"The old masters dealt only with the static features of positional rules. But these are insufficient to explain the basics of chess. The problem is that chess, like other sciences, has undergone a dynamic revolution, but chess literature does not yet reflect this." - GM Jacob Aagaard
In the Romantic era, initiative was prized above all. It was commonly thought that the a well played chess game would be decided by a decisive initiative and that it was worth sacrificing a lot of material to achieve this. Rapid development and center control was prioritized, mainly open games were played. Morphy was the best at applying the methods of that age.
Then came Steinitz with his positional theories and theoretical investigations turned in the direction of statics. Much progress was made in this field, Steinitz's theories were built upon by great chess masters of the age and the application of positional principles became more nuanced. This development culminated in Capablanca. In applying purely technical chess against other technical masters, it was feared that chess was reaching a 'draw death' and Capablanca even proposed an alternative version of chess with a larger board. Then came Alekhine, winning game after game at the highest level in a dynamic and sacrificial style. Unlike players in the Romantic Era, Alekhine understood the positional preconditions that allowed a successful attack to work and showed that it was possible to play for dynamics and sacrifice for the initiative in a sound way at the highest level. IM Vladimir Vukovic claimed that Alekhine's greatest contribution to the theory of dynamics was that the attacker should maximize preconditions for the attack while minimizing commitment (Art of Attack in Chess).
Alekhine also opened the door for the possibilities of sacrificing for a long-term initiative, previously it was thought that the compensation could only have short-term justification.
After Alekhine, it was more well known that dynamics were an integral part of the chess game, but many masters fount it to be a risky and hard to control method of playing chess, so most prioritized statics and minimized risk. Not counting an increased awareness of tactical patterns, most of the chess development from Alekhine's death until the 1970s was in the field of statics (positional/technical chess). This can be illustrated by the mostly positional players Botvinnik, Petrosian, and Karpov becoming world champions.
Despite the general preference of statics and positional principles, the development of chess dynamics was happening behind the scenes. As far back as Nimzowitsch, it was becoming more well known you should not dogmatically apply positional principles and should approach the position concretely (this approach is discussed by books such as Lipnitsky's Questions of Modern Chess Theory, Watson's Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy, and many books by Dvoretsky). Black also started fighting for the initiative instead of only trying to equalize. This set the foundation for aggressive openings like the Sicilian, King's Indian Defense, Dutch, and Benoni.
"Botvinnik introduced an aggressive conception for Black: instead of the usual struggle for equality, a deliberate desruption of the positional equilibrium and sharp play for seizing the initiative." - GM Garry Kasparov.
"The turning point in my career came with the realization that Black should play to win instead of just steering for equality." - GM Bobby Fischer
It was becoming more well known that the established piece values were an approximate average and that in specific types of positions a piece which is considered less valuable on average would be more valuable in specific cases. Petrosian helped develop this with exchange sacrifices.
Soon, Mikhail Tal came along with insane sacrifices and blasted his way to the world champion title with an extremely dynamic style. Tal helped the public understand initiative better and sacrifices without immediate gain seemed more plausible. Here are two examples of Tal's dynamic play in action.
Tal helped set the stage for Kasparov, who built on his predecessors dynamically. Kasparov described his style as a symbiosis of Alekhine, Tal, and Fischer. Alekhine for dynamics, Tal for willingness to sacrifice, and Fischer for work ethic and value of the classics. One of Kasparov's main contributions to understanding chess dynamics was the pawn sacrifice for a long-term initiative. Here are some examples of Kasparov's sacrificial play in action.
Fischer's extreme work ethic forced other professionals to work harder on the opening in order to keep up, which accelerated opening developments in the 1970s and 1980s. Kasparov explained this in his book
Revolution in the 70s.
"Although, after becoming world champion, Fischer gave up playing, and many of his schemes became outdated, the tectonic shifts that he had caused generated a powerful avalanche, which over a period of ten years redrew the entire opening 'map of the world'. Between 1972 and 1975 alone the progress in this field was more significant than in the entire preceding decade! Later the acceleration merely increased. The dynamics of the game increased sharply, and, above all, there was a change in the very approach in solving opening problems. (...) The outcome was not only a triumph of innovatory systems, which disdained centuries-old theoretical canons (the 'Hedgehog' and the Chelyabinsk variation), but also a reassessment of existing tabiyas in the existing openings, where original schemes also emerged, based on new tactical ideas and new typical methods of fighting for an opening initiative or neutralizing the opponent's initiative." - GM Garry Kasparov
As a result, openings with a lot of dynamic potential such as the Hedgehog and Sveshnikov emerged. Another result of the dynamic opening revolution was the possibility of the g4-g5 (or ...g5-g4) thrust to fight for the initiative. The foundation was set earlier (Lipnitsky covers this in the "Conquering the center through the flanks" section of Questions of Modern Chess Theory, Vukovic discusses it as an attacking idea in his book 'Art of Attack in Chess" naming it the 'bayonet', Keres recommends it as a way of fighting the Scheveningen, etc) but the 'bayonet' g4-thrust didn't become mainstream until the post-Fischer opening revolution begun. Here are some examples of openings where g4 or ...g5 became considered.
