What Chess Educators and Thinkers (if Any Left) have been Failing to See for 90 Years

LEARNING CHESS WITHOUT MOVES SHOWN FIRST, PART 2

OK, so if the moves is not the starting point in chess, what it might be?

This is something that has been escaping the radar of all the echelons of chess patriarchs, teachers, educators, Masters, coaches, (certified) FIDE and USCF trainers (even the Russian ones) for a long time now. In a way amazing, considering it has to do with a topic that potentially may revolutionize the way we start teaching and learning chess after 15+ centuries of beating the same well-trodden path. Hey, chess folks, this is 21st century, should basic chess education stay stuck in the prehistory forever?

In a previous post I asked you to give it a thought so we could possibly narrow down as closely as possible to a likely solution to the enigma Nimzovich left to the posterity. Nobody has even tried to identify that one single word giving the clue to unlocking the big chess mystery introduced by Nimzo in 1929.

The readers of my original blog post in Serbian (and this is a loose translation of it) did try, they provided two, identical solutions to the puzzle (one from a GM), their answer was "understanding."

In fact, the answer is "attacking" (the only word highlighted in cursive), "In this position the rook is attacking the pawn." It is very important to notice that this comes before the moves have been introduced!

But what is so special and revolutionary in this sentence? Sounds even trivial. We are all too familiar with chessmen attacking and being attacked all the time. There is nothing new in it. So, what is the point?

The question here is this, when we say attack, what it really means? Nimzovich does not say anything explicitly. In fact, attack means a relationship between the rook and the pawn which stems from the firing power chessmen possess.

And here we are, the basic, universal, all-uniting principle of all chess that you cannot find in any chess primer is power and how pieces use and exchange it. Well, something one should certainly expect from a game that is a simulation of warfare in its origins. Like in our lives, nature and entire Universe, anyway ― where Force is playing in Space and Time.

archleodv on Instagram

THEORY OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS

It comes handy at this point to mention briefly the theory of complex (emergent) systems in order to understand the importance of relationships in the life of power agents.

A complex system is defined as a system made up of many components that interact in Space and Time. Everything we know of is a complex system, cell, human body, the physical reality composed of atoms and molecules, the system of international relations, a game of chess.

There are three aspects when we discuss any complex system. They are,

• Members with their Properties.
• Members Interaction (relations, connections, contacts, network, etc.) in terms of the roles, functions and cooperation the members have during life of system.
• Raison d'etre and goals the system members work toward through their interplay.

1. MEMBERS WITH PROPERTIES

What properties have chess pieces? There are only three. One is a no-brainer,

a) Ability to move, something all chess textbooks for beginners invariably start with (may I remind you, something Nimzovich despised of).

But what might be the two remaining ones? No chess primer mentions them, and you can only find them in a good few of books. Where are you now, all the echelons of chess patriarchs, teachers, educators, (Grand)masters, coaches, (certified) FIDE and USCF trainers (even the Russian ones)?

Where are you now for God's sake? The two other mysterious qualities are

b) Striking power (control effect)

c) Body effect (corporal effect, Koerperwirkung, Ger)

And that is it, only three features that warring chessmen have.

As mentioned earlier, chess represents a simulation of warfare where all is about Power and use of Force to forward one's Mission. All the Universe, our lives, social relations, sports, everything relies on how skillfully the carriers of power play with it to advance force and achieve their agendas (sounds much like politics).

In chess, striking power defines itself like this, on an empty board, Re4 fires away invisible lines of force along the 4th rank and the e-file.

As for the body effect, chess pieces negate/reduce the striking power of enemy, as well as friendly pieces merely by their physical presence on a square. For example, White's rook on e1; Black's pawn on e6, the e6-pawn cuts off rook's line of fire down the e-vertical, so the e7 and e8 squares are not controlled by the rook.

As you just realized, two out of the three attributes chessmen possess are totally outside the viewing window of a blank slate chess mind when we start teaching it chess. Sounds ridiculously insane, huh? And the two much more important ones than how pieces move at that! The concept of power is primary, impossible to derive, or to explain from anything else. On the other hand, the movement of pieces only serves a more effective use of force. As in classic warfare, or boxing, by movement of troops we attempt to get the opponent out of balance, so as to create weaknesses in their disposition that we could possibly attack by using force. Movement is just a vehicle to apply force more efficiently. (on the nature of movement in warfare, you can consult the classic work by British strategist Liddell Hart, Strategy 1941).

2. MEMBER INTERACTIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS

In order to understand the essence and inner workings of any system, it is critically much more important to get the functional relationships between the members than their individual characteristics.

We saw there were only three qualities pieces display. What about the relationships? How many are there? Any guess?

Where are you now, all those echelons of chess patriarchs, teachers, educators, (Grand)masters, coaches, (certified) FIDE and USCF trainers (even the Russian ones)?

ONLY ONE!!! I repeat, ONLY ONE!!!

Are you consternated, too?

The oldest living GM, the Russian Yury Averbakh, defines four elementary contacts between pieces. But by using deduction, a nice mental tool invented to help in the Elementary Logic, it can be easily proved there is really only one.

Yet, it is more convenient to use the four relations as GM Averbakh taught them, as it is easier for the chess brain to handle them in practical terms as four different piece functions.

What follows is astonishingly basic concept. And it is what complex systems exactly are, from extremely simple rules, extraordinary complexity emerges.

Here are the four basic piece contacts (numbers in parentheses denote how many pieces get into contact),

a) Attack (2)

Of course, attack can be mutual, too. There also exist all kind of multiple attack. The most common is double attack coming in three flavors:

a1) two friends attack an enemy (or square)

a2) one chessman attacks two enemies

a3) two friends attack two enemies independently (like, for example, in a discovered attack)

Averbakh defines threat of attack (indirect, concealed, or hidden attack) as an important relationship (even as a separate, additional contact on its own in some of his works) between two enemies that are presently not in contact, but are able to establish it (=to attack each other) in one move. If a piece can attack a target in two moves, it is a threat of attack of second order, and so on. A threat is also a possibility of pawn promotion next move, or King getting into the pawn's square, etc.

Interestingly, Averbakh considers as double attack any combination of direct attacks and threat of attack . The most famous chess study with K+P vs K+P of all time by Reti

is actually working because after the initial 1.Kg7 White's King is carrying a double attack consisting of two threats of second order. On one hand, the King threatens to get into the h-pawn square, on the other, his majesty indicates intention to get to e6 in two moves, thus giving his c6-pawn necessary support for a promotion.

b) Restriction of movement (2)

In the above diagram, Black's king is restricted of movement for two principal causes,

- the e7 and e8-squares are out of reach due to Re1 exerting its attacking potential (restriction is just a result of the enemy attacking power being present),

- the physical presence of the pawn on f7.

c) Protection (2)

In this position Ra6 is "protecting" the e6-pawn. It is a sort of misnomer as Re1 can take the pawn anyway (as part of a sacrifice, or a combination). It is sort of deterrence (or disincentive), as it is not advisable to give out a rook for a pawn in "normal" chess times without tangible compensation, which, of course, doesn't apply when sacrificial tactical blows are being delivered.

Here we see again that protection can be deduced from the attacking contact. Ra6 is so positioned that, after a possible capture on e6 by White, an attacking connection establishes and the rook can recapture.

d) Block/Cover/Pin (3)

You are all familiar with the idea of pinning an enemy piece to degrade its fighting potential and make it weak. According to Averbakh, pin is just a double attack consisting of a direct attack on the pinned piece, and a threat of attack onto the actual target piece hiding behind it (that is why "pin is mightier than the sword").

OK, the important thing here is to say that any chess position on the board is made up of these four elementary connections. Again, the attacking contact is generic one that all other derive from, the only relationship pieces get into during battles they fight. Quite astonishing, isn't it? All complexity of chess emerges from it!

e) Capture (2)

Taking out an enemy piece is the last link of the principal chess dynamics down the chain of: Threat of attack ― Attack ― Capture.

3. SYSTEM PURPOSE AND INTENTS

The system organization, governed by interrelationships of its members is inconceivable and impossible without definite purpose inherent in the system. The network constructed by chessmen, and functional (not only geometrical) structure thus created is inseparably, organically tied with collective direction of the team. It is domain of strategy. The long term plans are implemented by way of tactical operations.

The present piece structure on the board determines possible future plans and course of action. And vice versa, if you are planning on carrying out a certain strategic idea, you need to change the current piece formation for a design of a kind capable of meeting the idea requirements.

In a surprising, but profound way, the above Levels (2) and (3), Piece Structure (=Architecture) and Plans (=Strategy; the word literally means Building up) are One. As the legendary American architect Frank Lloyd Wright put it, "Form is Function, and Function is Form." They are One, joined in a union.

Aleksandr Yanin, Bird of ultramarine color

.

CONCLUSION

With a brief review of the Complex System of Chess above, it is becoming increasingly evident the soundness, truthness and sign of a genius in Nimzovich's 1929 idea that the way we start teaching chess with the moves shown first is "fundamentally wrong."

At the same time, we can also realize where lie the defects of the present, all-pervasive traditional method of teaching the beginner, universally accepted to the point of becoming an aged and hardened religion nobody dares to question. The key point is that we start with movement, that is, only one, and less relevant at that, of the three properties chessmen have, while the remaining totality of chess edifice is utterly left outside the picture. So again, what is missing? The universal principle of Force with both, controlling and body effect pieces exercise, together with the two complete levels out of the big picture, L2 (piece relations) and L3 (purposeful action). Without them, it is painfully impossible to bring meaning and understanding to the critical early period of learning. No wonder, lack of the most general chess concepts (explained here in a single post!) is forcing millions, who never moved beyond the moves, out of the game.

Quite amazingly, what all those echelons of chess patriarchs, teachers, educators, (Grand)masters, coaches, (certified) FIDE and USCF trainers (even the Russian ones) have not noticed for 90 years, ever since Nimzovich, in 1929, dropped a hint (disguised in the word attacking), thus introducing a big educational enigma to all of us, is quite naturally and instinctively recognizable to 5-year old kids without much talking and explaining. What do I mean? Well, they all have played some kind of "war games" with shooting and hiding to be already familiar with the main concepts of chess.

Socratic method follows the idea that we don't learn anything. The only role of a teacher is to help get out the concepts we have already acquired from prior experience and stored in the mental repository of ideas and concepts, and make connections to the new knowledge being presented.

Any modern method of teaching in the 21st century, if they aim at avoiding being called trash left from the chess prehistoric past, must bring missing elements explained above into the new paradigmatic picture of how we should teach and learn chess at Square One.

Interestingly, all that is required for a big educational revolution in early chess is just a mindshift in the brain of the chess teacher, which consequently forms a quite different student's mindset. Once the basics are established, and the proper mind set acquired (and that happens after only a couple of lessons!), you all chess teachers of the world, stay assured, you can continue on with whatever methods you are using now.

How one possible modern approach to teaching may look like has been shown on my blog (check for example the intro Joe Learns Chess Outlaw Way, and two relations-based lessons, Lesson 1 and Lesson 2). After a 10-minute "theory", the beginner starts playing a mini-game (now compare with primers, some using 50 pages explaining all the chess rules, castling, en-passant, notation, the three-move-repetion rule  ― the beginner couldn't cares less about it).

The British coach Jim Stevenson implemented the method in class, "the method is very popular with the kids. Because it is dynamic and immediate. Straight into creative thinking and trying to work things out themselves, without dull formal rules to learn first." (Jim on Twitter).

You may also want to check how the modern method, Susan Polgar's and FIDE method stack up.

Hey, you all the echelons of chess patriarchs, teachers, educators, Masters, coaches, (certified) FIDE and USCF trainers. Yes, you, I am talking to you. You are responsible for transforming the desert of early (badly broken) chess education into fertile soil that allows young chess minds to thrive...