[blind-chess] Reposting: Three Sort Articles
- From: "Roderick Macdonald" <rjmacdonald@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Blind-Chess Mailing List" <blind-chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 21:31:12 -1000
(Originally posted as article #10)
THE BIRTH OF MODERN CHESS
by Robert John McCrary
http://www.excaliburelectronics.com/history_archive.html
Copyright U.S. Chess Hall of Fame
All rights reserved
The following article, slightly re-worded, appeared in the April
1984 issue of the SCCA NEWS, published by the South Carolina Chess
Association. It is reprinted with the permission of the state
officers.
Happy birthday, modern chess! At least, that is what we should be
saying, since it was about 500 years ago that the queen and bishop
took their modern moves, thus creating the modern game. Although
the other pieces had taken on their modern moves centuries before,
the queen and bishop had been weak pieces that slowed the pace and
reduced the tactics of the game.
In medieval chess the queen moved only one square diagonally, so it
could reach only 32 squares at a slow pace. The medieval chess
bishop could leap over pieces like a knight, and like the knight
moved exactly two steps; but unlike the knight, it moved its two
steps diagonally. Thus, a bishop on the c1 square could move only
to e3 or a3, although it could leap an intervening man on d2 or b2.
The bishop was thus a weak piece that could reach only 8 squares of
the board in a game; it was considered to be roughly equivalent to
the pawn in value.
In the late 15th century, the queen suddenly gained a huge increase
in power, as it was given its modern far-ranging move. The bishop
trebled in power by receiving its modern move, thereby becoming the
rough equal of the knight. Both these changes occurred at the same
time, so that a dynamic new Renaissance chess emerged as a rival to
the traditional medieval game.
Unfortunately, the name of the inventor(s) has been lost. (We can
assume that the changes resulted from a single invention because of
the abrupt and simultaneous appearance of the two new moves.)
However, through inference we can perhaps reconstruct some of the
features of how that great invention occurred.
First, we know that the invention probably happened in Italy,
France, or Spain, around 1475-1485. Modern chess was thus a product
of the same historical period that produced the printing press and
the discovery of America. It was an exciting time in which the
medieval dogmas of the centuries were being examined by fresh eyes
by a society feeling the power of new discovery and invention.
Our inventor(s) conceived a simple idea: as the rook could move
along open orthogonal lines, why not have an analogous piece that
ranged along diagonal lines? Then, for the sake of further logical
balance, why not a very powerful piece that moved along any line,
whether orthogonal or diagonal?
The diagonal-mover had already been tried as the " courier" in
Courier chess, a German chess variant that had thrived in late
medieval times. Our inventor(s) may or may not have known that. The
more powerful piece, however, was stronger than any piece ever
tried in any known chess variant before that time.
Then, our inventor(s) had a further inspiration: why not replace
the weakest existing pieces with the new ones, thus allowing the
new game to be played on old sets? This seems so logical that it is
hard to believe that all previous known chess variants, including
Courier Chess, had added new places without replacing the old; thus
, they enlarged the game, requiring new equipment to try it. By
allowing the new game to be played on old sets, the rapidity of the
new game's spread was accentuated. One wonders if the inventor(s)
was just being practical, wanting to try out the new ideas without
having to construct a new set. In any event, it was easy to
identify the queen and the bishop as the weakest pieces in the old
game. The queen, being the a solitary piece in the set, was the
obvious choice for the new powerful piece. Thus, the bishops became
the logical choice to receive the new long-range diagonal moves.
The inventor(s) now noticed a small problem: the new queen would
now be much stronger than the king. No doubt the inventor(s),
excited with the new moves, conceded that quirk as a practical
necessity to keep the king as the piece to be checkmated. Some
psychoanalysts have seen the queen's superior power as filled with
Oedipal significance, but it was more likely to have been simple
pragmatism to accommodate the new moves of the pieces within the
existing chess sets and established nomenclature. Perhaps a change
in the queen's name was considered, (in early medieval times that
piece had been the king's male advisor rather than a queen), but
one assumes that the inventor(s) was a simple chess player who
could care less about the names of the pieces as long as they moved
better! Perhaps, the inventor(s) was female, who saw no need for
re-naming the newly-powerful queen!
How did the new game spread? Probably by word-of-mouth through the
commercial contacts that had developed in Europe. If the
inventor(s) had published anything, his (her, their) name(s) would
more probably have been preserved. Still, one wonders why the
inventor(s) did not come forward when the new chess first appeared
in literature before the end of the century, with no credit to the
inventor(s); perhaps he (she, they) was already dead.
Since that time, there have been a number of attempts to add even
stronger pieces by combining existing pieces. For example, in 1617
a Sicilian-born chess writer named Carrera created a variant with
pieces that combined the moves of rook and knight, and of bishop
and knight, on a board of 10x8 squares. (Interestingly, Capablanca
essentially re-invented that game about three centuries later.)
