Blogs
Evgeny Umnov. Chess Game and Composition (1950)

Evgeny Umnov. Chess Game and Composition (1950)

Avatar of Spektrowski
| 6

A 1950 article by a prominent Soviet problemist Evgeny Umnov (1913 - 1989).

Chess Game and Composition

The question of relationship between chess composition and practical games is interesting and important. The correct solution will allow the practical chess players to make fuller use of the material created by composers, and the composers to define the principles of their creativity more clearly, which will allow them to participate fully in the development of the Soviet chess art.

We won't dwell much on the history of this question, but let's cite the two major ways of answering it. The first answer is that chess composition represents exceptions from the rules, it develops the ideas not characteristic for the game itself, and any overlaps are random. Another answer, on the contrary, is that practical games and compositions overlap completely, adhering to the same principles of struggle for space, time and material.

The first viewpoint is wrong because it outright denies any logical connection between composition and games, boiling down to simple random coincidences. But the second viewpoint is inadequate: it doesn't provide a clear answer, doesn't show the specifics of those principles in the game and in the composition.

These general principles of chess playing are the same at every stage of the game - in the opening, in the middlegame, in the endgame. But chess composition, obviously, has nothing to do with opening theory, which is tied inextricably to the game's starting position. Studies are closer in form to the endgames, and in some branches (analytical studies), they are basically one and the same. But the general endgame theory also cannot fully explain the logical connection between modern artistic chess studies, and especially problems, and practical games. This connection can only be established by studying a certain area of the game of chess - the area of combination.

During the chess game, there often occur such positions where one of the opponents can reach the desired result with a series of forced moves, i.e. such moves that allow to reach the goal even with the opponent's best defence. Combination theory is the area of chess theory that studies such positions.

(Here and later, we're talking about combination in its former definition, without necessarily tying it to a sacrifice of material, as M. Botvinnik proposed in 1939 [2].)

Combination, in the most general sense, is "a variant or a group of variants, in which both sides make their best moves, and which end with objective advantage for the active side" [1, p. 15].

The main characteristic feature that defines combination and distinguishes it from all other elements of chess playing is forced play. During the combination, the opponent cannot stop it; the combination will be performed, and the player will reach their goal, no matter how good is defence.

This same principle is true for every chess composition. Both studies and problems are positions where White is to play and achieve the stated goal: win or draw in the study or mate in a certain number of moves in the problem, regardless of Black's replies. No matter how well Black play, no matter how well they defend, the goal will be still achieved.

This distinguishing feature - forced play - allows us to clearly define the area of practical chess games that is connected to composition. But this is not the only thing they have in common.

The goal of this article is to show the deep internal connection between combinations in practical games and chess composition, the connection that pervades their whole essence, the diversity and richness of their ideas.

***

The most thorough research of combination was made by P. Romanovsky [1], who managed to achieve a deeper understanding of its essence than the other authors and uncover its main features. Romanovsky defines three main concepts of combination: motive, theme and idea.

"The motive is the environment that makes a combination possible, such as, for example, unprotected pieces, cramped position of the king, etc.

The theme is the outcome of the combination, but not from the results point of view (winning a piece, better position, etc.), but in the sense of demonstrating the very essence of the combination, such as multiple attack, getting the pawn to the 7th rank, stalemate, knight fork, etc.

The idea is ways and means of putting our plan into action." [1, p. 58]

To illustrate these important concepts, let's look at some examples.

1. Casual game [1, p. 37]

2. Botvinnik - Capablanca, Amsterdam 1938

3. Alekhine - Yates, London 1922

In position 1, after 1. Nf5 Be7, White perform a combination that ends with winning the queen. The motive of this combination is the Black king's weakness that allows to create a mating threat; the theme is winning a piece with a discovered attack; finally, the idea is to attract the Black queen to a disadvantageous d7 square with a sacrifice.

The combination in position 2 forcibly clears the way for an advanced passed pawn. The motive is White's active pieces and strong passed pawn; the theme is promoting the pawn; the idea is double deflection of Black pieces through sacrifices with a direct attack on the queen (30. Ba3) and the king (31. Nh5+). This combination includes Black's attempt to execute a counter-combination to get perpetual check. The strength of this attempt is underlined by a false lead (34. Qf7+?), where this counter-combination actually works.

