lol @ the wimpy system. Thanks for sharing man. Good observations on the development of "modern" chess systems over the course of time. You and elubus pick some very interesting things to post here.
Dissenters of the Classical Era: Part I
Sort:
thanks. My plan next is to show something that present two contrasting styles of chess within one game. Because my Game Editor isn't functioning correctly, I'm going to have a link to the games and allow group members to analyze bits and pieces in the commentary.
Wait, this title is inverted. It should be Part 1: Dissenters of the Classical Era.
What browser are you using mate? I am on a macintosh, so things might be different for the two of us, but I can only check my chess.com email on the Opera browser. I can only play live chess (somewhat consistently) on Safari, and I have to use firefox to post games with analysis. I might recommend you try google's new chrome browser, or firefox. At least kick Explorer to the curb if that is your goto browser. I hear its glitchy on this site. Just a thought.
The "Classical" Era of chess is best described as period between the mid-1800's and the end of the 19th. Century during which many players thought it best to build very strong pawn centers. Most "Classical" openings begin with 1. e4, though they are not limited to such. One master of the times, Henry Pillsbury,played the Stonewall Attack.
As you can see, a strong, yet rather stagnant, pawn center is achieved in this d4 opening. Of course, the best example of what I consider truly classical is the Italian Game, especially the aptly na
med Classical Variation.
All the books I have read have led me to believe that strategies involving fianchetto and piece control of the center (as opposed to pawn control) didn't become popular until the 1920's. While it may be true that this style wasn't popular until the early 20th. Century, that doesn't mean it was never apparent beforehand. From what I have gathered based on the styles of a few 'Classical Era' players, the ideas propounded in the Hypermodern Era were simply not popularized.
Long before Reti ever came along with his novel openings or Nimzovich bragged of his originality, there were tournament players trying their hands at new ideas. Some may have just preferred to let their pieces control the center from afar, others wanted to achieve some actual innovation in the way the game was played, and a small few simply got bored and frustrated with center pawns. I have listed below some names that I thought stood out among their contemporaries for being not only fairly solid players during their times, but also counter-intuitive to the "Classical" mindset.
John Owen- Began Playing around the 1850's
John Owen was a noticeably successful tournament player in his time. What made him stand out was his signature defense, Owen's Defense: 1. e4 b6.
Owen made his defense trendy for a small period of time, but it never caught on for too long. As early as 1856, he was able to beat Paul Morphy with 1..b6.
Preston Ware- circa 1870's and on into the early 1900's
Preston Ware was the Michael Basman of his times. Ware's play was symptomatic of a disdain for the obsession with center pawns during his times, though I would hardly say his contributions to chess were anything great. His opening, the Ware Opening (1. a4), achieved more success for him with the Black pieces (1.e4 a5), ironically. What he displays, more than anything, is boredom with norms.
Van't Kruijs
This mysterious player has only one game in chess.com's database, and it shows him losing as Black to Adolf Anderssen in the 1850's. However, his name lives on in the Van't Kruijs Opening.