Prophylaxis

When I first started out in chess, I went to a lot of group lessons and chess camps. Topics ranged from endgames to basic opening theory to reviewing our training games, and my coach gave me many tactical exercises along the way. However, I think the first time I ever heard of the term "prophylaxis" was either from reading a Jeremy Silman book or hearing some advanced chess player use that word in a conversation.

The first time I sat through a lesson solely devoted to prophylaxis was at the 37th US Chess School where everyone except for one player was rated above 2000, and the highest rated player was around 2520. 

Recently, I went to a chess camp that was divided into three groups based on rating. Everyone in group 1 was at least 2050, and there was even a NM in that group. The players in group 2 had ratings ranging from 1800 - high 1900s, and the players in group 3 had ratings ranging from 1580 - high 1700s. Each group had different lesson plans, and Group 1 was the only group that had a lesson titled "Prophylaxis."

I'm sure that even as a beginner, my coaches showed me some examples of prophylaxis. However, they didn't call them "prophylaxis", they called them something along the lines of "finding your opponent's plan and stopping it while simultaneously improving your own position." They never actually used the word "prophylaxis" in any of their lessons. 

Now I would like to get your opinions on this: Why is prophylaxis made out to be such an advanced topic, and if you were a coach (or maybe you are...) what should your student's rating be before you use the term "prophylaxis" with them?

curious- i was just discussing this with my coach this week- specifically in regards to h3 when i will kingside castle and an early a4 to develop queenside and give my bishop on c4 an escape square in the italian game

i am only rated 1000ish

my coaches point- especially with a4- in this case- was i was making too many early rook pawn moves in the opening and hindering my development

it basically wasnt the time or the place for those moves based on my own and my opponents positions

specifically, he mentioned the only reason for needing/considering the escape square is after d3 and the f1-a6 is blocked

the point was, along with getting move orders mixed up and, thereby, not following opening principles, by making mistimed prophylaxis moves was
simply making bad moves

in regards to the h3 my coach did say it is at least better than a4- in this case- but one needs to see the whole position before throwing out prophylaxis moves

so maybe this is the point in "teaching prophylaxis" to higher rated players

your rating is considerably higher than mine so- in a way- this topic is more relevant to your play than mine- but i concur with your point that it is an important topic for all players

especially when i dont block opponents intentions and then my castled king's pawn cover is completely destroyed

you appear to have access to very strong classes and coaching- i would just bring this issue up with a coach on a one on one basis if the topic is not covered in a class/lecture

best of luck

One of the most common mistakes made in chess is the prophylactic move P-R3, which mostly wastes a tempo. I've seen plenty of games that even GMs lost or were forced to accept a draw because they made this move. Beginners just make it a lot more often, so if I were a coach I would definitely tell my students to watch out for that tempting move. I don't know offhand what I would call it, though: "Prophylactic"? "P-R3"? "This here move"? I don't know, but I wouldn't shy away from the term "prophylactic." There's nothing complicated about it if the coach just mentions that P-R3 is an example of what is called a prophylactic move. P-R3 is just one of several common prophylactic moves, though (others are P-R4 and P-B3), so it's a more general term than just P-R3. I think the general concept as applied to anticipation and thwarting of *any* move or plan could be of intermediate difficulty, though, since presumably a good lesson on that topic would show several examples and would require a decent analysis of the position.

Prophylaxis is such an advanced topic precisely because it is more than just stopping your opponent's plans. It is, rather, using your intuition and deep analysis to find scenarios that *may* happen in a pretty distant future - and combining preventing them with a useful move overall. To be able to do that effectively, one has to have a lot of experience and a pretty serious positional knowledge.

 

Prophylaxis is not preventing something your opponent is going to play next move. Prophylaxis also is not a random lazy move with the idea, "What if the bishop ever shows up on g4?! I better play h3 now to prevent it!" Prophylactic moves are deep, they are a sign of a very advanced player that also puts a lot of effort in the game and doesn't just make generic moves.

 

For example, this here is not prophylaxis, it is just basic tactic:

 

 

And this here is not prophylaxis, it is just a pointless lazy move:

 

Prophylaxis would be something like this:

 

 

Well, I like your concept better, but it appears that different authors use the word differently. Some use it to mean prevention of even a single move, which is the main way I've been using the term:

----------

(p. 35)

The two prophylactic moves 7
a4 and 10 h3 have to be stressed
because they illustrate the all-
important principle that by
depriving the enemy of counter-
play, a cramped but sound pos-
ition such as Black's here has all
the life taken out of it and is
reduced to pure passivity.