The combination in position 3 is based on cramped and defenceless position of the Black king (the motive) and ends with two similar checkmates on neighbouring squares (g8 and h8). To execute the combination, two themes were used: deflecting the pawn to open a line (36... gxf6) and attracting a rook to block a square for the king (38... Rf8). It's important to add that the latter idea was executed without sacrificing a piece on the blocked square.

While analyzing the combination, it's customary to highlight "the so-called quiet moves, i.e. moves that do not give check to the king or capture a piece" [1, p. 68]. Such moves are more impressive because their power is more hidden, the impact is less obvious than with checks and captures.

Quiet moves usually contain some kind of threat (capture the opponent's piece, promote a pawn, checkmate), but there can be quiet moves without a threat; their power is creating a zugzwang for the opponent.

In the aforementioned examples, there were quiet moves: 2. Rd7 (attacking two pieces) and 3. Qg4 (mating threat) in #1; 30. Ba3 (attacking the queen) and 34. e7! (decisive threat of pawn promotion) in #2; 35. Nd7 (threatening to win an exchange), 36. Nf6 and 38. Ke5 (attacking a piece), 37. Rxg7 (mating threat) in #3.

4. Malakhshia - Mikenas. Tbilisi 1946

5. Chigorin/Zeibot vs. Levin/Schiffers

Position 4 is another example of a combination with the quiet move that threatens mate. The weakness of the castle position and main White pieces being too far away allow Black to win the game using a combination with a series of quiet moves: 2... Qd7, with unavoidable threat of capturing on h3; 5... b5, attacking the bishop, and 6... Qh5!, threatening checkmate. The theme of this combination is winning a piece with a strong threat; the idea is opening the g-file (2. gxh3) and attracting the bishop to a disadvantageous square (6. Bxb5).

Position 5 is an example of a zugzwang combination. First, using a quiet move with a mating threat (without sacrificing material!), White force the Black queen to the bad h6 square, and then, with 42. Rg5, they entomb it, forcing zugzwang for Black. The theme of the combination is winning a piece through zugzwang; the idea is attraction.

The examples serve as an adequate description of the meaning of those concepts.

The motive of a combination characterizes external circumstances in the game that allow for a combination.

The theme and the idea of a combination characterize its internal content. The theme determines the final goal, the result of the combination, and the idea describes the content of individual preparational techniques used to achieve that goal.

If the combination is implemented with quiet moves, then, depending on the moves, we can define two types: combination with threats and combination for zugzwang. The last two concepts determine the form of combination: any theme can be represented in either form: threat or zugzwang.

The introduction of concepts of motive, theme and idea gave Romanovsky the basis for a systemic analysis of a huge amount of factual material: combinations in practical games. Examining a lot of examples, he identifies a series of common themes and ideas that repeat in various combinations and situation, creating a basis for classification of combinations in practical games. Other efforts to classify combinations were less successful [3, 4].

Examining all these works and combining the results, we can identify the following basic groups of combination themes: 1) winning a piece; 2) promoting a pawn; 3) checkmate; 4) stalemate; 5) positional draw.

In addition to those groups, which characterize the combination's content, we should examine two more groups that characterize the form of its execution in the presence of quiet moves: 6) combination with a threat and 7) zugzwang combinations.

Similarly, we can classify the combinational ideas into several basic groups: 1) deflection; 2) opening lines; 3) attraction; 4) interference; 5) pinning; 6) unpinning.

Now let's consider studies. Considering endgame studies as combinations, as a complex of forced variants where White achieve their goal even with Black's best defence, we can still prove that we need to distinguish between theme and idea.

