How to Play the Middle Game in Chess (eBook)

1 Strategy and Tactics

As we shall see later, it is difficult to divorce the middle game from other aspects of the struggle which serve to define it as ‘that part of the game between the opening and the ending’. To avoid such philosophical questions as where the opening ends and the ending begins, it seems best for our purposes to view the middle game as beginning the moment a player leaves established theory and starts to think for himself, whether this be on move 3 or 30, and ending where acquired endgame technique takes over. Admittedly, there are standard positions and techniques we need to learn in the middle game too, but matters are rarely as clear-cut as in the opening or ending.

Herein, then, lies our problem. Since we are no longer dealing with easily classifiable material, although brave attempts have been made on these lines, we must seriously consider what we can hope to teach and how we can carry it out. Broadly speaking, our chapter heading provides us with the background against which we shall be working. By strategy we mean the general principles that guide us in our planning and by tactics we mean the specific moves and operations required in order to achieve these aims. Our first example pinpoints the dilemma we face:

Fischer v Benko
USA Championship 1963

From a strategic viewpoint, White has weakened Black’s kingside and opened up attacking lines but, from a more urgent tactical viewpoint, both 1 e5 f5! and 1 ♘e2 ♕e5! offer Black adequate defensive resources. So, have Fischer’s efforts been in vain? Not at all. Firstly, a good strategic plan does not necessarily guarantee a win and, secondly, White has in fact calculated a brilliant tactical winning sequence that cuts out the above defences. Play continued: 1 ♖f6!! ♔g8 Or 1...♗xf6 2 e5 followed by mate on h7. 2 e5 h6 3 ♘e2! when Black resigned because White mates on h7 after both 3...♘b5 4 ♕f5 and 3...♗xf6 4 ♕xh6.

Here is another illustration of the same theme, reached after the moves 1 e4 g6 2 d4 ♗g7 3 ♘c3 d6 4 ♘f3 c6 5 ♗g5 ♕b6 6 ♕d2! ♕xb2 7 ♖b1 ♕a3 8 ♗c4 ♕a5 9 0-0 e6(?) 10 ♖fe1! a6 11 ♗f4! e5 12 dxe5 dxe5

Tal v Tringov
Amsterdam Interzonal 1964

White’s strategy has been to develop his forces as rapidly as possible, even at the cost of a pawn, and place his pieces effectively. He is now fully mobilized, in stark contrast to Black who has only succeeded in bringing out two pieces, but must take tactical advantage of the situation as quickly as he can before Black castles into safety. Tal produced a startling solution in 13 ♕d6!! leaving two pieces ‘en prise’ but calculating a splendid finish: 13...♕xc3 After 13...exf4 comes 14 ♘d5! winning upon both 14...cxd5 15 exd5+ and 14...♘d7 15 ♘g5 ♗e5 12 ♘c7+ ♕xc7 13 ♗xf7+ ♔d8 14 ♘e6 mate. 14 ♖ed1! ♘d7 After 14...♕a5 the neatest of a number of wins is 15 ♗d2! ♕d8 16 ♕xd8+ ♔xd8 17 ♗g5+ followed by mate with rook or bishop on d8. 15 ♗xf7+! ♔xf7 16 ♘g5+ ♔e8 17 ♕e6+ 1-0. Black has the unpleasant choice between 17...♔d8 18 ♘f7+ ♔c7 19 ♕d6 mate or 17...♘e7 18 ♕f7+ ♔d8 19 ♘e6 mate.

Once again, we cannot overstress the importance of Tal’s renowned tactical skill in exploiting a strategic advantage that could rapidly prove ephemeral. Hundreds of similar examples have convinced the author that in a subtle way tactical ability is often underrated in books devoted to the middle game. Or else there is an assumption that, having reached an advantageous position by ‘correct’ opening play, a player can be left to his own devices to furnish the tactics needed to finish the game off. A valid comparison would be to try and teach somebody golf or snooker without practising his club or cue action!

Not that there is a dearth of books dealing with tactics, but the whole subject tends to be divorced from the strategic elements of ideas and plans, as though it were merely the icing on the cake instead of constituting a basic ingredient without which the chess cookie crumbles! At all events, in this book we attempt to redress the balance substantially by including chapters on tactics, problem themes and combinations and by insisting throughout on the importance of regarding strategy and tactics as complementary rather than exclusive.

Let me hasten to add that I am well aware of the folly of going to the opposite extreme and allowing the beginner to indulge his habitual fondness for tactical skirmishing irrelevant to the needs of the position. That is why the chapters on strategic ideas and planning place special emphasis on the need to integrate tactics into the theme of the game as a whole. Tactics must indeed be kept in their place, but this is no excuse for marginalizing them. We must remember that it is very much through tactics that a beginner learns to understand and appreciate the value of strategy. For instance, he has only to try to use a rook effectively to realize the need for open or half-open files, and he would never grasp the important concepts of weak and strong squares or colour complexes without seeing specific examples of their exploitation. Furthermore, although strategy represents the distillation of decades of chess experience, there is always a danger of its guiding ‘rules’ becoming a substitute for thought and ossifying into dogma. It is at such times that a concrete tactical approach can have a salutary counter-balancing effect.

A good example of this, that comes to mind in another of Alekhine’s positions, is reached after the moves: 1 d4 d5 2 ♘f3 c5 3 c4 cxd4 4 cxd5 ♘f6 5 ♘xd4 a6 6 e4! ♘xe4 7 ♕a4+ ♗d7 8 ♕b3 ♘c5 9 ♕e3 g6? 10 ♘f3! ♕c7 11 ♕c3

Alekhine v Wolf
Pistyan 1922

Out of 11 moves, White has moved his queen four times and his knight three times, yet he already has the better position. Why can he flout rules of development like this? Here is what he himself says: “The possibility of such manoeuvres in the opening phase is solely attributable to the fact that the opponent has adopted faulty tactics which must immediately be refuted by an energetic demonstration. It is clear, on the contrary, that against correctly developed positions similar anomalous treatment would be disastrous.” As can be seen in the above diagram, White is threatening both ♕xh8 and b4, so Black is compelled to move his king’s rook, thus denying his king a safe haven. After 11...♖g8 12 ♗e3 b6 13 ♘bd2 ♗g7 14 ♗d4 ♗xd4 15 ♕xd4 White won comfortably. Thus, the correct strategy was only found after a searching examination of the tactical elements in an unusual situation demanding unusual measures.

Here is another case where the ‘rules’ (= ‘guidelines’) of positional play are correctly broken by a player who thinks for himself, and then wrongly neglected by a player in trouble. In the game Nunn v Dlugy, London 1986, after the moves 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 ♗f5 4 ♘c3 h5, White exchanged Black’s ‘bad’ bishop by 5 ♗d3 ♗xd3 6 ♕xd3 in the sensible hope of being able to profit from Black’s loss of time and kingside weaknesses. After the further moves 6...e6 7 ♘f3 ♘h6 8 0-0 ♘f5 9 ♘e2 ♘d7 10 ♘g3 ♘h4 11 ♘xh4 ♕xh4 12 ♗e3 ♕d8 13 ♖fd1 ♖c8? 14 b3 c5 Black had wrongly tried to solve his problems by the dubious strategy of indulging in tactical play before completing his development:

Nunn v Dlugy
London 1986

The punishment was drastic in the extreme: 15 c4! Logically opening lines against an enemy king stranded in the centre. 15...cxd4 16 cxd5! ♘xe5 Or 16...dxe3 17 dxe6 exf2+ 18 ♔f1 fxe6 19 ♕g6+ ♔e7 20 ♖d6! winning, as given by Nunn in the excellent book of his best games. 17 ♕xd4 ♕xd5 18 ♕a4+ 1-0. White wins at least a...