was under sanctions by the United States, and Fischer had been warned that playing there for money would be illegal.  Spitting on the order forbidding him to play there, drew him an arrest warrant by the United States.  Fischer never returned to the United States again.

Fischer moved to Budapest Hungary and experimented with variations on standard chess rules, such as mixing up the major pieces in the back row.  While there he became friends with the famous Polgar sisters, 3 of the highest rated ladies in the world of chess.

In 2000, at 57, Fischer moved to Baguio Philippines, living with a Philippines Grand Master and playing more tennis than chess.  There Fischer met 22 year old Justine Ong, and in 2002 at 58, they had a daughter, Jinky Ong.

Beginning in 1961, Fischer was known to make outrageous anti-jewish remarks that only became more outrageous over time, and after 1992 when he was wanted by the United States for breaking sanction laws in Belgrade Serbia, his remarks became increasingly anti-American.  His extremist anti-jewish/anti-American tirades were all the more remarkable as Fischer himself was at least 3 quarters, if not entirely jewish, and of course, very much an American.

In 2005 at 62, Fischer was arrested in Tokyo Japan for traveling under a revoked passport.  The United States may have revoked it to make it easier to get him extradited, and it very nearly worked.  Fischer then asked the government of Iceland to grant him asylum in an effort to avoid extradition to the United States.  Iceland was reluctant to grant Fischer citizenship but did so for 2 reasons.  One was that Fischer had put Reykjavik Iceland on the world map by winning the world championship there in 1972, and the other was because they thought Fischer was being unjustly treated by both the United States and Japan.

Upon hearing that Fischer had been granted citizenship in Iceland and might even be granted citizenship in Germany, the United States filed tax evasion charges against Fischer in an attempt to at least keep him in Japan.  It didn't work.

By May 2005, Fischer had moved to Reykjavik Iceland and had vowed never to play traditional chess again.  Suffering kidney problems for several years, by October 2007 the problems became acute, and Fischer was admitted to the hospital.  By December 2007 he returned home, but refused any further medical treatment.

Fischer died in his apartment in Reykjavik Iceland on January 17, 2008 at 64 years old.  According to his wishes, he was buried near a small church in Selfoss Iceland.  His last words were, "Nothing soothes pain like the touch of a person".

Fischer was clearly nuts when he died.  A number of the world's greatest chess players were.  Paul Morphy was a notable example, as was Pillsbury, who was famous for his ability to play "blindfold chess".  I sometimes wondered about myself, but then I realized that I suck so bad at it, I don't have a thing to worry about.

Nuts or not, there is no question that until his time, Fischer was the greatest chess player in the history of the game.  We know, because all throughout chess history, every tournament game has been written down, move by move, studied, and analyzed to death by serious students of the game.  The question is now, whether or not the current chess Champion Garry Kasparov might be even better.  Some point to the fact that no super-computer ever beat Fischer, while Kasparov was.  That's hardly fair though, as the computer that beat Kasparov was light-years ahead of the one Fischer beat.  We'll never know for certain, whatever our opinions may be, but if Bobby Fischer at his best could play Garry Kasparov at his best, that's one match I'd love to see...but I wouldn't bet a nickel either way.

Back to Chess  

Bextra Counter