Fine, Reuben. 1989. The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings, Algebraic Edition. New York: Random House, Inc.

----------

(p. 80)

3) Increasingly, flank moves are prophylac-
tic in nature, i.e., they prevent undesirable or
troublesome pawn or piece moves on the part of
the opponent.

Watson, John. 2003. Chess Strategy in Action. London: Gambit Publications Ltd.

----------

(p. 191)
Prophylaxis A policy of playing to prevent, deter, or anticipate
enemy possibilities. A Nimzovich favorite.

Pandolfini, Bruce. 1995. Chess Thinking. New York: Simon & Schuster.

----------

(p. 27)
ROOK PAWNS ARE ONLY ADVANCED TO THE THIRD RANK
WHEN ATTACKING AN ENEMY PIECE
Advancing a rook pawn one square is usually reserved for an attack
on an enemy piece, where it can be especially effective in breaking
pins.
Even when there is not enemy invader to be confronted, the move
can have a prophylactic value in preventing such pins. Yet there is a
penalty to be paid, in that the pawn structure is significantly damaged
by the advance.

Schiller, Eric. 1998. Unorthodox Chess Openings. Cooper Station, New York: Cardoza Publishing.

 

I agree, there is certain ambiguity in terminology - but the problem with some of the definitions you posted is that, according to them, pretty much any good move can be called prophylaxis. No strong moves are made without having one's opponents plans and possibilities in mind. This is pretty much what the whole play is based on: preventing your opponent from achieving their goals and doing everything to achieve your own.

 

I think it is better to use prophylaxis in its deeper, but very specific meaning. "I feel like, because the d5 square is weak and because my opponent has a knight not too far away from d5, this knight might at some point jump on that square. Maybe I should overprotect that square at some point, combined with my main plan." Not "My opponent is threatening to put the knight on d5, so I should prevent him from doing that." The latter is just a regular decision-making process. The former is something more specified.

<<They never actually used the word "prophylaxis" in any of their lessons. Now I would like to get your opinions on this: Why is prophylaxis made out to be such an advanced topic, and if you were a coach (or maybe you are...) what should your student's rating be before you use the term "prophylaxis" with them?>>

It's because the chances are that there may be either religious people present, those not too good at English, or both. And why use a word if you have to explain it every time you use it? The explanation of "determining your opponents' most effective plans and trying to divert them" is a good one because, if you can divert your opponent from embarking on and carrying out good plans, the chances are improved that, instead, he'll try to carry out a bad plan, which of course, would suit you just fine.

I played ones a game with an idea I think you can name prophylaxis.

It became a Spanisch four Knighs game to prevent a Petrov.

Were for a change I played Bd6!? a moves they forbid to play for a beginner but it was played with a idea behind it. 

 

Maybe I didn't phrase it in the best way, but I honestly couldn't find another way to get my message across. The main reason for asking this question is to figure out why coaches mainly teach prophylaxis to advanced students. It's more about the topic, not the word.

If you would like to see some excellent examples of prophylaxis play through the games of the 78 Karpov - Kortchnoi match.

You'll see a lot of moves that are designed solely to prevent any counterplay by the opponent.

Prophylaxis is hard because it relies on other chess skills as a foundation.  Simply put, prophylaxis is stopping an opponent’s threat before he has a chance to make it.  To do this successfully, you need to:

• Be able to see possible plans in the future;
• Be able to evaluate the strength of those plans;
• Determine whether the opponent’s plan is worth stopping of if you can advance your own plan instead (‘offense is the best defence style’ of thinking);
• Find a way to stop that plan without harming your position; and,
• Do so without falling into passive, reactive chess.

 

In itself, prophylaxis isn’t hard.  Anyone can play h3 to prevent a pin and make luft for the king.  Using prophylaxis well, though, is extremely difficult, and it’s something I still regularly mess up.  And perhaps more to the point, most beginner and intermediate players struggle with blunders and basic tactics.  You need to master these skills before trying prophylaxis in any real sense.  If I’m coaching a student that regularly misses two move tactics, why would I try to teach stopping a multi-move plan before it looks like a threat?

Forgive me if I'm wrong ( and I probably am ) but isn't prophylaxis the same as deep positional play