Since then, there have been a lot of development in the field of chess dynamics. Many books were written on the subject and strong players are a lot more open to sacrificing for the initiative than in the 1950s.
However, chess engines discouraged the analytic development of chess dynamics because engines are generally materialistic unless they can see justification in the short-term, so the leading grandmasters generally started leaning back in the direction of caution.
"Alas, serious creative work by the lading players on mastering the middlegame lasted for a comparatively short time - until the appearance of powerful computer programs, which largely hindered this positive tendency. (...) The intervention of computers has damaged the study of typical positions, since a machine has a poor understanding of ideas, whereas it understands very well what material is. The present situation merely confirms the old truth that a talent for analytical thinking is encountered extremely rarely." - GM Dragoljub Velimirovic
"The players are the main problem, not computers. (...) There is an overreaction to the slightest surprise. Every player knows that the threat is stronger than the execution, and the threat of the computer is stronger than the computer's move! I have to be hopeful about the future. Eventually there will emerge a new generation, which in the end will overcome its computer phobia and forget its own weapons." - GM Andy Soltis
Thankfully for the development of chess dynamics, there have been an emergence of self learning engines which can actually understand long-term dynamics. AlphaZero showed up on the scene, repeatedly crushing Stockfish in dynamic style and showing it's evaluation of long-term sacrifice positions to frequently be incorrect (especially 0.00 positions).
'A couple of months ago, I was reviewing an excellent middlegame book of extremely complicated positions analyzed by a world-class grandmaster. The author mentioned a few times when the crisis in a particular position was at its highest that his engines were assessing the position as 0.00. Judging from his comments, he wasn't completely sure what to make of such an assessment which didn't always tally with his intuitive or practical feeling about the position. Any chess player who has analyzed complicated positions seriously with an engine running in the background will recognize this scenario. You summon your inner genius, think up a brilliant double-pawn sacrifice to set the board on fire... and your engine responds with an evaluation of 0.00 and a best line ending in you forcing a bizarre repetition of moves. And it's not just one engine: they all want you to force a repetition (though the ways to do so often vary). It's perhaps the most irritating and obstructive thing that these otherwise fantastic engines do during analysis. If an engine thinks that a draw by repetition is the best course, it's not going to chip in with interesting suggestions anymore. It's all on you to think of something and challenge the engine and force it to look outside its closed path. The meaning of these 0.00 evaluations is something puzzling. At the point when the possibilities should be boundless, a draw by repetition is apparently the best option. However, if you attempt to take on the engine and prove it to be wrong, then you often end up losing... or discovering more repetitions. The engines are just too strong and can usher away any of your objections. You can imagine therefore that I was intrigued when playing through games between AlphaZero and Stockfish to see many 0.00 evaluations whizzing past my eyes as my engines analyzed in the background.' (...)
'
AlphaZero's was normally the only dissenting voice: in positions assessed at 0.00 by the engines, its evaluation was often positive for itself. Putting that together with the score AlphaZero was making in such positions, it made me wonder whether a new chapter had been opened on 0.00 evaluations. (...) It would then be unsurprising if a percentage of such narrow 0.00 paths were in fact better for the attacker, and not holding for the defender.' - GM Matthew Sadler (
Game Changer: AlphaZero's Groundbreaking Chess Strategies and the Promise of AI)
Here are some games where AlphaZero crushed Stockfish in dynamic style.
The lessons from AlphaZero are likely to spark another wave of the dynamic revolution. Rapid development of previously unknown or underestimated dynamic ideas within theory is to be expected. AlphaZero is not publicly accessible, but LeelaZero is
open source and is based on AlphaZero's learning methods. From what I can see, LeelaZero shares AlphaZero's strengths in evaluating long-term dynamics and being open to sacrifices that traditional engines are not.
LeelaZero is not run on a supercomputer like AlphaZero was, so it's currently only around Stockfish 10's equal, but as it plays more games against itself it keeps learning. I expect LeelaZero to permanently pass Stockfish at some point in the future, and having access to a dynamic computer can allow users to search for new dynamic ideas within theory and be more open to the possibility of dynamic sacrifices in their own games.
Recommended supplementary resources:
