Chess 'Dogma', Bad Writing , Some Endgame Theory, and My Favorite Game of Gyula Breyer.
Honey I'm home!!
After a period where posting stuff when it suited me was a problem, I am back posting.
O.K. Whilst on holiday recently I took this book with me.
Gyula Breyer. A name thrown about by the 'Raymond Keene - book in a day' chess history writers ( these days the '5 minutes on wiki, 5 on google ,speed read someones badly written article, quote someone's opinions without a clue if they are right, and 10 mins on 'notable games of' at chessgames.com writers) who have been recycling old rubbish into new rubbish for years!
You can read them and learn how Breyer et al swept away the old 'dogmas' - notably Tarrasch's - with their new forward thinking ideas. Yet another of the 'Good Stories ' that those guys will tell you. A lovely romantic notion - but one rather more appealing than the facts!
First up, what is 'dogma'?? Without getting into the full psychology lecture, we are designed to believe what those we see as authority figures tell us. So, if our parents say 'Don't run out in front of a bus' that is the voice of experience trying to teach us something.
Do we say 'but bus drivers are highly trained in hazard awareness, and there is a 90% chance that he will stop, so running out in front of him is a good practical decision! Stop being so dogmatic!! '
Nope!! It's a sensible rule, based on experience.
Chess is an evolutionary process. Everyone learns from what has gone before. If you read guys like Reti and Nimzovich you can see it in action. Masters of The Chess Board and My System are full of games and ideas of preceding generations that the authors have studied and learned from. There are very few 'mass extinction events' in chess history!!
If you go study the tournament books of the 1920's you will find that the new ideas were incorporated the general thinking over a period of time. That's how things usually happen!
In chess 'dogma' is the promotion of 'rules'. At the expense of killing off the 'good story', Breyer was at least as prone to all encompassing 'dogmatic' pronouncements as anyone who ever wrote about chess!! If you don't believe me, and prefer the popularist version, go buy the above book, study his writings, and form your own opinion! 'Who are you going to believe - me or your own eyes!'
I first started studying Breyer properly when I managed to get hold of this book.
Yep - in those days we still actually payed for books, rather than search for the free pdf version!!
I was surprised! His actual practical chess - like Anderssen - was not what I had been led to expect!
Breyer was an amazingly intelligent man - I always hold such people in awe and reverence, rather than trying to find faults. At one point he held the record for simultaneous blindfold games. His writings - 'dogma' aside, are magnificent, He seems to have been one of the few of us who's instinctive reaction is to question everything, and then attack things from a different angle.
His tournament games are, contrary to what some writers would have you believe, mostly tough positional struggles, but he could play!! Also his theories are logical, thought out and intelligent.
One game has stuck in my head, and it is my favorite Breyer game. Far from perfect, but I am not one for 'perfect' games, It is an incredible battle. The fact that it is played against the supposed antithesis of Breyer's 'school', Tarrasch, adds to the interest.
I also love endgames. In the notes - I will come back to that - you will find Horwitz and Kling's work mentioned, so I will throw in a little of the relevant material here.
The Magyar Sakktortenet shown above has both Breyer's and Tarrasch's notes to the game. The translations that I have used are from the Adams book. Seriously - go buy it, It is fascinating and worth every penny. Adams has at least one critic (!) but his books are - despite one or two minor irritations - outstanding, in my view.
Breyer's notes are from ' Becsi Magyar Ujsag, 16/01/1921 - which had a long prologue, not reproduced here, 'Errors of Master Games.' Tarrasch's notes are from 'Kagan's Neueste Schachnachrichten, with neither source giving the publication date.
You will see that the notes are rather long! Back in those days annotators really earned their money. There was a period a few years ago when annotating with words rather went out of fashion, with 'Informator style comments' being seen a lot.
I have always recommended to aspiring players - and yes, both Botvinnik and Keres did so before me - that they should annotate their games for other people to look at. In order to explain something, you have to understand it yourself! Then, for annotating, you have to put that understanding into a clear, communicative form. It is an education in itself.
Looking at posts by young writers on this site, it seems that today's up and coming writers - unburdened with the need to 'analyse by hand' - are reverting to the use of words, and to the explanation of ideas. I think it's great!!
I was lucky. My first chess teachers were Reti, Keres and Tartakower. They were all brilliant annotators and so, for me, annotating a game is a natural process!
The game was part of Breyer's greatest success - the Berlin Tournament of 1920 .
And so, finally - enjoy the game!! Go grab a coffee or a beer, or a glass of elderflower cordial - whatever your taste, and let the two players and their magnificent commentary take you through the struggle. Very few games are so 'full of chess'.