Philidor sometimes played a chess variant that had a rook-knight
piece and a rook-king piece. Russian commoners of the 1700's were
seen playing with an overwhelmingly strong piece combining queen
and knight, and some Turkish players used the queen-knight piece,
a rook-knight piece, and a bishop-knight piece.
All such innovations have failed to gain acceptance, perhaps
because they disturb the balance of weak and strong pieces, or
enlarge the game too much; or simply because they require new
equipment that may not be widely available.
After the queen's and bishop's rebirth, all that remained was the
hammering out of less fundamental rules. For example, stalemate was
not considered a draw in England before the early 1800's; before
then,the stalemating player lost the game! (A 1745 book by Philip
Stamma has a problem that contains a position in which a player "
wins" by self-stalemating.)
Similarly, the pawn-promotion rule had some bugs: Philidor played
that the pawn could be promoted only to a previously captured
piece. The 50-move draw evolved during the 1800's, and the three-
fold repetition started around 1883. Italian players continued to
use a different kind of castling move until the latter 1800's.
All honor to the inventor(s) of our modern game, who have brought
pleasure to millions. Let us hope the next significant invention in
chess preserves the name of its inventor!
----------
(Originally posted as article #11)
The History of Chess Notation
by Robert John McCrary
Copyright U.S. Chess Hall of Fame
All rights reserved
http://www.excaliburelectronics.com/history_archive.html
The number of books on chess is greater the number of books on all
other games combined. Yet, chess books would be few and far between
if there were not an efficient way to record the moves of games.
Chess notation is thus the special written" language" of chess
players, making it possible for a single book to contain hundreds
of games by great players, or thousands of opening variations.
Surprisingly, however, chess notation was slow to evolve. As late
as the early nineteenth century, many chess books simply wrote out
moves in full sentences! As a result, very few of those early games
before the 1800's were recorded and preserved in print, and
published analysis was correspondingly limited.
In Shakespeare's day, for example, the standard English chess book
gave the move 2.Qf3 as follows: " Then the black king for his
second draught brings forth his queene, and placest her in the
third house, in front of his bishop's pawne." Can we imagine
recording a full 40-move game with each move written out like that!
Nevertheless, the great 18th century player and author Andre
Philidor, in his highly influential chess treatise published in
1747, continued to write out moves as full sentences. One move
might read, "The bishop takes the bishop, checking." Or the move e5
would appear as "King's pawn to adverse 4th." Occasionally Philidor
would abbreviate something, but generally he liked to spell
everything out.
In 1737, however, a Syrian-born player/author named Philip Stamma
introduced the shorthand notation that we now call "algebraic" in
his book of composed problems, published in France. In 1745, he
issued an expanded edition in English that included opening
analysis and retained the algebraic notation. Stamma's system was
almost identical to modern algebraic notation, with the files of
the board designated " a-h" and the ranks numbered "1-8." However,
he tried to make the notation completely international by using
standard piece names as well as standard letters and numbers for
the squares. Thus, the king's rook was written as "H" instead of
"R" throughout the game, because it began on the h-file; for
similar reasons the king was always "E" and the queen "D," the
queen's knight was "B," etc., with each piece being named for its
starting file.
That system for piece symbols would have totally eliminated
language differences across countries, but it failed and each
country now uses its own piece symbols in algebraic notation
although retaining standard names for the squares. Nevertheless,
modern figurine algebraic ( with printed piece symbols instead of
names) is coming into use as a new way of reviving Stamma's old
idea of a totally international notation.
Philidor and Stamma were rivals both as players and authors.
Philidor soundly defeated Stamma in a match, after which Philidor's
book became more popular than Stamma's book in England and his
notation system therefore became dominant. However, Stamma's book
also continued to enjoy popularity, and by the 19th century
Stamma's simple system had become the norm in some European
countries. Thus began the battle between descriptive and algebraic
notations that continued into modern times.
Clearly, however, Philidor's way of recording moves had to be made
more efficient if English chess literature were to have room to
grow. A major innovation in that respect occurred in 1817, when an
edition of Philidor's works introduced a system of abbreviations
into Philidor's ponderous notation. Those abbreviations, by the
way, were introduced rather timidly with suitable apologies to the
reader. Over the next few decades, more use of abbreviations
occurred, and the descriptive notation of modern times slowly took
shape. As notation simplified, chess books were able to include
more information, and the number of chess books began to increase
exponentially.
Following is a sampling of ways of giving the move N-KB3 (Nf3 in
algebraic) in descriptive notation, taken from books of different
years to illustrate the slow evolution of that notation system.
Notice the subtle changes that creep in virtually one letter at a
time; apparently too much change could not be tolerated all at
once!
