The Myth of Chess as Perfection and The Reality of Chess as Struggle

In the introduction to The Sorcerer's Apprentice on page 11 of the introduction the following is the context given to the game below:

"In 1967 Lev Polugayevsky and David Bronstein played a game which was adjourned after Black's 41st move. Polugayevsky spent all night analysing and when they came to resume this game the next day, David, sensing that his opponent had analysed extensively, deliberately avoided playing the best moves. Polugayevsky, taken completely by surprise, failed to find the best continuation and lost the game. In his book Grandmaster Achievement Polugayevsky now almost blames  David for not having played correctly, thereby taking him out of his prepared variations!"

I take this as evidence of chess as art, chess as struggle and most of all chess as a human endeavor against another human adversary. There is nothing wrong with a scientific approach to chess in and of itself. The problem becomes when the scientific method becomes more of and ideology "scientism" whereby it is seen as the Alpha and Omega of knowledge and praxis, when it is but part of the endeavor of chess.

Polugaevsky, Lev - Bronstein, David I

Result: 0-1

Site: Tbilisi

Date: 1966

[...] 1.c4 ¤f6 2.¤c3 e6 3.¤f3 c5 4.g3 d5 5.cxd5 exd5 6.d4 ¤c6 7.¥g2 ¥e7 8.O-O O-O 9.¥g5 cxd4 10.¤xd4 h6 11.¥f4 £b6 12.¤xc6 bxc6 13.£c2 ¥g4 14.¥e3 £a6 15.¥d4 ¦fd8 16.h3 ¥e6 17.¦fd1 ¦ac8 18.¦ac1 ¤d7 19.e4 dxe4 20.£xe4 c5 21.¥e3 ¥f6 22.¥f1 c4 23.¦c2 ¦e8 24.¦cd2 ¥xh3 25.¦d6 ¤b6 26.¥xh3 ¦xe4 27.¥xc8 £xc8 28.¤xe4 ¥e7 29.¦6d2 £e6 30.¤c3 ¥b4 31.¥d4 £g4 32.a3 ¥a5 33.¥e3 ¢h7 34.¦d4 £g6 35.¦c1 £e6 36.¤e2 £e5 37.¤f4 £b5 38.¦c2 £b3 39.¦e2 ¤a4 40.¦d5 ¥c7 41.¦d7 ¥e5 42.¥xa7 ¥f6 43.¢h2 ¤xb2 44.¦xf7 ¤d3 45.¤d5 ¢g6 46.¦d7 ¤e5 47.¦c7 £xa3 48.¤xf6 gxf6 49.¥e3 £d3 50.¦a2 £f1 51.g4 ¤xg4+ 52.¢g3 ¤e5 53.¢h2 ¤f3+ 54.¢g3 ¤e1 55.¢f4 £g2

Improving

"In the course of writing this book, I had hoped had hoped that working through my own barriers would provide material here. In retrospect, having finally achieved the grandmaster title during this time, I can only say that I am now even more convinced that each player must find his own unique solution to the problem of improving - there are so many things that can be done!"      

-- Jonathan Tisdall, Improve Your Chess Now; Intro, pg. 8


"Educators tend to inundate students with advice and countless rules of thumb. These are propounded to start students up the right avenues. In the end, the best advice is aimed at inspiring them to solve their own problems, to think for themselves. This is the role of the dedicated teacher."

-- Bruce Pandolfini, The Chess Doctor; Intro, pg. 18

Tactics?

What is the proper place of tactics in chess? What is the proper relationship between tactics and strategy? Eternal questions perhaps, but we need to find means and ways of improving our chess. Below is a quote from the forward of Larry Evans' book What's The Best Move (ISBN 0-671-21460-8).

I have discovered that most players suffer from a strategical deficiency; questions submitted to my columns generally pertain to humdrum, seemingly unglamorous settings arising out of the opening. It has been noted that tactics is what we use when there is something to do' strategy is what we use when there is nothing to do. One drawback of the present literature is an excessive emphasis on tactics - brilliant finales filled with sturm and drang. We can revel in their beauty and even congratulate ourselves on finding the winning coups. But how often is there a neon caption WHITE TO PLAY AND WIN in our own games? Books and articles devoted to combinations undoubtedly can sharpen your tactical awareness; at the same time, perforce, we are warned beforehand that something dramatic is in the offing. The bulk of the time, to tell the truth, there is no quick kill, no sockdolager, no startling way to demolish our adversary. He must be set up or led astray by sophisticated ploys. Position play is the best possible preparation for releasing accumulated energy in the explosion of a combination.

In my view tactical training should be used to hone two skills/aspects of chessic knowledge. First, that of working on and increasing our ability at visualization. Take for example the combination below from the first Chess Informant. Even if you have the answer right in front of you can you visualize your way through the entire position? If not would you really play it? Most likely not. You cannot play what you cannot see. The second reason is to honestly ask yourself, why you would have or would not have seen this combination. This is key. Some combinations are just beyond one's current ability to visualize. Perhaps you would not have seen it because you are too materialistic and hesitant to part with the queen in such a manner. Perhaps the geometry or the coordination of the pieces alludes your current ability. Whatever the case might be the key is to honestly answer yourself and then to recognize and work on that aspect that limited you in finding the combination.