6. L. Kubbel. First Prize of the All-Union Chess Section competition, 1926. White to play and win

7. V. Platov, M. Platov. First prize of the Czech competition, 1923. White to play and win

8. V. Korolkov. First prize of the Trud newspaper competition, 1935. White to play and win

The theme of study #6 is analogous to the combination #1: winning the queen with a discovered attack; here, it's played out in two variants: diagonally and horizontally. To achieve the goal, White have to attrack the black king (2... Ka6) and queen (4... Qxg4+) to disadvantageous squares. The first idea is executed without sacrificing a piece both times.

In the study #7, the main theme is promoting the pawn through a subtle, complicated struggle, with White deflecting the Black rook three times. This study is analogous to the combination #2 in both theme and idea and the presence of Black's countercombination and a false lead. If, instead of 6. Rb3, White immediately play 6. Kxc6, then the black rook, which remains on the 3rd rank after 10. Rf2 f3!, can give perpetual check. In addition to the main theme, after 5... Rxd7 6. Kxc6, there's a theme of winning the rook after a mating threat, similar to the combination #4.

Study #8 is built on an idea of checkmate with blockade (5... Bb8!), like combination #3. The subtlety and difficulty of this study is that the idea is executed not with a direct sacrifice on a square that needs to be blocked nor forcing the piece to a disadvantageous square with a threat, but rather by provoking Black's hidden countercombination with the "winning a piece" theme: Black play Bb8 to get the rook stuck at a8 and then win it. This combination does work, but White's combination is calculated one move further: when Black capture the rook, the sole surviving White bishop delivers the checkmate!

As well as the combinations from practical games, endgame study combinations are differentiated by the character of quiet moves. All the previous examples dealt with combinations where quiet moves were accompanied by various threats. The theme of winning a piece with mating threats is represented quite vividly in study #9, where White knight makes three quiet moves with mating threats, and the last of them is decisive, since Black have to give up their queen to avert it.

The theme of winning a piece by forcing zugzwang is illustrated by the study #10; in the ending position, any efforts by Black to retain the pin on the knight leads to loss of the rook.

9. A Troitsky, 1909. White to play and win

10. G. Kasparyan. First prize in the All-Union championship, 1947. White to play and win

The study #10 is also interesting due to Black's counterplay with the theme of winning a piece and White's zugzwang. If White played 7. Kd2? (instead of 7. Kd1!!), then after 7... Rg6 8. Nc7 Rc6, they would've been in zugzwang themselves, and the game would've ended in draw (9. Kd1 Rc3).

For a long time, endgame studies were classified not by their content, but rather by power balance between opponents. Only in the second editions of A.A. Troitsky's [5] and L.I. Kubbel's [6] study anthologies, in addition to this classification, there were attempts to classify the studies by their content as well. The classification of study themes according to general principles of chess struggle was given in A.O. Herbstman's book [7].

If we systematize the materials from those compilations, we'll easily see that all themes and ideas mentioned therein fit into basic groups for combinations in practical games, mentioned above.

Let's also note that themes of study combinations can be called study themes per se, unlike ideas of study combinations, which are usually called "strategical ideas" or "problem ideas", because they were developed in problems.

Now let's turn to problems. If we look at problems as combinations, their main distinguishing feature is the singularity of the goal: checkmate. So, the content of a problem is strictly limited to combinational ideas, which it develops comprehensively. Another, formal feature of a chess problem is that it requires winning in an exact number of moves. Let's show some examples.

11. A. Galitsky. Shakhmatniy Zhurnal, 1893. Mate in 3

12. L. Loshinsky. First place in the All-Union championship, 1947. Mate in 3

13. A. Gulyaev. Honorable Mention, Przepiorka Memorial, 1946. Mate in 3

The idea of first two problems is somewhat similar to the discovered attack from positions 1 and 6. In the problem #11, the white rook prevents the pawn from mating on g4. But the rook cannot vacate that square immediately. With the first move, it interferes with both pawn and queen, and Black are in zugzwang. Only after the Black rook leaves its hideout, for instance, 1... Ra5, White will be able to free the way for the pawn, attacking the rook at the same time: 2. Ra3, and if Black defend with 2... g4, they can give a checkmate: 3. Rxa5. The idea of the problem is opening lines for White pieces.