1614: The white king commands his owne knight into the third house
before his owne bishop. 1750: K. knight to His Bishop's 3d. 1837:
K.Kt. to B.third sq. 1848: K.Kt. to B's 3rd. 1859: K. Kt. to B. 3d.
1874: K Kt to B3 1889: KKt -B3 1904: Kt-KB3 1946: N-KB3
In the 1970's, The US Chess Federation began a campaign to convert
the US to algebraic notation, which had by then become standard in
nearly all countries. The arguments for the change were several:
that US books would then enjoy a bigger international market; that
algebraic was less ambiguous and therefore produced fewer
irretrievable game scores; that algebraic took less space and more
games could therefore fit into fewer pages.
In spite of these persuasive arguments, a fierce battle raged for
years until algebraic gradually won out. Now descriptive is on the
road to becoming an extinct "language" understood in the future
only by historians. We now have books containing huge numbers of
games, and computers that "speak" only algebraic.
We have come a long way from " the white King commands his owne
knight into the third house before His owne Bishop" to the simple
"Nf3," and chess literature has come a long way as well!
----------
(Originally posted as article #15)
THOSE ECCENTRIC CHESSPLAYERS
by Bill Wall
Copyright by Bill Wall
All rights reserved
Many chessplayers live in a world of their own. The game of chess
has touched off some very bizarre behavioral patterns among
chessplayers. Here are some examples of the eccentrics of chess.
Alekhine was famous for his eccentrics. He drank very heavily and
was nicknamed "Ale-and-Wine." In a few tournaments he was found in
a field drunk. He would urinate on the floor in other events. He
married four times to women 20 to 30 years older than he.
Nimzovich stood on his head during chess events or did exercises in
the tournament room. After losing a game, he once jumped up on the
table and yelled, "Why must I lose to this idiot."
The Mexican master, Carlos Torre, was found running down Fifth
Avenue in New York in the nude.
Tartakower lost 5 games in a row and was asked why. He replied, "I
had a toothache during the first game. In the second game I had a
headache. In the third game it was an attack of rheumatism. In the
fourth game, I wasn't feeling well. And in the fifth game? Well,
must one have to win every game?"
Steinitz had delusions of telephoning people without any phone. He
thought he could emit electrical currents and move chess pieces at
will. He even claimed to be in direct contact with God and
occasionally beating Him at chess with pawn odds.
Morphy imagined himself persecuted by his relatives and went into
a state of seclusion. He thought his food had been poisoned or that
someone was trying to kill him. He had a fetish with women's shoes.
Rubinstein was so paranoid that if a stranger came into his room,
he would run or even jump out of a window. In chess tournaments he
would make a move then stand as far away as possible from the board
until his next move. During World War I, he invested all his money
in German War Bonds.
Emanuel Lasker was a successful chessplayer but a failure as a
farmer. He once tried to breed pigeons and enter them in poultry
shows. He tried for many months and failed. The pigeons were all
male.
Blackburne hated to lose at chess so badly that he once threw an
opponent out the window after losing a game.
Capablanca refused to pose with a film star, saying, "Why should I
give her publicity?"
Henrique Mecking lost his match with Petrosian and made a formal
protest. He accused Petrosian of kicking the table, shaking the
chessboard, stirring the coffee too loudly, and rolling a coin on
the table. He went to the referee twice to complain that Petrosian
was breathing too loudly. Mecking kicked back at the table and
started making noises of his own. Petrosian responded by turning
his hearing aid off.
William Russ was the leading American compiler of chess problems in
the 19th Century. He adopted an 11-year old girl and proposed to
her when she turned 21. When she rejected him, he shot her 4 times
in the head, then shot himself twice. She survived, he did not. His
chess book, published posthumously, was entitled AMERICAN CHESS
NUTS.
David Janowski was a great chessplayer and an addicted gambler. In
one tournament in Monte Carlo, he gave all his money to a friend
and made him promise not to return the money until after the event.
However, the lure of gambling was too much and he begged his friend
to return his money. His friend refused, so Janowski sued his
friend.
Bobby Fischer could have played Boris Spassky anywhere in the world
for millions of dollars in their 1992 re-match. Instead, he agreed
to play in Yugoslavia against US and UN sanctions. He spit on the
U.S. Department of Treasury warning not to play in Yugoslavia,
played anyway, and is now facing 10 years in prison and a $250,000
fine. In 1999 he gave radio interviews denying the holocaust of the
Nazis and accusing the Jewish community of conspiring against him
(Fischer is half Jewish). After the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attack on the U.S., Fischer applauded the attacks and said America
deserved it. In 2002, he made a radio interview encouraging the
Icelandic government to kick out the U.S. military from Iceland. He
encouraged the Icelandic government to send anthrax to the U.S.
government if the U.S. failed to leave Iceland.
Other related posts:
