1.3 The
Development of Development
By the
term 'development' various authors mean oversimplified advice. We will always
have in‑
different
things. Here I will be concerned with stances of both. To this day, for
example, fixed
it in
the simple sense of bringing one's pieces rules and principles are found in the
annota‑
out,
leaving questions of the quality of their dis tions of advanced players, and
yet increasingly
position
to be discussed case by case. SOMCS we also find remarks about ignoring those
emphasized
the increasing number of openings rules. The play is the thing, and one can
only
in which
modem players choose not to bring use one's experience and judgement to discern
their
pieces out in order to achieve other goals the changes (or lack of them) over
the years.
such as
establishment of a favourable pawn- For
all that, I think that the average player
structure.
Increasingly, we see developmental might be surprised how ingrained certain
prej‑
patterns
that defy traditional conceptions. For udices were in classical times. One
cannot
example,
the same piece is moved repeatedly mistake the consistent aversion of top
players
and ends
up on a worse square (or even back at to openings that failed to develop the
pieces
home) so
as to provoke the opponent into a po quickly or to challenge the centre. Along
those
tentially
vulnerable situation. Or pieces are de lines, rules about how to conduct play
took a
veloped
to apparently awkward squares leading long time to fade from players'
consciousnesses.
to
inharmonious positions for purely pragmatic Rai, for example, is obviously
serious when he
or
prophylactic reasons. We also see pawn- talks about the prevalence in even the
best of
grabbing
sorties by the queen to the complete earlier games of "moves that seem
self-evident
neglect
of development, a strategy previously and which the master of routine made
without
frowned
upon by the textbooks. reflection,
because such moves were founded
Here I
will be looking at these kinds of on rules of such long standing as to have be‑
strategies,
but also at the evolution of attitudes come part of that master's flesh and
blood". In
towards
development in well-established posi the same vein, he finds that in the games
of
tions.
The latter is consistent with the idea of the hypermodern players, "moves
that were
examining
change that has become routine as earlier held to be self-evident, that every
good
well as
that which is exceptional. We will dis player made automatically, so to speak,
must
cover an
increasingly open-minded approach frequently be cast aside." As one of
many illus‑
towards
the problem of how to get the pieces trations, he emphasizes how the
established de‑
out. velopmental rules were changing. He cites, for
First,
however, I want to make a brief histori example, the multi-faceted rule that
apart from
cal
digression. Some of the rules and dogmatic a few moves by central pawns, each
move of the
assessments
that I discussed in SOMCS ap opening should develop a new piece, and it
peared
in popular articles such as Steinitz wrote should be moved only once if
possible (exclud‑
or in
relatively elementary books such as Las ing captures, recaptures, and attacked
pieces,
ker's
'Manual' or in other general works such of course). Reti finds counter-examples
from
as those
of Tarrasch. Others showed up in young players of his time, and with hindsight
high-level
annotations. This raises the question we can see how the hypermoderns
themselves,
of
whether the writers themselves weren't nec by comparison with players today or
even So‑
essarily
adherents of the views expressed, but viet players in the 1940s, were extremely
mod‑
were
instead writing for the student. In fact, I est in their deviations from the
old rules of
think
that it's fairly easy to distinguish as one development. Today, Viktor Korchnoi
can mis‑
reads
these texts whether the author is ex chievously say "All obvious moves
look dubi‑
pressing
a fundamental belief or giving some ous in analysis after a game".
No comments:
Post a Comment