In the problem #12, the idea is the same: when the Black rook, forced to defend from a threat, leaves its strong position and creates new weaknesses, the White rook opens up a line for the queen, threatening 3. Nh5#. In the variants 1... Ra(b,c)4, the main idea of involving the white piece is complicated with deflection of the Black rook (so that Black can't play 2. Rd3!); in the variant 1... Rd5, the Black rook is attracted to a disadvantageous square (3. exd5#); finally, in the variants 1... Rd6(d7), the rook interferes with other Black pieces.

Let's note that problem #11 is based on zugzwang, and #12 is based on a threat, so the theme can be executed in both forms in problems as well.

Two next problems represent various ideas in their variants. In the threat of problem #13, the idea of attracting the king to the disadvantageous d5 square is executed without sacrifices, and after 1... Ne6, there's deflection with a queen sacrifice; after 1... Nf2, there are two ideas combined: unpinning and blocking. In the problem #14, the idea of deflection is represented in the variants 1... Nxg5 and 1... Bxg1, and in two other variants, the idea of blocking is executed.

14. L. Kubbel. Second prize of the Swedish competition, 1935. Mate in 3

15. L. Kubbel. Problems and Studies 1928, first prize. Mate in 2

16. E. Umnov. Fifth prize of the Uzbek SSR competition, 1947. Mate in 2

The last two problems develop the ideas in two-move form. In the problem #15, Black defend from the threat 2. Qxe6# by pinning the White queen with one of the rooks (a counter-combination of sorts), which, in turn, leads to pinning of the second Black rook (the idea of "half-pinning"); after 1... Re3, there's interference, and after 1... Re4 or 1... e5, there's blocking.

In the problem #16, White threaten 2. Nbc5#, since both a5 and b5 are blocked by Black bishops. Black's defence is based on freeing up these squares for king's escape (the idea of unblocking). But after any bishop moves, White get new mating opportunities: 2. Rxa5# and 2. Nb6#. The Black bishops should be very careful in their moves, defending from the new ("repeated") threats as well, but this leads to closing the line for the Black queen. White can exploit this interference in two ways: 2. Ndc5# or 2. Nxc1#, but in each variant, only one of those moves works, while the other one is an "attempt", and this division of mates is caused by the very same idea of unblocking that Black used to defend from the main threat; this defence works even on the mating move ("continuous defence").

We see that in problems, the combinational ideas can be presented in very complicated, diverse couplings. Many of them get special names, which sometimes drive away chess players who get their first introduction to chess problems. But all those complicated ideas, all the diversity of modern problem themes, upon closer inspection ultimately boils down to the six basic strategical ideas: 1) deflection; 2) interference; 3) pinning; 4) blocking; 5) inclusion and 6) unpinning [8, p. 238]. These ideas are fully consistent with six basic groups of ideas shown in the classification tables for ideas seen in practical games and studies.

Everything said above conclusively proves that idea basis of artificially constructed compositions - studies and problems - completely corresponds with the idea basis of combinations seen in real practical games.

***

When creating an artificial combination on the board to compose a problem or a study, there are two possible ways. You might try to create a combination that looks like it could have been executed in a practical game, with ordinary power balance and piece positions. You might even try to recreate a natural motive for the combination, in addition to theme and idea execution.

But you also might cast these requirements aside and set a simpler goal: recreate only the content of the combination, show the theme and idea in the purest and fullest way.

Let's look at some examples.

17. From a solving competition [13, p. 8]. Mate in 2

18. L. Bogatyrev. Shakhmaty, 1929, special prize. Mate in 3

19. Learning exercise [3, p.4]. White to play and win

On the diagram #17, we see a position proposed at a recent solving competition. The idea of this problem is pinning the Black queen to deflect it from defending h6. The position looks completely natural: almost equal material, normal positions of pieces and pawns. The author used the first way of building the combination.

The position #18, on the contrary, is completely unnatural: White have overwhelming material advantage, there's not a single White pawn left, etc. But the idea is presented wonderfully clearly and fully in three analogous variants. The author decided not to recreate a natural motive and used the second way, fully concentrating his efforts on executing the idea.

