Logical Chess Move by Move: game 5

A lot of players seem to be confused about just when and why you should attack.

You do not attack in order to GAIN the advantage. You attack in order to CONVERT an advantage, from one form (time, development, center control) to another (mate or win of material).

It's an important difference... because it means that you should NOT attack until you already have the advantage on your side. It also implies that once you have gained the advantage (typically in development and center control), you are OBLIGED to attack... or risk the gradual erosion of your advantage.

@ the OP:

No, Chernev isn't contradicting himself... because the two contexts are different. In the game given above, White already had the advantage in development and center control, plus he gained time kicking Black's Knights around. So it was perfectly OK for him to attack, to convert that advantage into a win.

In the other case, where he is advising you to complete your development before undertaking active operations, Chernev is talking about positions where neither side has upset the balance, and neither side holds a big advantage.

Agreed. Heuristics (such as developing before attacking) are only strategic suggestions that no longer apply when tactics take priority, which they do when the opponent makes enough mistakes, as in this game.

You can argue that the h1 Rook is on the back rank, but you cannot say it is not participating in the attack.  It is indeed "developed" from that point of view.  Keep in mind that the Rook is the only piece that does suffer from being weakened by being in a corner.  No matter where you put a Rook on the chessboard, it can always reach 14 squares if there is nothing in the way.  Thus, getting the h-pawn out of the way (15. hxg5) in effect develops this piece quite effectively.  White has two pieces undeveloped (and unneeded) while Black has three pieces undeveloped, only one of which, the Queen, is doing anything even modestly useful.

Of course he's contradicting himself. But there are exceptions, especially if an opponent falls into known bad lines. This looks like a case where Black didn't know the proper Italian game response. I can't remember exactly but I think you have to take on e4 before castling and if taking on c3 its with the B.

Generally it might be better to concentrate on developing unless you're sure the opponent fell into a bad opening line that you know for certain or you see a clear winning advantage.

I hope Chernev mentioned the probably well known problems caused by Black's misplaying the opening.

Thanks guys for your useful thoughts.

White has the advantage in:

Space: g5 pawn.

Material: 2 pieces vs. None on the kingside.

Weaknesses (h-file, f7)

Principles are nice, but you need oto know when you follow them, and when not to.  

I think Chernev's generalisations are useful but like all generalisations need should come with a  health warning. Principles can guide analysis but not trump them. For years I would never move pawns in front of my king because of the sacrificial attacks that the author gives. In time I learnt there are exceptions. As students of chess, as I guess we all are, we want to avoid analysis by continuing to add to our arsenal of wisdom in order not to think !- but each game is different and requires an existential approach, alas !

There is also a game of Alekhine's later on that Chernev gives when he just attacks with queen and knight without developing. That might be worth revisiting as well.

Fun stuff.  Apparently, 7. ... nxe4 is less fun for white.  

I look on "General Principles" as crutches for those that cannot yet walk unaided.

It is the moves that work in each specific position that matter.  A strong master has simply developed a feeling for what to do and for which candidate moves are worth looking at.  He does not think "Ooh, a flank attack, I must react in the centre", or "I cannot attack yet because I have to get the rest of my pieces into action".

General principles can suggest the plans and moves you should be looking at, but they cannot determine which moves you must play. What is more, when you have enough experience and understanding of chess, and your subconscious has been sufficiently well trained, you can dispense with them.

Chernev is making the point that slavish adherence to his generalizations without concrete analysis of the position at hand will cause a player to miss opportunities.

I would argue that the bishop and rook still on the first rank are nevertheless developed and taking part in the attack.

I've noticed that theme can also occur for white against the KID and the French,where the bishop avoids pawn jabs and the rook powers through the h pawn.

The passed Pawn is a criminal, who should be kept under lock and key. Mild measures, such as police surveillance, are not sufficient.

"6. ... Bb6 7 d5 Nb8  8. e5 Ng8 9. 0-0 Ne7 10. d6 Ng6 11. Ng5 0-0 12. Qh5 h6 13. Qxg6 hxg5 14. Bxg5 Qe8 15. Bf6 1-0"

Please remember that Chernev did not have an engine providing possible lines.

@2Q1C Look at Colle v Delvaux (Game 3) after black has played: 11. ... Bb7
Is black *bust* at that point.
At the level you and me play chess, yes.
I memorised that position forty years ago.

Gaawd.

General principles do not beat careful analysis.

He is a great parent, he is teaching you there is always an exception to the rule.

I think he also touches the subject a little bit in his annotations.

One of the Best Lines I've read thus far on the forums. 

Aye, 'twas a very good explanation. I have copied and pasted some of the bold parts into my Chess Notes.