Main Chess Principle: Piece Activity, Coordination, or Domination?
After familiarizing yourself with it, together with some illustrative examples, the principle may become part of your toolbox of concepts that could add more power and give a boost to your chess.
Your knowledge and acting at the chessboard is hierarchically organized around major principles and mental habits. They orient you in constructing solutions and making decisions. However,
We still know quite a little about chess. —Karpov & Matsukevich, Find the Right Plan
"A set of underpinning principles should always exist to steer a course of action for us. Every doctrine has its cornerstone postulate. In physics, it is the law of conservation of matter, force and energy."
"But what is that Supreme Law of chess?" (Karpov & Matsukevich)
In a few past posts I've covered the Principle of Activity. The Belorussian GM Viacheslav Dydyshko (in his brilliant Logic of Modern Chess, Minsk, 1989) argues that piece activity ("Maximize activity - and mobility - of your men while fighting your opponent's") is the main principle of chess.
For Capablanca, Coordination of pieces is the central principle throughout.
According to Karpov and Matsukevich, it is Restriction of the mobility of opposing pieces.
The fundamental principles of [chess] are neither very numerous nor in themselves very abstruse (hard to understand, RP), but the application of them is difficult, and cannot be made subject to rules [for action]. —J.F.C. Fuller
Both the game rules, and whatever principles we use during game, determine the way we act and take decisions. The rules that we must obey are imposed from the outside whereas principles are simple internal concepts that force us to do what we feel is right and correct. Principles serve as a premise or starting point for how we face and think about game's complexities during play. However, they don't provide methods for working tactical and strategic solutions out.
"As to methods, there may be a million and then some, but principles are few. The player who grasps principles can successfully select his own methods. The player who tries methods, ignoring principles, is sure to have trouble." (H. Emerson).
One of Stalin's pipes
.
All three definitions of the main principle I gave above (Activity, Coordination, Restriction) are still vague and insufficiently defined.
Activity of pieces, yes, but not all activity works. Also, "piece coordination" doesn't say anything about the kind of unified effort chessmen put in, and what purpose it is to serve. Capa's statement doesn't suggest where the full potential and inherent purpose or objectives of coordinated pieces are.
For example, if you group and concentrate your pieces when or where they are not required renders them useless. As an illustration, in the following position (Bronstein-Spassky, Riga 1958), White's four pieces are completely disorganized and with no purpose in either attack, or defense. Meanwhile, Black's - even fewer in numbers - units are dominating the field and weaving a mating net in the critical sector on the K-side (Spassky just sacrificed his Bb7 for that purpose).
.
Chess is a game where we witness the emergence of very complex behavior arising from simple elements and laws. The theory of complex systems used in science and social studies may help in our understanding of chessmen the behaviour of which has always proved difficult to predict and control.
Despite the development of chess theory, there is much that remains secret and unexplored in chess. —Smyslov
Every system (and warring chessmen is one of them) is bounded by Space and Time, defined by its Structure and Purpose, and expressed through its functioning.
Here are the three aspects a complex system from my Reinventing the 1st Chess Lesson,
All of a sudden, everything clicks and becomes clear. Now we see what the true nature of Dydysko's Activity is. It is about the effective use of Striking Power. We also see that Capablanca's Coordination revolves around interdependent relationships and toward optimal piece network configuration to achieve clear, specific goals. And finally, we realize that Karpov & Matsukevich's Restriction is just half story in "Increase the Activity, Mobility and Coordination of your men while restricting the opponent's."
So let's define our Main Principle like this,
Maximize coordinated activity of one's men within the networked piece structure to achieve Superior Fighting Force (conceptual or physical) at the right time and board sector in order to deliver intended strategic objectives and/or existing tactical opportunities and ensure a positive outcome (material or positional).
Perhaps a little bit too long, but that is it, the essence of chess and game's main principle, the Law of Domination! Ultimately, everything (Activity, Mobility, Structure, Coordination, Harmony, Strategy) serve achieving Superiority in Force!
While we are at it, there is one more important practical question to address. It is about the nature of strategic objectives in the above definition which needs to be articulated a bit more. In essence, these objectives are suggested by and go along the path of least resistance, that is to say around weaknesses in the board piece and pawn structure. These weaknesses become targets to be exploited. As Dr Euwe wrote in his Strategy and tactics in 1937, chess strategy primarily revolves around weak points, their creation, and occupation/utilization by pieces as strongholds for further advances in order to establich and enjoy Power Superiority at the right place and time.
.
ACTIVITY IN PRAXIS
Here follow a couple of examples illustrating the Principle. I chose them from the games of Boris Spassky who I think has been definitely underrated. He was a great champion who deseves much more respect than he has been receiving. He was simply unfortunate to be overshadowed by two other bright stars who appeared in the chess sky along with him in the 50s, Tal and Fischer. Spassky was famous for having what is called an all-around style of play.
But there's one area where the 10th world champion wasn't just strong, but noticably superior to all contemporaries - when playing complex multi-piece middlegame. He had a very deep sense of how to best coordinate pieces. In particular, his artistry in bringing pieces to the place of decisive assault. When it is necessary to improve position and when it is the right moment for launching an attack. He solved these questions at the board almost unmistakably. All at an intuitive level. Where great tacticians were drowning in the sea of endless and incalculable lines, where the orthodox positional players were losing orientation and ground for "where to look ahead," it was in such irrational positions Spassky felt like a fish in the water.
Dr Lasker used psichology as an art form. Spassky is a new incarnation of the kind of player of Dr Lasker in the evolution of chess. A player of universal style and a brilliant psychologist in one person.
.
Now let's see Spassky the true master of Activity and Initiative in action! Let's check a couple of his games.
GAME #1
We start with two positions from Spassky-Witkowsky. Note White's superior force in the center (4 vs 3, 3 vs 2) as Black's Rook is held in the corner doing nothing. Together with the Bishop splendidly posted on c5, White's dominant Force is posing all kind of threats along the c- and d-files, even the e-file as White is threatening Rd4xe4 in the second diagram. This tactical opportunity shows that tactics doesn't come out of blue. It is position of strength and superior fighting Force at the right time and place that should build up first before any successful tactics is possible.
.
GAME #2
Now check the piece activity in Spassky-Foguelman, 1960. All white army but Rf1 are active. On the other side, only Queen is playing. White's further play is revolving around many weaknesses in Black's position, f6, d-file, a2-g8 diagonale, 6th rank (all these are at the same time a strong suit of White's cards as per the principle of dualism). This clearly shows how networked structure of Superior Force is using strategies that focus on well identified targets, that is the weaknesses in the opposing camp.
.
GAME #3
Again, a striking contrast in activity between the white and black armies in Spassky-Evans, 1962. Effectively, 6 men vs Nh6. Spassky reached this position after sacrificing three pawns (one was recovered meanwhile). Funny, during the post-mortem Evans thought he could have saved the game with a more accurate play. No way, Mr Evans, says Principle of Activity and Domination.
.
BONUS
The Art of chess involves exploring possibilities bearing game to a position in which the conventional values of the pieces stop rule., —Botvinnik