A third example. The diagram #19 illustrates the theme of smothered mate. The pieces are positioned quite naturally, so, even though this position was created artificially, it might as well have occurred in a real game.

This cannot be said about the position #20. Such a material balance is very rare in practical games: no pawns at all, except one White, preparing to be promoted. But the struggle in this position is very dynamic, subtle, with multiple false leads. It ends, as well as the previous one, with a smothered mate.

20. A. Seletsky, Shakhmaty v SSSR, 1933. First prize. White to play and win

21. Learning exercise [1, p. 32]. Black to play and win

22. L. Kubbel, Listok Shakhmatnogo Kruzhka Petrogubkommuny, 1921. White to play and win

Another example demonstrating a knight's combinational capabilities is shown on diagrams #21 and #22. The first position is created in accordance with the requirements of naturalism and really looks like a position from the game, the second one was created in accordance with the laws of modern composition. The theme and idea are identical, but we have to admit that the study executes it much more subtly. Especially brilliant is the king's quiet move, forcing the rook to move to a disadvantageous square to avoid mate.

These examples, of which there's quite a few more, clearly show that the same theme or idea can be executed in a number of different ways, depending on the author's approach to composition. These same examples prove that rejecting the requirement of recreating the combination's natural motive allows to express its theme or idea more fully and clearly.

Which of those two ways is the right one? Which one the composers should follow in their work? The answer to this question was given by the very development of modern chess composition.

Let's look at the endgame study first.

It's customary to think that modern studies are close to practical games, that the study positions are natural and absolute. The theoretical statements of chess composers themselves are unanimous:

"The composition of a study should be natural; in other words, a study should look like a position from the real game, something akin to a nature snapshot." L.I. Kubbel [6, p.7]

"The origin of a study is twofold: it can arise from a practical game or be created specifically. In the latter case, the author should create a position which is not only allowed by the rules, but also can be reached with natural moves." A.A. Troitsky [5, p.31].

But if we turn to the practical execution of those statements, to artistic studies that satisfy the highest expectations, we'll see that this is not exactly the case, that they aren't always "akin to a nature snapshot".

When V. Platov printed the study #22 in his book [9], he correctly stated that it's a "brilliant middlegame study", but this directly clashed with his own statement that the studies are "absolute" and composed "realistically", in contrast to "arbitrary" and "fantastic" problems.

Are the studies #20 and #22 realistic from the practical game point of view? No, they aren't. It's very highly unlikely for queens and rooks to stay on the board while all the pawns are absent.

But, what's even more important, these studies are unrealistic due to their internal contradiction. A brilliant theme, characteristic for middlegame combinations, is executed in an endgame form.

The modern chess study has come a long way in its development. Formerly, when composing the study, material balance was the most important consideration, and the author's goal was to express some new moments in the struggle of such-and-such pieces. Now, the study composers use combinational themes or ideas as a basis, and the material and power balance is just a secondary means of achieving the goal.

While the study stayed within the "material balance" paradigm, its content was, of course, consistent with its form from the practical game point of view. But when study authors started developing the themes and ideas we discussed earlier, more characteristic for middlegame combinations, the study ceased being "natural" from the practical game point of view, because it remained an endgame by form.

So, the modern artistic study is not a "nature snapshot" in the primitive sense many think of.

The whole development of modern endgame study led to a situation where its artistic value is determined by its compliance to the laws of composition, of which the first and foremost is the law of economy.

Let's now consider how the question of two ways of composing is resolved in problems. In the 19th-century problem books, we'll see many compositions that look just like positions from practical games.

In one of the first Russian chess composition theoretical works, Theory of Chess Problems (Теория шахматных задач, 1877-78), M.G. Gonyaev wrote, "An impossible position devalues the problem completely, deprives it of all practical meaning. An implausible or too peculiar position also hurts the quality of the problem." A plausible position, in Gonyaev's view, was such that "it could be reached from the starting position without violating the game's logic too much... and forcing Black to make a series of unacceptably bad moves." [10]

"Study-problems" is a curious form of problems that are close to practical games. They were different from "usual" problems: checkmate was deemed the only way to win.

Creating such study-problems launched the career of A. Troitsky. "In the very beginning, I didn't even establish the study form, simply remaking problems into studies. I thought that I could remake positions from games (i.e. completely plausible) into problems, and that's how I started. My first creation was quite naive." [5, p. 15] 

Troitsky's first composition. Novoe Vremya, 1896. Mate in 2

A. Galitsky also created some study-like problems. You'll see one such problem on diagram #23.

23. A. Galitsky. Shakhmatnoe Obozrenie, 1902. White to play and win

24. S. Loyd, 1889. Mate in 2

25. A. Galitsky, Shakhmatniy Zhurnal, 1892. First prize. Mate in 2

But this type of composition didn't get much development and remained a small episode in the career of our distinguished chess composers.

Speaking of problems, Galitsky rejected the requirement of plausibility. In his book Essays on Chess Problem Theory (Очерки по теории шахматных задач, 1901-03), he wrote, "Older authors, back when problems were subordinate to practical game, wrote at length about the material balance between White and Black, deeming it an important factor in the problem. But now, it's not as important; it's taken a backseat to the idea and artistic execution of the composition. The principle of economy does not allow for adding Black pawns just to equalize the material." [11]

Galitsky would consistently apply this principle in his entire creative practice. Here's a telling example. After critically reworking the problem #24, specifically composed as a game position, Galitsky created one of his best two-move problems, #25.

M.I. Chigorin once said that some "positions, if we look at them as though they were reached during a real game, look implausible and unnatural; but in problems, such implausibility is accepted when necessary (and reasonable)." [Novoe Vremya, 9. VII. 1901]

In the modern time, problem composers dropped the requirement of recreating the natural motives entirely, replacing it with other principles, including the principle of economy, like in the studies. These principles lead, as we see in the aforementioned examples, to results that look unusual for a practical player. This was emphasized by L. Isaev when he wrote, "The goals and principles of problem composition are quite different from those of chess games, and a practical player who decides to try their hand at composing should do away with many concepts they'd already familiarized with and internalized. They should replace them with new concepts that seem at first extraordinary and paradoxical." [12, p.8]

Out of two ways of creating artificial chess combinations described above, the area of modern study and problem composition chose the second one. Artificially-created positions that look like practical games can now be of interest only as learning exercises. The aim of chess composition, on the other hand, is to "execute chess ideas in the most "tangible", full, clear and self-sufficient way." [12, p.9]

This does not mean that there are no limits to the form of composition. The pursuit of the fullest expression of an idea, subjection of all creative efforts to the singular requirement of content enrichment leads only to overloaded, anti-artistic positions and should be rejected.

The principles of composition, the concept of naturality and artistic value of the work have tremendous importance for chess composition, but this is beyond the scope of this article.

Citations:

1. P.A. Romanovsky, Middle Game (Миттельшпиль), 1929

2. M.M. Botvinnik, Selected Games (Избранные партии), 1949

3. B.M. Blumenfeld, Combination in a Chess Game (Комбинация в шахматной партии), 1938

4. Em. Lasker, Chess Handbook (Учебник шахматной игры), 1937

5. A.A. Troitsky, Collected Chess Studies (Сборник шахматных этюдов), 1935

6. L.I. Kubbel, 250 Selected Studies (250 избранных этюдов), 1937

7. A.O. Herbstman, The Modern Chess Study (Современный шахматный этюд), 1937

8. E.I. Umnov, Chess Problems in USSR (2-moves) (Шахматная задача в СССР (двухходовка)), 1936

9. V.N. Platov, 150 Selected Studies (150 избранных этюдов), 1925

10. M.G. Gonyaev, "Theory of Chess Problems" (Теория шахматных задач), Shakhmatniy Listok, 1877-78

11. A.V. Galitsky, "Essays on Chess Problem Theory" (Очерки по теории шахматных задач), Shakhmatnoe Obozrenie, 1901-03

12. L.A. Isaev, How to Compose Chess Problems (Как составлять шахматные задачи), 1931

13. "Chess and Checkers Problem-Solving Competition", aviation workers' trade union, 1950