G

Lessons from Euwe

Euwe was always an amateur player, not a professional; he taught mathematics in a girls' school in the Netherland for much of his active playing career, then was employed by a computer firm. He devoted much of his life to teaching chess, through books and articles. My favourite among his writings is a collection of articles about the middlegame with Hans Kramer, later published in two volumes. He collected and organised opening theory, he wrote books for beginners and masters, and he took the Presidency of FIDE.

Lessons from Smyslov

Botvinnik's disciplined research and iron logic was a strange parallel of the era of Stalin, the man of steel; Smyslov's chess was something altogether lighter and more intuitive.

Smyslov could often distil something clear and attractive from a game in ferment, and bring a fresh eye to familiar settings.

In the 1980s, he had a remarkable second wind, playing his elegant, modern chess all the way to the Candidate's Matches, where he was stopped by Kasparov.

Opening

Lessons from Alekhin

Almost any game by Lasker or Capablanca could be studied with profit, in the hope of playing a little more like our heroes. Their games are full of common sense. But the modernists and hypermodernists like Alekhin are not so easy to learn from; they thrive on a different style of chess, being less interested in the elegant harmony of principles and more interested in complexity, conflict and contradiction.

When John Nunn first came across the games of Alekhin, he said "How can anyone play like this?"(!). Alekhin's chess can be admired, but it is not easily imitated!

Lessons from Steinitz

"This little man," said Adolf Schwarz, "taught us all to play chess".

Steinitz started as a dashing attacking player, in the style common at the time, and claimed the World Championship after defeating Anderssen in a match (although the official beginning of the lineal championship began with his match with Zukertort many years later). By the time he played Zukertort, he was playing in a completely different style, and in the development of Steinitz' style we can see the beginnings of modern chess.

William Ewart Napier

Lockdown and subsequent restrictions have given me time to browse
the dustier reaches of my chess library, including Napier's Paul
Morphy and the Golden Age of Chess
, a compilation of his
three booklets Amenities and Background of Chess, each a
selection of 100 lightly annotated games to amuse and provide an
educative ABC. Horowitz edited this combined work and commented:

Reflections on chess resources

I started coaching adults at the Exeter club in 1993, about the same time as Alan Maynard started up the current incarnation of Exeter Junior Chess Club. I went looking for some useful resources for teaching, and there were some, but mostly I became a magpie, picking shiny bits out of various good books. I did find it irksome that so many books repeated familiar examples, and I thought I could at least pull those out for my colleagues, and that became the core of the Canon. I found particularly useful:
* Tony Gillam - Simple Chess Tactics and Simple Checkmates

Canon 2020 (new edition)

Some more time at home recently has meant I have been able to do something I've been meaning to do for ages, which is tidy up my database of teaching games, which I call the Canon.

Sorry if you have an earlier version and have had to tidy it yourself.

Morphy vs Steinitz

I keep seeing "Morphy would have beaten Steinitz", which we will never know, but here is some food for thought, from Steinitz' International Chess Magazine of 1886: (Nov 1886 pp 333-335)
To what I have said on the subject before, I may only add quite in conformity with the substance of my previous remarks that I have never quarrelled with anyone who bonafidely believes that Morphy could have beaten me even, if he had made progress with the time. But if anyone says that the Morphy as he was, and not the one who might have been, could give Pawn and move

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - G