MIROSLAV HAVEL
published his first work
at a time when the Bohemian Problem-school was already in a nourishing
stage of its development. The beginnings of that school were small, and
date from the sixties of the last century, a period coincident
with
the first development of the chess club. At that time, in addition to
written and lithographed chess periodicals, which did not enjoy a long
life, and which have now only an historical interest, the chess column
began to appear as a regular newspaper feature. Chief among these early
columns may be mentioned: Rodinna Kronika, Kvety, Svetozor,
Humoristicke Listy, Palecek and others. They contained for the most
part problems and games, with here and there articles on the theory and
aesthetics of the problem. It was these articles that laid the
foundation of the Bohemian problem school. Chief among the columns of
that day was the weekly Svetozor, and it maintained its lead for a long
period. On the problem side it exhibited the development as well as the
history of the Bohemian problem, and was greatly influenced by the
ingenious Dr. J. Dobrusky. It is chiefly due to him that the traditions
of the Bohemian school were created and fostered. In the Svetozor the
publication of successful problems from local and international
tourneys inspired and encouraged both old and new adepts of the art. In
1885 Zlata Praha (Golden Prague) took over the leadership from the
Svetozor.
The output of the school grew to such an extent that in 1887 it became
possible to publish a first collection of Bohemian problems. The volume
contained 321 problems by forty-one composers, and an interesting -
introduction by J. Pospisil in the shape of a theoretical study of the
Bohemian problem, a study which, in the main, is even to-day quite
up-to-date. The following are the composers represented:—
Cimburek, Dr. Cernovsky, Dr. Dobrusky, Drtina, Fiala, Freytag,
Frohmann, Hanc, Hinkenikl and Kahles, Hochmann, Chmelar, Chocholous,
Kober, Kollmann, Kondelik, Konig, Kotrc, Koutnik, Dr. Kvicala, A. and
K. Makovsky, Dr. E. Mazel, Moucka, Dr. Musil, Paclt, Pajkr, Pilnacek,
J. and K. Pospisil, Racek, Slavik, Schaferling, Svejda, Smutny,
Toscani, Traxler, Dr. Tuzar, Valenta, Vetesnik, and Votruba. Thanks to
this representative collection, the Bohemian school became popular, and
penetrated every frontier of the world of chess. Most of these
above-named pioneers have long since died, and the few that remain,
with the exception of Chocholous, Kotrc, Traxler and Vetesnik, have
left off composing. To the talent of these early pioneers the fame of
the Bohemian school is due. Our most distinguished composers in the
decade 1887-1897 were Behal,
Cumpe, Hostan, Kesl, Kosek, Dr. Klir, Dr. Palkoska, Zimmermann and
others. In 1896 the first Bohemian chess monthly was founded, Ceske
Listy Sachove, but owing to insufficient support it ceased publication
after four years. A similar fate attended Sachove Listy (founded 1900)
after three years' existence. Despite great enthusiasm and personal
sacrifices both these periodicals succumbed, but in their place several
chess columns made their appearance in different papers and did much to
popularise chess among the public generally.
In 1905 the various chess clubs united into an association under the
name of Ustredni Jednota Ceskoslovenskych Suchistu, and under the
auspices of this association the monthly Casopis Ceskych Sacliistu
(afterwards changed to Cusopis Ceskoslovenskych Saclustu) was
established in 1906. This periodical was founded on so sound a basis
that it has been able even to survive, the horrors and tumult of the
world war. Although the Bohemian school developed according to
principles laid down by generations of national composers, nevertheless
at different times a tendency to deviate would manifest itself in the
individual genius and character of some gifted composer. Among those
composers who have stamped upon the school special characteristics,
perhaps the most important is Miroslav Kostal, or, as he is known
throughout the chess world, M. Havel.
Miroslav Kostal
[Havel] (1881-1958)
Born at Teplitz, Bohemia, on November 7th, 1881, Havel has lived since
1884 in Prague, where he studied at the High Technical School. From 1906 onwards he
has
been an official of the Austrian State Railways, and since the
establishment of the Republic an official of the Czechoslovak
Railway- Ministry. He published his first problem on May 1st, 1898.
After a relatively short period of probation he began to produce works
of great depth and beauty, and with such marks of a rare talent as to
give promise of being able to surmount every obstacle and reach the
loftiest heights. He was speedily acclaimed as a leader who opened up
new ways and pointed to new aims. At this time Bohemia was full of
rising talent, as may be judged by the
following list : Dr. Mach, Cisar, Skalik, Hlineny, Drnek, Kuneticky,
and somewhat later, Knotek, Moravec, Bosch and Matousek. In Moravia:
Dr. Prikryl, Trcala, Dittrich, Stritecky, Dedrle, Milica, Volf, Dr.
Prochazka and, a little later, Kainer. But Havel's problems were of
such high quality that they easily surpassed those of his
contemporaries. It was evident that under his influence a new
problem-type, easily to be distinguished from the old one, was being
created. Havel arouses immediate interest by his choice of themes for
his problems. With admirable taste and masterly handling he continually
produces new pointed combinations with a surprisingly delicate
structure. It is perhaps not by chance that he seems to avoid
combinations with
White Pawns. With his great experience and skill he is under no
necessity of employing means that fail rigorously to comply with the
laws of economy. Nevertheless we find him no less a master of
construction in problems where the principal part is played by the
White Pawn. Havel's strength and greatness are due to his unerring
judgment, and to
a capacity to select the right material for the right combination. He
expresses the chosen theme in just the right form with such subtlety
that he fully exhausts the combination in all its phases. Although he
imposes on himself as rigorous a discipline of thought as he does on
his chess material, he is able to produce a form classical in its
beauty, compressed to the utmost, conforming to rule and yet elastic
with
a display of originality and an absence of restraint which evoke
admiration.
This clearness of theme and purity of form, with his finely - conceived
ideas polished into veritable gems, are the chief characteristics of
Havel's great art. He unhesitatingly renounces cheap theatrical
effects, and turns resolutely aside from all combinations of the trick
and puzzle order. For instance, the White King plays as a rule an
unimportant part in a
problem. Even the checking defence is in most cases a
pseudo-combination brought in only to avoid perhaps a dual or to ensure
correctness, and having no connection at all with the real idea of the
problem. It is often quite superfluous, and could be eliminated without
any damage to the illustration of the combination. Nevertheless,
problem literature furnishes many examples of the principal role being
assigned to the activity of the White King. Take for instance the
famous "Steinitz Gambit" problem by Loyd. Loyd put the whole effect of
the problem into the extraordinary, baffling and theatrical key. But if
the solver has the courage to make this Key, the rest of the solution
which is based on uncovering the batteries is easy. Now compare with it
Havel's exemplary translation into the Bohemian. In
No. 30B the active force of the White King on ei is expressed most
economically, and Havel, by imparting his strong individuality into the
King's attack, is able to grip and extend the
interest, of
the solver right up to the last move. He analyses the rich
possibilities of each theme logically, with a particularly clear
perception of its most complete
expression, and it is only natural
that as an
outcome of this unity of thought an echo is so often produced. We
cannot say that Havel was the inventor of those wonderful echo
problems, but whoever studies his collection will be easily convinced
that Havel has a predilection for this kind of problem, and that his
greatest successes are achieved in this field. From a psychological
standpoint it is easy to understand the temptation to dwell on and
repeat favourite combinations, like a melody in a different key, which
after all constitutes the echo. The subjects of his echoes ajre either
whole combinations or mating positions, and these are reproduced in a
multiple form, either in a positive or negative way. He does not use
easy, symmetrical positions but produces a symmetrical thought in an
asymmetrical form. Nor is it always the model-mate which is echoed : he
understands also impure but economical mates : his echoes are produced
in strict harmony with rigid economy. Nowhere is there a sign of
artificiality or laboured construction. The whole structure is
invariably beautiful in its simplicity. Owing to this rigorous
adherence to economy the Bohemian school eschews
sacrificial combinations and thereby abandons those fireworks which are
so dear to the beginner, .and which may be regarded as the device of
undeveloped art. Sacrifices are in reality a veiled uneconomy, a
riddance of superfluous pieces. Therefore we find in Havel's problems
very sparing use made of sacrifices, and then only when they form an
essential part of the idea. Since June 19th, 1920, Havel has been chess
editor of the column in Cas
(Time), [At the
beginning of 1923 the Cas ceased to appear] which with
the Pragcr Presse (edited by Dr. Mach) is the most important Bohemian
chess - column. Havel is also a very fine solver. With surprising
facility he is able to detect the author's idea, picking out the
landmarks of the solution almost at sight. His honour list in
International problem tourneys is quite imposing. He has gained 38
prizes, of which 16 were First Prizes, besides 15 honorable mentions.
But it would not be doing justice to his art if
only
those problems which gained success in International Tourneys were to be considered. Many of his
problems published in different chess columns take rank easily among
his best. Zlata Praha, which for some time published many of his
original problems, enjoyed the greatest popularity on that account.
Havel, like many other great composers, does not seek fame by adding to
the number of his tourney successes. He pursues his art for Art's sake,
and often hesitates to send his works before judges who may be
suspected of finding merit only in superficial splendour. All outside
show is distasteful to him, and his problems for the delicacy of their
setting alone will probably never be surpassed. Art is international.
In time Havel's classical Bohemianism will become common property. That
he gave to the Bohemian school this classical style is a reason which
by itself makes his work worthy of being studied and criticised with
the great earnestness it deserves.
Brunn, May, 1922.
Frantisek Dedrle.
THE BOHEMIAN THEORY of the CHESS PROBLEM.
In considering, generally, the chess problems produced by the composers
of Bohemia, it is worth while to recall the tendency of the Czech
towards artistic effort and achievement. Since the revival of the
nationalistic movement in Bohemia near the end of the eighteenth
century, the Czech people have accomplished work of considerable
consequence in literature and the fine arts, and above all in music
— in which connection it is of interest to remember the
constantly noticed correlation of Music and Chess. In fact,
the Bohemian Chess Problem may be regarded as one of the minor
and later artistic products of the Bohemian nationalistic movement, and
we find — as we should expect among a people so highly
endowed
with the instinct and faculties for artistic expression, and moreover
so musical — that the chess problem assumes a distinctly
aesthetic form.
The existence of a School of Art of any sort, implies
the existence of principles, both technical and aesthetic. One school
learns from another, continued analysis and conflict of ideals leading
to reconciliations which involve an advance in
theory, and simultaneously with this increase of
technical
knowledge the basis of a true aesthetic code is laid down. So it has
been with the chess problem; for the code to which the best modern
composers yield allegiance is not the discovery of any one people or
any one age, but has arisen from the endeavours of many composers of
many nationalities to endow problem construction with the highest
artistic qualities of which it is capable. Though all the fine
composers of the last forty years or more, have
contrubuted to the formation of our present theory of the problem, it
is in the development of its aesthetic side that the influence of the
Bohemian school has been paramount. The popularity of their works has
involved the spread of their teachings throughout the entire world, and
composers of other nationalities have to a remarkable extent been
taught and stimulated by their achievements. The Bohemian school may be
taken as having originated between the years 1860-70. Anton
König
is
credited by his countrymen with being its founder, and if this be so,
then he must take rank with those other great pioneers, Konrad Bayer
and Samuel Loyd.
König soon found disciples, or associates, in J. Drtina, J.
Paclt,
A. Kvicala, K. Makovsky. and K. Kober. Between 1870 and 1880 the ranks
of the new school were joined by composers of extraordinary talent,
most prominent of whom were Jan
Dobrusky and
Jiri Chocholous. Dobrusky, certainly the greatest of the earlier Czech
composers, did more than any other man of this period to demonstrate
the high artistic value of the Bohemian principles, but the marvellous
fertility of Chocholous, and his power of composing with equal
ingenuity in many different styles, made him the more popular in Europe
generally, and in consequence his work was probably the more widely
influential. In the eighties other great composers of the school
appeared; J. Kotrc, J. Pilnacek, K. Kondelik, E. Mazel, K. Fiala, L.
Vetesnik, and pre-eminently Josef Pospisil. Since that time the number
of Bohemian chess artists of the first rank has continued to increase,
and one has no difficulty in recalling the familiar names; L. Cimburek,
V. Cisar, B. Frohmann, O. Grössl (O. Kuneticky), J. Hanc, J.
Hlineny, J. Kerles (F. Skalik), J. Kesl, V. Kosek, M. Kostal (M.
Havel), Z. Mach, B. Mikyska, K. Musil, E. Palkoska, B. Prikryl, J.
Smutny, J. Svejda, K Traxler, St. Trcala, V. Tuzar, St. Zimmermann.
During the period of its battle with German, English and American
rivals, much attention was drawn to the new school and much interest
was aroused in its principles by the tourneys of the Bohemian Chess
Club of Prague (Cesky Spolek Sachovni); and in 1887
appeared "Ceske Ulohy Sachove," a
collection of 320 Bohemian chess problems with an introductory essay by
Pospisil entitled "The Outlines of the Theory of the Chess
Problem." It was a Bohemian manifesto. Meanwhile a somewhat
similar movement had taken place in other
countries. The great German composers, Klett in the seventies and
Berger ("Das Schachproblem und dessen Kunst-gerechte Darstellung") in
the eighties, were moving in the same general direction as the
Bohemians, though with more definite insistance on strategic values:
whilst in England in 1886, the year before the appearance of Pospisil's
essay, "The Chess Problem Text Book" was published, containing Dr. C.
Planck's well known introduction, which in many ways anticipated the
Bohemian writer's "Outlines." It is needless, here, to discuss the
distinctive principles of the German, English and American schools of
problem composition, which in the period 1870 —1890 were more
or
less definitely in opposition to the tenets of Bohemia. A passage from
Dr. Planck's essay will mark the distinctions sufficiently for our
present purpose. "The German", wrote Dr. Planck in 1886, "excels in
depth and beauty, the Englishman in constructive skill, and the
American in wit and sharpness of idea, and it is altogether impossible
to compare the merits of these divergent characteristics. They defy
comparison. Each in a limited degree is necessary to the finest
pro-blems, but each can be over-done, because, being antagonistic, if
any one be too closely followed, it will almost surely be at the
sacrifice of another. The German attains marvellous profundity at the
sacrifice of accuracy; the Englishman gives up depth and sharpness of
idea for perfection in construction; and the American throws away
artistic beauty and constructive elegance to obtain pithy ideas and
humorous situations." The development of the problem had, in fact,
resulted in a critical conflict of tendencies, and the composers of the
eighties were fully conscious both of this conflict and of the nature
of the previous evolution. "Only a few decades ago", wrote Pospisil in
1887, "the problem art freed itself from these irksome bonds and
attained full independence. It was recognised that the ideas of the
actual game, however beautiful and interesting they might sometimes be
in themselves, were yet unable in the long run to furnish sufficient
material for problem composition, and it became evident that the
discovery and investigation of interesting combinations, even though
such as could never occur in the actual game, offered in themselves no
less charm and enjoyment than the mental duel over the chess board. A
new era of the problem art dates from this recognition, in which it has
flourished magnificently by the complete alteration of its former
methods, and has undergone an almost incredible
extension.
The problemist no longer composes for the advantage and benefit of the
actual player, his chief endeavour is rather to delight the solver with
really beautiful, interesting ideas, though only in a refined form."
So, in 1886,
Dr. Planck had written: "A careful comparison of problems
composed at different periods will show that the Art has. undergone
that very process of evolution which is common to nearly all products
of the human intellect, namely, a gradual change always tending from
simplicity towards complexity, until the straightforward production of
the early composer is scarcely to be recognized in its elaborate and
variegated garb of today." But the question which now arose, concerned
the future. What are the principles which should govern the composer's
endeavour "to delight the solver with beautiful ideas in refined form?"
We have to consider the exact nature of the answer which the Bohemian
composers made to this question. It may be well, first of all, to
notice the attitude of the Bohemians on the question of Difficulty in a
problem: a feature inseparable from the nature of the chess problem,
the existence of which is implied in the very term "problem".
Difficulty has no distinctive relation to any school of construction,
for the question of its relative importance as a feature in a problem
is really the same for composers of every school, since to make
Difficulty the main feature of a problem would be to make the problem a
mere puzzle, and no school of composers has gone so far. Yet, short of
this, it can only be said that while Difficulty is desirable, and to a
certain very limited extent essential, neither beauty nor constructive
accuracy can profitably be sacrificed to obtain it. "It is evident",
wrote Pospisil in his "Outlines", "from the very term "problem", that
an important factor of this chess product lies in the difficulty
presented by the unravelling of the combinations contained in the given
position. The problem is in this respect, a kind of puzzle and the
harder its analysis proves, and the obscurer the tracing of its
combinations, so much the more perfect is its construction.
Nevertheless an importance is often attached to difficulty of solution
which it does not deserve." On this subject all serious composers have
for a long time been agreed. But it should be noted that a school of
composition which insists above all on strategic, or strictly
intellectual, values will inevitably, on the average, produce more
difficult problems than one which insists rather on values
distinctively aesthetic. "Difficulty," says Dr. Planck, "often
conflicts with beauty, yet the finest kind of difficulty may arise out
of it." The Bohemian composers put the stress on aesthetic as
distinguished from purely intellectual values, and in consequence their
problems tend to be relatively easy. But this tendency does not result
from any theoretic minimizing of the importance of difficulty.
The real distinction of the Bohemian
composers consists
in their having been the first quite definitely to conceive of
the
chess problem as a work of art governed by aesthetic laws and to find
the very essence of its artistic quality in the principle of economy.
The following passage from Pospisil's essay of 1887 is of capital
importance. "Ideal beauty" he writes, "in the strictest sense of the
words, forms the goal of the Bohemian composer, and to attain this
ceaseless pains must be taken. This striving manifests itself in the
beauty of the true problem, which should comprise not merely a
mainplay, but rather a large number of harmonious and completely united
variations. The Bohemian School demands, with unbending strictness,
attention to all laws of Art and in especial to Chess Aesthetics as
regards purity of mate, economy and balance of material, as well as
beauty of initial position. It sees beauty in the solution when there
is fresh, natural and unconstrained elegance of construction. It by no
means under-rates the importance of a profound and solid general plan,
nor that of a hidden solution, but when this seems necessary, it
subordinates even these features to the first commandment, —
that
of beauty." The essentials of the problem being thus expressed, one
would have expected to find the author boldly denying the necessity for
a main-play. And, in fact, in the above passage he does by implication
deny that any such necessity exists. Yet elsewhere in the same essay
his language is hardly consistent with such a position. He
speaks
in one place of "the most important part of the problem's content,
namely the mainplay." And, again, more emphatically, "There is a
peculiar and undoubted charm in the joining of several ideas, among
which the main-play should nevertheless stand out." This unexpected
emphasis on the "main-play" appears to indicate that Pospisil in 1887
had not quite freed himself from German influences. The real tendency
of the school he represented was, nevertheless, to insist on the
representation and blending of two or more ideas of roughly equivalent
value in every problem. Yet, to judge by his essay, Pospisil hardly
seems to have had the idea of the multiple conception. He thought of
the problem as originating in a single idea, as taking its first ideal
shape in the mind of the composer in a single thematic form and as
acquiring variations of value only during the process of construction.
The representation of the initial idea is what he calls the main-play.
On the other hand, even though in certain passages of his essay
Pospisil emphasized the importance of a main-play, he at the same time
appears quite conscious of the real nature of Bohemian tendencies in
this respect. "It may happen in cases", he writes, "that problems rich
in beautiful combinations may be under- rated for the reason that they
contain merely variations and no main-play. It is, however,
unquestionably due to the Bohemian composers that this kind
of problem poetry is gaining more and more ground and
importance." And, again: "It can reasonably be prophesied that the
problem art of the future will have as its supreme aim the intertwining
of beautiful variations, whether they stand on a. par as regards beauty
or culminate in the main-play." It is in such passages as these that
the real thought of Bohemia on this question is to be found. Indeed, in
1887, "the intertwining of beautiful variations" was already the
"supreme aim" of the Bohemian artists. The most distinctive of the more
superficial characteristics of the Bohemian School lay in the enormous
importance it attached to purity of mate. Pospisil's essay does not
clearly distinguish between mates which are merely pure in themselves
and mates which are what we call "models", that is both pure and
economical. Among the Bohemian composers of the eighties there was
perhaps a tendency to prefer merely "pure" mates to mates which were
economical but impure. No mention of this, however, appears in the
essay of 1887, and it is clear that when the author speaks of pure
mates he is, as a rule, thinking of "models." So much in love with
purity were the Bohemians that they were prepared to construct problems
for the sake of such mates alone. "The idea of a problem," wrote
Pospisil in 1887, presents itself sometimes as a single surprise move,
sometimes as beautiful, pure mating positions, sometimes even as a fine
multi-move single-shoot combination, or it may base itself on the
relation ship of the individual moves with the final result." The
significant thing, here, is that the author contemplates with apparent
satisfaction the problem which has practically no merit apart from its
mates, even though elsewhere in the essay he speaks of such productions
as "imperfect." In some valuable notes written by Pospisil so recently
as 1907, especially for use in the present work, he speaks of such
problems with an emphatic disapproval. "The effect of these problems,"
he writes, "is purely superficial; they are shallow. Such problems
often unite well-known and much used themes; their main play is seen to
consist in a mere concurrence of pure mating positions. They are easy
to solve, not deep of conception and usually have a crowded position,
faulty construction (with short or multiple threats), a weak key move,
and other defects." "The Bohemian School," he adds, "should not be
judged by such productions." This is true: but it is certainly true
also that the Bohemian School did actually tend to produce this sort of
problem. Despite the obvious danger of attaching the highest kind of
importance to pure mates, the Bohemian experts would have no
compromise. "The law of purity of mate," declared Pospisil in 1887,
"must be absolutely obeyed, if not in every mate, at least in the most
important mate of the main-play or of the variations forming
exclusively the problem content." This can only mean that, in the case
of a problem which consists essentially of blended variations, each of
these must end in at least one model mate. It is a high ideal, but a
hard law, and its rigidity would not be possible except in a school
which placed aesthetic above intellectual values. "The postulate
regarding mating purity is not an arbitrary rule, but is rather a
simple and natural result of the nature of the problem, which aims at
the finest and most economical utilization of position and material."
(Pospisil: Outlines.) Dr. Planck had already very clearly pointed out
that model mates are, logically, a detail of perfect economy. The
conception of "economy" in a chess problem was not developed solely,
nor was even first formulated, by the Bohemian composers. Nevertheless
the Bohemian School, more than any other, deserves the credit for
enforcing the doctrine. The term "Economy" as very commonly used,
includes two distinct ideas: that of an ideal unity consisting in the
cooperation of every White piece in every phase of a solution, and that
of a ratio between amount of force used and amount of work done. If we
say that Economy consists solely in this ratio, then the unity of a
problem is a separate matter. It is clear, both from the character of
their works and from the 1887 essay, that the Bohemians understood
Economy as including unity. Economy in Unity was their motto, as it is
that of the modern problem. And the
Bohemians were idealists. Not only should all the White pieces exert
force in all phases of the solution, but it is highly desirable that
the White King and such White Pawns as may be on the board should, at
least, take an active part at some stage. The sense of a lack of logic
in the convenient ruling that White Pawns do not count in economy is
strong in the Bohemian composer. A very sparing and scrupulous use of
White Pawns is one of the marks which distinguish Bohemian work from
that of the modern Austrian or Viennese School. The demands made on the
composer in regard to the use of White pieces, the Bohemian theorists
were strongly inclined to extend to the Black force also. In his 1887
Essay, Pospisil admits no more than that the rules of economy apply to
the Black force "perhaps not so strictly as to the White". And in his
"Notes" of 1907 he remarks that: "The Bohemian composer often spends
much labour in order to prevent unsoundness only by the use of the
absolutely necessary material, for the repeated addition of Black
defensive pieces must be forbidden him." Implied, throughout, is the
ideal of an absolutely perfect unity, consisting in the co-operation of
the whole White and Black force in every stage of a solution. The ideal
is all but impossible of attainment except on a small scale. To refuse
to be content with anything less than perfect unity would mere pedantry
and would result, if it resulted in anything, in a school of
miniatures. The Bohemian theorists made no such blunder. They were
aware both that the finest conceptions involve a large amount of force,
and that economy in itself has nothing to do with the number of pieces
on the board. There is nevertheless a tendency towards work on a small
scale discernible among the Bohemian artists : a tendency that becomes
pronounced in the work of some of the later and most brilliant among
them, as "Havel" and Mach. Absolutely perfect economical unity would
logically mean that every White piece was equally active at every
stage, in the ratio of its power. This is, strictly speaking,
impossible: but the Bohemians rightly insist that good economy implies
an harmonious balance. "An ugly effect is produced by a piece which
displays no activity in the whole course of the solution but does only
guard duty. There should therefore, be a certain balance between the
passive and active services of the White force. A piece of which only
passive use is made in one variation should, play the greater part in
another. If a piece has distinguished itself in the course of the
solution, one excuses the minor part it may play in the result
—
the mating position." (Outlines). A minor but significant
characteristic of the Bohemian School is the importance attached by it
to the initial position. This also, according to Pospisil
(1887),
should possess artistic qualities: it should present an attractive
picture. "The position," he writes, "should be pleasing to the eye. A
position can be called beautiful when the board is not overfilled with
pieces, when there is no crowding of men in some places in contrast
with empty spaces elsewhere. A good impression is always made by the
freedom of action of the pieces." He objects to the use of numerous
Black pieces, of far advanced White Pawns, of double and triple Pawns,
and of opposing Pawns, as ugly. One must not exaggerate the insistence
of the Bohemians on this point, but is far more marked among them than
in any other school of composers and is another mark of distinction
between them and the great composers of Vienna. The question of duals
is, from a Bohemian point of view, a detail only. A dual in a variation
of artistic value may, of course, be ruinous and must be a serious
flaw. But the Bohemian theory implies that there may be in a problem
variations of no importance and duals in these are of little nor no
account. Moreover, as Pospisil remarks, "the defence cannot be
prohibited from making meaningless or even bad moves." What more is
there to say ? Every case must be judged on its merits, but no rigid
law against duals is possible to a system of composition which basing
itself on unity and economy, aims at realizing the beautiful. Economy
in unity, balance and harmony, alike in the initial position and in the
play, an "intertwining of beautiful variations," these things are the
essence of the Bohemian problem as such. Certain weaknesses or
shortcomings of the theory remain to be pointed out. In reading
Pospisil's essay, or any other exposition of Bohemian
principles, one finds oneself semi- consciously translating the word
problem into the term "three-mover". And, in practice, it is evident
that the attempt to compose two-movers in accordance with Bohemian
theory, has a decided tendency to result merely in the composition of
highly artistic light-weight problems, the possibilities of which are
already well-nigh exhausted. To the construction of the two-mover,
Bohemian principles can have only a limited and modified application,
unless we are to make of the two-mover a mere occasional artistic
trifle. It can hardly be denied that Bohemian insistence on form tends
to the destruction of the two-mover. With regard to the four-mover it
is arguable that the Bohemian doctrine will apply to it as to the
three-mover. It may be doubted, however, whether the greatly increased
difficulty of construction involved in a four-mover does not
necessitate some modification of the theory. It may fairly be argued
that the intellectual value of a four- mover is of more importance than
its form and, seeing that the two are here so hard to reconcile, that
it is the latter that must be sacrificed. The endeavour after perfect
form in four-movers seems likely to involve some sacrifice of
intellectuality just where that quality might be most pronounced. Yet
on this point one can only speak with diffidence, remembering the work
of Dobrusky. The Bohemian theory, as a theory of the three-mover, errs,
if at all, in overestimating the value of form. There is apparent a
tendency to under-rate the importance of the purely intellectual side
of a problem. A finished form, a high degree of unity, a brilliant
sacrifice or two, three variations ending in model mates, and the
weaker, at all events, of the Bohemian brethren are apt to be
satisfied, even if every continuation is a check and the whole process
obvious. But the thing is merely pretty. In many, even of the most
brilliant, Bohemian problems one feels a lack of subtlety. They are
ingenious, they are artistic, they satisfy the Bohemian canons, they
are even beautiful: but they lack intellectual distinction. There is of
course no necessity that a Bohemian problem should suffer from this
lack; and of this fact anyone may quickly convince himself by examining
the problems of this present collection, but it remains true that the
Bohemian theory does not sufficiently emphasize the importance of
intellectuality in problems. It is, essentially, an aesthetic theory of
form. It is just this fact that makes it partially inapplicable to
two-movers and to four-movers. From this consideration of the Bohemian
theory of the chess problem we pass to an examination of the work of
perhaps the greatest artist in three-movers the Bohemian School has yet
produced: — the work of Josef Pospisil.
THE WORK OF JOSEF POSPISIL
Josef Pospisil was born at Bestvin, Bohemia, in 1861, and attended the
secondary schools and the Institute of Technology in Prague. For some
years he has been instructor in Natural History at the People's School
of Zizkov, a suburb of Prague. He published his first chess problems in
the year 1880. Five years later commenced a remarkable series of
tournament successes. In three out of four successive tourneys of the
German Chess Association (1885—1892) Pospisil took the first
prize for three movers. In 1887 appeared the Bohemian collection, Ceske
Ulohy Sachove, with his classic introduction. Between 1888 and 1903 he
edited the problem departments of various Bohemian papers; among them
Svetozor and Zlata Praha. From 1896 to 1902
he was editor of the problem
department of Ceske Listy Sachove. The style of a composer is
determined partly by the nature of his conceptions and partly by his
dominant pre-occupations during the process of construction, which,
again, are fixed by his ideal aim or theory of the problem.The Bohemian
composer is pre-oecupied with three things mainly. He desires to render
two or more variations with a high degree of economical unity, he
desires to secure model mates for his principal variations; and he
desires to present an attractive initial setting, suggestive of
freedom, without over crowding or obviously unnatural arrangements.
Certain classes of conceptions refuse to be treated in this manner; or
perhaps one should rather say that certain kinds of effects are
incompatible with such treatment. The Bohemian artist, as such, must
eschew main-plays of very pronounced subtlety, and cannot hope for
effects of extreme sharpness or piquancy. If the strategic conception
be thin or commonplace the result of the constructive effort,
even if successful, is likely to be one of those problems of which
Pospisil speaks as consisting essentially of "a mere concurrence of
pure mating positions." He instances in his Notes (1907) one of his own
earlier problems(No. 23) as an example of the baser kind of
Bohemianism. But the best Bohemian problems tend towards one of two
types, though these, of course, shade into each other. Either they are
remarkably brilliant, in which case their strategic content is mainly
expressed in sacrifices; or they are remarkably subtle, with a subtlety
that is not dependent on any one continuation. There is no single, very
deeply wrought variation on which the value of the problem mainly
depends. There is probably at least one quiet continuation; but the
subtlety of the problem consists in the complex conception, in the way
in which the variations hang together, rather than in any particular
variation. To render such a subtle and complex conception in the
Bohemian manner, with high economy and to decorate it with beautiful
mates, involves constructive ability of the finest order.
The present collection includes much superb work both of the more
brilliant and of the more subtle type. Of the great Bohemian composers
of the eighties and early nineties none was the master of Pospisil in
the art of combining subtlety and grace in the three-mover. Chocholous
was the more fertile and various; Kotrc, perhaps as great an artist,
was far less prolific; Dobrusky, unrivalled in the construction of
four-movers, was hardly so great in the three-mover. And in „the
intertwining of beautiful variations", with a marked quality of
subtlety, it cannot be said that any of the later Bohemian composers
has surpassed Pospisil. But to institute comparisons among great
problem composers, as among great poets, really only serves to
accentuate differences of kind. It may certainly be said that Pospisil
is Bohemian among Bohemians. No other composer has worked so logically
and consistently on the basis of the Bohemian theory, and no other
composer illustrates Bohemian principles so clearly and fully.
This last remark implies that the strategic qualities of Pospisil's
work are subordinate to its technical and aesthetic qualities. His
problems are marked by brilliance and in a higher degree by subtlety;
but they are still more strongly characterized by unity and by grace.
He is preoccupied with form rather than with ideas. Above all things he
is preoccupied with the mate.
A composer so much in love with definitely artistic form and with
beauty of mate might be expected to develop a special fondness for the
echo. And, in fact, we find that this special fondness is in a high
degree characteristic of Pospisil's work. Nearly forty per cent of the
accompanying positions exhibit echoed mates, not always perfect, but
approximately so. The language here used is a little loose, since no
exact and recognized definition of the echo mate exists. By an "echo"
mate we mean one which repeats a previous mate of the problem on a new
square, the materials used in the two mates being as similar as
possible. It may be interesting and instructive to glance at the
different forms of mate most used for echoing purposes by this great
master of the echo motive. [...] Throughout this essay the direct
reference has been almost always to the composer's three-movers though
what has been said applies also, in a degree, to the four-movers. But
we must not forget to note the fact that Pospisil is one of the
greatest masters of the Bohemian two-mover. The Bohemian two-mover is a
thing of very limited possibilities, but at its best it is a thing of
beauty. Delicate balance, daintiness, beauty of mates and highly
finished economical construction, these are its qualities; and when to
these is added a certain strategic subtlety or piquancy the thing
becomes classic. Several of the problems in this collection belong to
this category.
Very beautiful four-move work has been done by Bohemian composers, but
few of them have done much in this kind; Dobrusky, Chocholous and
Kondelik being, in this respect, marked exceptions. The demand of the
Bohemian artists for high finish, formal perfection and an attractive
setting, with their dislike of crowding and of a free use of blocking
Pawns, appears to produce a certain shrinking from the construction of
four-movers, unless on a small scale. The composer who undertakes to
construct a four-mover on the grand scale in accordance with Bohemian
principles has set himself the most difficult task possible for a maker
of chess problems. Pospisil's four-movers are few in
number. It might be argued that his practice goes to
prove that the Bohemian ideal of what a problem should be, has
reference essentially to the three-mover. But it must be noted that in
constructing" four-movers Pospisil has never abandoned Bohemian
principles even while compromising under insuperable difficulties. The
result is a short series of really fine problems, profoundly Bohemian,
possessed of much beauty, evincing the greatest constructive skill and
of the highest interest as representing the attempts of such a master
to apply to the four-mover the principles of the Bohemian School.
It is hoped that by the means of this introductory essay, students will
the more quickly and easily arrive at an understanding and appreciation
of the problems collected in this book. But, after all, the gist of the
book lies in the problems themselves. They represent the work of a man
who is not only one of the greatest of Bohemian composers, but is, as
has heen said, a Bohemian among the Bohemians. A study of his work must
needs be delightful to every lover of the chess problem. But it may
well be instructive also. Here in England, especially, the nature of
Bohemian ideals seems still to be very imperfectly apprehended in many
quarters. There is still much for us to learn. And, whatever other
purpose it may fulfil, this book will serve, at least, to perpetuate
the work of one of the greatest masters of the problem art the chess
world has ever known.
B.G. Laws and J.W. Allen
INTRODUCTION.
In the Introduction to Running the Gauntlet
I explained at some length the difference between the chess moves based
on the ordinary rules of play, and the moves based on special
privileges which form the only exceptions to those general rules. There
are only three such privileges : Castling, the double initial move of
Pawns and their capture En Passant, and the Promotion of Pawns.
The origin of
the Promotion of Pawns is buried beyond recovery in the
past. Evidently, since Pawns can only march "
breast forward," as Browning would have described it,
something startling must happen when they reach
the opposite edge of the board. Several possibilities. could
be imagined. They might turn around and walk
back again. They might be compelled to march on straight off the
board, in a novel form of self-annihilation. But
this would be a penalty for
their prowess, instead of a reward. Their
transfiguration is a most ingenious and
appropriate solution of the difficulty.
We are now so accustomed to the privilege that we give
no thought to its origin. Doubtless it was adopted from some simpler
form of board-game, some embryo of checkers. In the known history of
Chess there are five stages of the promotion privilege.
I. We
meet it first in the Arabic manuscripts, as far back as the ninth
century. Here the Pawn could only claim a Queen (Fers).
II. In
the old European chess, prior to 1500, the Pawn still could only claim
a Fers ; but the newly promoted Fers had the option of a double jump on
its first move. The ordinary Fers move, it will be remembered,
consisted of a single step diagonally. The double initial privilege of
the Fers,in this second period, is supposed to have been the hint which
led to the conception of the extended powers of the modern Queen.
III. In
the new
Italian chess, 1500-T700, promotion was
again limited to the Queen, and there was no initial privilege.
IV. In
non-Italian chess, beginning about 1700, a little before Stamina, the
Pawn could claim any piece, provided its equivalent had been removed
from the board by capture.
V. The last step was the present rule of promotion to any piece, irrespective of previous captures.
Let us
consider these five periods more in detail. The first and third are
exactly analogous, except for the difference of
motion between the Fers
and the Queen. The Pawn was simply exalted to the rank
of the most important piece in the game, and that was all there was to
the matter. There is no evident reason why a new Fers or a new Queen
should have any extra initial move, such as appeared in the second
period ; nor why more than one Fers or one Queen on the board at the
same time should be illegal ; nor yet why any player in his senses
should desire a less important piece, when he could as well have a Fers
or a Queen. Such refinements as these certainly never occurred to the
Arabs, and they only gradually occurred to the Europeans.
Here is one of the oldest problems in which the Arab promotion is found : No. I.
No. I. Al Adli. c. 850 A.D.
Mate in five.
1. Pg7 + , Kg8; 2. Ph7 + , KxP ; 3. P = F + , RxF ; 4. Af5 + , Kh8; 5.Sf7 mate.
There is a delightful flavour of strategy about it, which a thousand
years and more have not entirely dimmed. In solving it we must remember
that the Fers (Queen) could only move one square diagonally, and that
the Alfil (Bishop) only attacked, and could only move one square
diagonally from that on which it stood. Its move was a leap more
closely related in kind to that of the Knight than to the motion of the
present day Bishop. Were it not for the Pawn at g6 there would be a
mate in two by 1. Sf7 +(the Fers at d5 does not pin this Knight, nor could the Alfil at e6 capture it), and 2. Af5
mate. To do away with this Pawn, the Arabian problemist has hit on the
clever device of promotion and sacrifice, as shown in his solution.
In our second period, when the Arab game was introduced in Europe,
there was added to the privilege of promotion the further privilege of
a double initial leap for the new Fers. An example will be found in the
curiosity quoted on p. 14 of Running the Gauntlet, where a fuller
explanation of the new Fers' powers was given., These powers, though
not for the initial move only, were much greater than the regular
powers of an Alfil. An Alfil at ai could only move to C3. A new Fers
could move to a3, b2, ci, C3 ; but it could only capture on b2. If
there was a slight flavour of clearance strategy in No. I, here (No. II.)
is a four-move conditional which shows the promotion by Black and which
has fine ambush strategy. The Alfil can only move to a3, a7, e3, e7 ;
so the solver must have found the task of giving mate with the Alfil
very difficult until he hit on the ingenious ambuscade.
No. II. Bonus Socius c. 1266.
Mate in four, with Alfil.
1. Rb2, P = F; 2. Ra2 + ,F leaps to a3 ; 3. AxF,Ka7: 4. Ac5 mate.
The promoted Fers occurs in many of these old problems, and probably it
was used because its initial move was so much more powerful than the
move of the ordinary Fers. No. III is an
excellent study in the action of the promoted Fers. The position is a
unique one in its appearance. The White King is intentionally omitted,
being unnecessary to the solution. In some later versions, it is added
at bi, "for manners." In the diagram, the Black King can capture the
Fers at g8. He is not in check at h8 from the Fers at f8, because a new
Fers cannot capture on the extra squares which are allowed it. The
solution should be played over several times until it is fully grasped.
One or two moves can be transposed, but that does not affect the merit
of the solution, nor the position of the mate, which is as
extraordinary as the initial position.
No. III. Bonus Socius. c. 1266.
Mate in seven.
(The Fers are all new). 1. Fg8—g6, Kg8 ;2.Fd8— e7, Kh8; 3. Fe8—e6, Kg8 ; 4Ff8—h6, Kh8; 5. Fe7—f6, Kg8;6. Fe6-f7 +,Kh8 ;7. Fh6—g7 mate.
It would be amusing to linger on these delightful old- timers, with
their Fers and Alfils, but we must pass on to the third period in the
development of Promotions, that of the new European chess, with its mad
career of Queens and Bishops across the board in a reckless rivalry of
the old and powerful Rooks. No. IV will be a
sufficient example of this Period. We will be reminded of it
when we come to Nos. 4 A—B and 28C later in this book ; for it is
modern in theme as well as in the promotion code it follows. Indeed,
any problem of this third promotion period is probably quite orthodox
today ; but, conversely, the problems of to-day, owing to the minor
promotions, would often not have been solvable by the rules of five
hundred years ago.
No. IV. Florentine MS. 16th Century.
Mate in two. 1. Qd5, K any ; 2, P = Q mate.
The privilege of minor transfiguration dates from the diffusion of the
non-Italian rules in about 1700. Stamina, 1737, the first composer,
according to these rules, used the promotion to Knight several times,
but never for the first move. Ponziani, 1769, and Lolli use it
sparingly, and also never as key.
The fourth and fifth periods of Pawn Promotion now run side by side.
Indeed, instead of " periods," I should perhaps say "codes." Some
authorities allowed the unrestricted promotion, which constitutes the
fifth code, and which is in general vogue to-day. Others restricted
promotion to the pieces whose equivalents had already been removed by
capture. That is, in the fourth period, any position in any game or
problem can be set up from a single box of chess- men. Bither side may
have two Bishops on squares of the same colour, but neither side can
ever have two Queens or three Bishops at the same time. If a Pawn
reaches the seventh row before any officer of its own army is captured,
it cannot according to some be promoted at all, or else according to
others it can be promoted to a dummy, to remain "latent" until an
officer does fall, whereupon the dummy at once starts to life again as
a reincarnation of that particular officer.
To our modern taste all this sounds rather absurd. It is likely,
however, that when these rules were devised their application to
problems was not thought of, and in games the promotion of a Pawn prior
to the loss of any officer would be too rare an event to require much
practical discussion. The code arrived at was purely academical. It was
never seriously analysed until the wider study of problems betrayed its
shortcomings.
Even-to-day it still has a handful of adherents. It is recommended in
H. F. L. Meyer's Complete Guide to the Game of Chess, 1882, and it is
rigorously followed in that veteran expert's excellent column in the
Boy's Own Paper. But there is no evidence that it will ever return into
general acceptance. It has one great advantage, and one even greater
disadvantage.
Its advantage is that it predicates, so far as problems are concerned,
one law for the initial position and for the solution as well. A single
set of chess men will meet every emergency.
Its disadvantage is that it often produces effects so fantastic that
they blind us to the consistency of its principle. We can conceive of a
courtesy which would insist on White mating without claiming other
pieces than those already captured ; but we cannot conceive of a rule
that would prevent our weaker enemy, Black, from claiming any piece he
might wish to ask for. The result of all this is that either way there is an inconsistency.
But the question of making our choice is simplified by the fact that so
great a majority of the experts have accepted the
unrestricted promotion code. So universal is its present
adoption that some will wonder at my regarding the matter as a question
at all. They do not realise how much any code is a mere convention
anyway.
Julius Mendheim, who published two problem collections in Berlin, in
1817 and 1832, is among the strictest adherents of the Fourth Period.
Such conditions to his problems as " Mate in nine with the Rook's Pawn,
which becomes a Bishop, it being unable to make a second Queen," and
such lines in the solutions as " 5. P=B, because a Queen is already
present," are of unexpected frequency. "We never find in any of his
problems a minor promotion to Rook or Bishop for its own sake. It is
invariably a case of avoiding a second Queen. As late as 1862 in
Germany and 1878 in Italy, the " one set of chess-men " restriction is
found in Diagrams V-VI, and possibly later examples exist.
No. V.
F. Luppi.
Schachzeitung, 1862.
Mate in six.
1. Qh3+ ,RxQ; 2.P=Q, Kg5; 3. Qg3 + Kg4; 5.Qh3 + . |
No. VI.
N. Sardotsch.
First Prize, Italian Ty.,1878.
Mate in four.
1. Sg7, BxP; 2.Qf3 +, Rf3; 3-Qe5, Rf5; 4. Qh2+
|
No. V. is a most interesting example. Today we would readily solve it by 1. P=Q, Ra1+ ; 2. Qa3, RxQ + ; 3. KxR, P=S+ ; 4. Kb2, Kg4 ; 5. Qe5
; but this is not permitted, as it involves two White Queens. The
proper solution consists in sacrificing the present Queen, so that a
new one can be claimed on a more favourable square.
No. VI is less singular in its solution. The noteworthy feature is that White cannot play 1. PxB=Q
owing to the Queen already on the Board. The fact that the problem won
a first prize is interesting in view of the date. By 1878, indeed, 1. PxB=Q
would have been considered a cook in any country but Italy, and we find
a Black Rook added at h8 and a White Pawn at a2 when the problem was
reproduced in the Schachzeitung in 1879. The additions, it is there
explained, have been made to " conform the position to the German
Rules."
With Nos. VII-VIII, we can leave the " one set of chessmen " code. No. VIII was composed as a Christmas joke ;
No. VII. L. Sprega.
Nuova Rivista, Aug. 1878
Mate in two.
1. Pf8, RxS; 2. P becomes S
and plays to d7 mate. (Black cannot play RxQ, as the King would thereby come into check from the new Queen). |
NO. VIII. B. G. Laws. Jamaica Gleaner, 24 Dec. 1887.
Mate in two.
1.Pd8, QxB; 2. P becomes B and plays Bb6 mate. 1..., Sb5 ; 2. Qd2 mate, for the King cannot capture it, because the Pawn would become a new Queen and the King would have moved into check.
|
but No. VII was offered in all seriousness. Its date, 1878, is the same
as that of No. VI. The solution is given as a matter of course and
without explanation : " 1. Pf8
latent.'' The Italian word used is '' sospeso.'' The composer evidently
interprets the promotion rule to forbid claiming a second White Bishop
on the dark squares ; although such was not the general interpretation. And now let us come to the orthodox privilege of the present day.
Why, one wonders, were our modern minor promotions ever thought of ?
Why was any change necessary from the code of the Third Period,
allowing unlimited promotion to Queen, but to Queen only ? Surely in
actual play, minor promotions practically never occur. Yet the laws of
Staunton and Hoyle give express permission to promote a Pawn to any of
the pieces. I think the rule has been largely a concession to
problemists. Stamma saw the problematic possibilities of Knight
promotions and used them in his book. The popularity of his problems
and end-games was so great that the Knight promotion was generally
accepted as valid. When a law was framed to include the promotion to
Knight, it had to be worded so as to include the other two minor
pieces. But it was nearly a hundred years before these were given much
thought. Their only use was by the " one set of chess-men " school,
Julius Mendheim and others.
Then came the
rush of the problem revival of the 40's. The sudden multiplication of
magazines and columns had an effect we could hardly realise. There was
an enormous outburst of production, so great that by 1846, when
Alexandre compiled his collection, it was thought that every idea had
been presented, that his book would remain up-to-date as a work of
reference in spite of such problems as might still be produced. But the
vanity of human achievement is nowhere more quickly and more thoroughly
seen than in Chess. Two-thirds of a century have barely passed, and how
many students are living who may be called truly familiar with
Alexandre's Beauties of Chess ? A few of us still cherish the tradition
that has been handed down of the good Father, with his old black pipe
and his kindly face and his mind always abstracted with its undigested
burden of chess problems. But such a memory does not bespeak an
intimate acquaintance with his book. To most of us the book is an
antediluvian Colossus, quite unworthy of attention. In reality it is a
wonderful treasure house, the Homeric epic of the problem world. All
the great ideas will be found there, in the crude boldness of heroic
times. Unfortunately, the mighty pages are " all Greek " to the modern
solver. He has not the patience to work through the inaccuracies and
the many moves of the old-timers in search of the solid foundation they
rest on. Mr, Murray promises us an annotated text one of these days ;
it will be of the greatest service when finished.
But if Alexandre's compilation was not final in the sense he had
expected, it may be considered as summing up with great completeness
the introductory period of problem composition. The date of his book,
as I have so often repeated, marks the beginning of the modern problem.
The Palamede dates from 1836 ; the Chess Player's Chronicle from 1841 ;
the Illustrated London News column from 1842 (not 1846 as stated in
Running the Gauntlet) ; the Leipziger Illustrirte Zeitung column from
1843 ; Loveday's Indian problem from 1845 ; the Schachzeitung from
1846. The dissemination of a general interest in problems went on with
great rapidity. It was accompanied by a marked increase in the number
of composers and by the emancipation of the chess problem from its
earlier position as an off-shoot of the game. The chess problem, in the
modern interpretation of the word, was fairly launched.
Before Alexandre the appeal of problems was largely to players. (" I
have known persons," he says, in the tone of one making a surprising
statement, " pass whole nights in the study of a problem, who never had
patience to examine in an author one entire game, not even to learn the
openings/') Consequently, the rather obvious nature of early
problem strategy was unavoidable. Sacrifices
were the great stand-by of composers. So frequently were they used that
their presence became eventually the clue to a solution ; hence the
reaction of recent times to model mate problems without sacrifices, and
still more recently to the German Interceptional School, which has
endeavoured to illustrate all the favourite decoys of the 50's without
actual sacrifices.
Now the somewhat obvious character of the appeal made to the solver by
the presence of a Pawn promotion in any problem must
not be overlooked. If the average player were
asked what problemists mean when they speak of strategy, he would
answer : " Oh, any old trick, like sacrificing your Queen or promoting
a Pawn to Knight."
I have never heard of a genuine game where victory was won by a
promotion to Rook or Bishop. Loyd used to show an ending, where he
claimed to have extricated himself from a tight hole in actual play by
a Knight promotion, but that is the only instance I can remember. As
soon as composers began to invent problems as distinguished from
endings in actual play, it was natural that they should turn to
promotions, and then to the minor promotions, for inspiration. Nor is
it any surprise to find the proportion of promotions, especially to
Knight, in the two thousand problems in Alexandre considerably higher
than it would be in any similar representative body of problems to-day.
The same obvious characteristics that made promotions so popular in the
early days of the modern art of composition have tended likewise to
make them popular among novices in composition ever since. Evolution
tells us that the early development of the individual repeats the
epitomized history of its species. This is only relatively true of the
problemist, for the reason that his tastes are generally already
moulded by considerable solving before he takes up composition at all.
But even so we recognise in the interest beginners in general show in
Pawn Promotions precisely the same delighted surprise that Alexandre's
composers betray.
The very first problem in the very first chess column ever printed was
a promotion three-mover, reproduced from the Stratagems of Montigny
: No.IX.
No. IX. Montigny (1802). No. 1, London Lancet, 1823.
Mate in three.
1. Bb6 + ,KxB; 2. P = S + 1...Ka8 ; 2. P=Q mate.
The second problem in the very first chess magazine, the very first
chess magazine, Palamede, 1836, was a four-mover by Calvi with a Knight
promotion mate.
Then turn to modern times, and you will find one composer after another
whose first attempt has also been in this field. The Bettmann Brothers,
P. H. Mikkelsen, B. J. Winter-Wood, C. P.
Stubbs, J. Paul Taylor, G.Chocholous, these are
only half a dozen of the more prominent names that occur to me in this
connection. Two of these first attempts will be found reprinted as Nos.
41D and 31B of this volume. But apart from absolutely first
attempts, it can certainly be generalised that the composers who have
only dealt superficially with promotions have done so most prominently
in the early days of their devotion to the muse Caissa. It is only the
few composers who have made a real study of promotions and
have sounded their deeper possibilities,
who have remained faithful to them throughout their careers as
composers. The mysteries of Pawn Promotion, indeed, do not He on the
surface. The obvious avoidance of stalemate by claiming a White Rook,
and the obvious mate by claiming a Knight, are not the only strategy
offered by promotions. The subtle foresight that claims a minor officer
two moves in advance, the plural combinations of promotions, the
ambushes and clearances, the minor promotions by Black, -all these make
up a fertile and beautiful field into which not many composers
have entered far.
It is a curious fact, if the reader will stop a moment to reflect about
it, that each change in the chess rules of motion and in the exceptions
thereto, which I have called privileges, should instantly change the
possibilities of all problem composition based on the rules changed.
The moment the privilege of Pawn Promotion was extended to allow the
claiming of minor pieces, there came into being latently all the
combinations which are presented in the following pages. Yet how
slowly, and with what labour and hesitation, were these combinations
evolved and the general scheme that embraced them all gradually
perceived !
Is there not a thrill in looking back to the early days ? They are less
than threequarters of a century in the past. Many men born before 1840
are still living. Some living composers even touch hands with the
pioneers. E. B. Cook, who has contributed an original problem, No. 41
B, for this volume, was the very first to compose examples of
consecutive Rook promotion (The White Rooks,
No. 4), of consecutive Bishop promotion (No. 47A of this book), and of
consecutive threefold promotion (No. 55B), all in 1854-55. He began
composition in 1851, within five years after the publication of
Alexandre.
And yet to most of us those days seem very far in the past. There was
not a single treatise on composition in, existence ; there were few
models ; neither the possibilities of composition were known nor its
limits. Any fantastic conception of a chess idea might be possible,
only there was no guide how to begin. In a word, all was experiment,
all was in the future. To-day, so much is known, so much is in the
past, that we can hardly venture on composition without fearing some
anticipation of our results. Composition should no longer be altogether
experimental ; it should be based, at least in part, on a study of what
already exists. It is only by an intensive cultivation of every field
of composition that the problem art can advance. Without such an
intensive concentration, to return for an example to the present book,
Pawn promotions would never have revealed such complex positions as
Nos. 54 and 84.
The first step in each branch of composition is to work out the
classification of what has been done already. This at once guarantees
that any composer who carries any part of the structure still further
will be doing something new and very probably something worth while. In
the case of Pawn promotions it is easy to work out a comprehensive
scheme. The reader need only turn to the System of Classification, at
the close of this Introduction, to find provision made for all the
material now extant. Further subdivision will be necessary in some
cases later, as the number of problems involved increases. Especially
will this be required in connection with White Knight continuations and
mates by promotion and with suimates. But most small collectors need
not worry themselves about these shortcomings. A few comments on the
Classification may well be made here once for all, and it will also be
of interest to give all together a few early promotion problems, dating
before 1850.
There are two fundamental principles underlying all promotion strategy.
One is the principle of direct attack (for White) and direct defence
(for Black). The other is the avoidance of stalemate (for White) and
the attempt to produce self-stalemate (for Black). The principle of
attack and defence involves only the promotions to Queen and Knight.
The principle of stalemate and self-stalemate involves the promotions
to Rook and Bishop, and in a few cases to Knight.
The move of the Queen is a combination of the moves of the Rook and the
Bishop. There are consequently many cases where, for purposes of attack
or defence, a promotion to Rook or to Bishop is as effective as a
promotion to Queen. In No. 1, for instance, White can mate by 5 P xS =
Q or B. Here the powers of the greater piece coincide with those of the
lesser. It is of prime importance for our understanding of the Theory
of Pawn Promotion that, in all such cases, we consider the major
officer as including the minor officer. This at once takes the Rook and
the Bishop out of the field of direct attack, and simplifies our
conception of the whole subject. In No. 1, the mate is undeniably a
dual ; but the nature of the dual is so slight that no one has ever
questioned the problem's right to rank as one of Loyd's foremost
masterpieces. Where the dual promotion occurs as a key, for instance in
No. 95A, it is more serious perhaps, but certainly not sufficiently so
to justify us in rejecting the problem, as we must have done in the
case of any other cook. In our notation, then, throughout the book, we
will be careful to write P=Q wherever we can, either for White or
Black. Consequently the move P=R or
P=B will indicate at once that P=Q would not be an equivalent and that we are no
longer concerned with attack or defence based solely on brute force.
The distinction is very important. Many editors have not, in the past,
been accurate in regard to it. In my search through books and magazines
and columns I have had to deplore repeatedly the loose notation used,
which has doubtless prevented many solvers and composers from realising
the true functions of the minor promotions in problems. It may appear
chivalric to print P=B instead of P= Q, as if the player making the
promotion disdained the use of his full strength, but chivalry and
logic have been at cross purposes before now. If at every opportunity
one makes a minor promotion, there will be no special
interest shown when one does it under compulsion or a special strategic
object, for nobody will be on the look-out. If one wishes to draw any
lively attention to one's self, one must not cry wolf too often.
All promotions to Queen (except perhaps that in No. 24D) and the
majority of promotions to Knight involve some aggressive purpose. But
this does not mean that every such promotion strictly denotes a
promotion theme. Promotions occur literally in thousands of problems,
but many depend for all their interest on other features. The
two-movers w.here White gives an incidental mate by 2.P=S and the three-movers where Black makes a subordinate defence by 1..., P=Q are innumerable. Very often they should be classified totally without regard to their promotions.
Here are four striking cases, where the promotions are decidedly
interesting, and yet not entirely thematic, for similar effects are
obtainable without recourse to promotion.
In Kubbel's No. X all we need to do is to lower the position one square diagonally to the left, as shown in No. XI.,
No. X. K. A. L. Kubbel.
Schachzeitung, 1908.
Mate in two. 1.Qb5, Ke7 ; 2.P=Smate. |
No. XI. S. Gold.
Pittsburg Leader, 28 Jan., 1912.
Mate in two. 1. Qa4, Kd6 ; 2. Sf 7 mate |
and the White Knight at h8 will exactly fill the role of Kubbel's Pawn. Compare the mates after i..., Ke7 in No. X and i..., Kd6 in No. XI. The coincidence is striking, and No X would be accepted by most judges as a complete anticipation of No. XI, but a collection of promotion problems would never Mate in two. 1. Qa4, Kd6 ; 2. Sf7
matereveal the similarity. In a general collection like my own one
would have to look for it under adjacent lateral White Knight
batteries. The similar mates after i..., KxP in the two problems would then at once reveal the identity of theme.
In the case of Nos. XII-XII, the outward resemblance is less obvious.
Here the example with promotion, No. XIII, Is the later in date. Again
we lower the position, this time two squares, vertically. After making
the keys the similarity will become apparent. We readily compare the
mates in No. XIII (i..., Kc6, Pd5, Pe6) with those in No. XII (i...,
KC4, Pd3, Pe4); but one great difference strikes us. No. XII is a
waiter ; No. XIII has a threat, 2. P=Smate
! How is this brought about ? Simply by the difference between a real
Knight and a promoted Knight. Note that the Bishop's Pawn in the two
problems holds a different positional relationship to his two comrades.
Play, in No.XII, 1. Bc8, PC5; 2. Sb6mate, and in No. XIII, 1. Ka7, RxB; 2. P = S mate
(threat). Compare these mates carefully. Could more different lines of
play well lead to more identical results ? The use of the real Knight
in No. XII has made the position, almost of itself I imagine, a waiter
; while in No. XIII the use of the promoted Knight has at once
introduced a threat.
No. XII.
B. G. Laws. Norwich M'ry, 1902.
Mate in two. 1. Bc8, PC5 ; 2. Sb6 mate |
No. XIII.
G. Heathcote. Hampstead Express, 1905
Mate in two. 1. Ka7, RxB; 2. P = Smate
|
In Nos. XIV—XV, White's second moves lead to identical results. Here the advantage and the priority lie entirely with the promotion version. No. XIV. has a snap and a suggestiveness which make it infinitely more attractive than No. XV. Although No. XIV
might well be included also in a general problem collection under White
Knight diagonal sacrifices, so as to bring out this particular relation
No. XIV. F. M. Teed.
N.Y. Evening Telegram, 8 June, 1886.
Mate in three. 1. Pc7, KxS; 2. P=S. |
No. XV. E. H. E. van Woelderen Hon. Men., Dutch Assn.,1892.
Mate in three. 1.Sc8, Kb7; 2.Ke7 |
ship to No. XV, I think that it should also be retained as a thematic specimen of Pawn promotion.
Nos. XVI-XVII illustrate unthematic Black promotion. In No. XVI, 1. Sd5, P X R=Q leads to a situation analogous
No. XVI. J. Möller. Ill. Zeitung, 1902.
Mate in three. 1. Sd5, PxR= Q ; 2. Bd4 |
No. XVII.
E. J. W. Kubbel. Schachmatnoe Oboz., 1909
Mate in two. 1. Be4 |
with that of No. XVII, and 2. Bd4 corresponds precisely to I. Be4 in the latter. The theme of both problems is the focal action of the Black Queen, and the circumstance, in No. XVI, that the Queen is a promoted Pawn is a matter of curiosity rather than of intrinsic importance.
It would be quite easy to increase this series of comparisons
indefinitely, but it is more to our purpose to consider where thematic
promotions begin rather than where unthematic promotions end.
Certain features of Pawn promotion will be recognised as unique by
every solver. For instance, a White Pawn that, in the process of
Queening, discovers check or mate, produces an effect unparallelled in
ordinary play. For the Queen cannot discover check. Promotion makes it
appear that she does so. See No. 5 and note. Again, by promotion, a Pawn battery can give Knight mates on squares no
real Knight could ever reach. Examples will be found under Nos. 10-11. All problems where a White Pawn promotes to Queen and to Knight in
separate variations, as in No. 13, or to Knight on two squares, as in
No. 9C, are likely to be thematic, and should be carefully studied from
the promotion standpoint. A few thematic cases also exist, which we must not overlook, where a
promoted Queen supports an old Queen, producing novel or bizarre
effects. No. 7 is very noteworthy, owing to the singular quartette of
Queen sacrifices, and other two Queens ideas follow under Nos. 7A-D. Corresponding to these, are the frequent cases, Nos. 15, 16, 21, etc.,
where three or more Knights become involved in the solution. These
problems cannot be appreciated with one set of chess-men, and adherents
to the Fourth Period of promotion cannot but look askance at them. This
is unfortunate, but it cannot be helped ; and if these pages
should come into the hands of any who still hold the Fourth Period
conventions we trust they will humour what must seem to them our
fondness for puzzles and eccentricities. The ethics of the question
have been debated too often to be gone into here. Suffice it to refer
to Jaenisch's Universal Code Adopted by the St. Petersburg Chess Club, 1854, and to the criticisms thereon in the European magazines of the next four years. In Black promotions the double claim of Queen and Knight in two
variations almost invariably produces a thematic effect, and this is
greatly strengthened where the promotions are repeated on a second
square, or by a second Black Pawn.
To sum up the whole subject of promotions involving in a thematic way
the principle of direct attack and defence, we can say that, for Black
as for White, any promotion theme is deserving of the name which uses a
promoted Queen or Knight in a manner in which an old Queen or Knight
could not be used, or which repeats the promotion two or more times. Promotion problems involving the consideration of stalemate form a
class absolutely distinct from the direct attack and defence class. The
two classes are as distinct as any two groups in the entire domain of
composition. In making a promotion to Rook or Bishop we are invariably availing
ourselves of a lesser force than is at our command, for we could in
each case claim a Queen. Such a promotion is a passive sacrifice of
power. Like every passive sacrifice, it is motived by some impending
threat of stalemate. For in Chess every apparently gallant action is
forced by stern necessity. There is in Chess no real courtesy, only a
polite treachery. Except with the principle of passive sacrifice, promotions to Rook or
Bishop have no analogy with any form of problem strategy. Consequently
they are always thematic. The effects arrived at often remind us of
other classes of problems, as for instance the four-fold Bishop mates
in No. 32A. But in every such case, there is the added piquancy
of the
4
INTRODUCTION
M. John Augustus Miles a fait paraître, en 1888, deux éditions de mats inversés intitulées : Chess Stars-Etoiles Echiquéennes.
Depuis ces étoiles ont brillé d'un bel éclat de
popularité, mais elles ont été atteintes par une
éclipse partielle. Jusqu'à présent, personne ne
s'est opposé à cette éclipse, personne ne s'est
demandé si elle était éphémère ou
permanente et nul n'en a analysé les causes.
On penserait,
de prime-abord, que le docteur Tolosa avait raison, lorsqu'en 1892 il
dénommait ces mats inverses les fleurs de serre des
échecs. Si cela était exact, on comprendrait facilement
comment ils ont été amenés rapidement à
jouir d'une riche fécondité qui n'a pas duré.
C'est le sort qui a frappé bien des genres exotiques de
problèmes : les mats réflexes ; les problèmes
à un Roi ; les mats aidés, en un mot toutes les
créations fantastiques des cerveaux fatigués des mats
directs. C'est aussi le sort qui menace les fantaisies futures. Le mat
direct seul parait une fleur indigène, capable de survivre
à toutes les vicissitudes de saison, de climat, de style et de
goût qui tuent si rapidement les produits plus rares des
imaginations moins orthodoxes. Est-ce que Tolosa avait raison de
classer les mats inverses parmi les créations de serres chaudes?
Sont-ils aussi forts que nos fleurs communes? De moins ordinaire
existence, ils demandent une éducation spéciale et une
connaissance particulière pour être transplantés
dans les jardins de nos propres compositions, comme telle
orchidée indigène dont les couleurs brillantes dorment
cachées au fond des bois ? C'est une lourde tâche que de
trouver la réponse juste à ces questions.
Les mats inverses ont, au moins, des traits communs avec les mats
directs quant à leur origine et leur développement. Leur
origine est un peu obscure, mais il semble qu'ils dérivent du
vieux jeu inverse, de même que les problèmes directs
dérivent du jeu ordinaire. Le jeu inverse, à qui perd
gagne, est d'une grande antiquité, mais il a toujours
été moins usité que le vrai jeu, par
conséquent les fins de partie se rapprochant des
problèmes se rencontrent en nombre beaucoup plus restreint que
pour les problèmes directs.
M. H. J. R. Murray me dit qu'il n'y a aucune trace du mat inverse dans
le vieux jeu mahométan. Les manuscrits connus contiennent
quelques six cents positions différentes et son absence, d'une
quantité aussi considérable, incline à croire
à sa non-existence. Dans le vieux jeu européen on le
rencontre rarement : parmi les neuf cents problèmes qui nous
restent aujourd'hui dans les manuscrits des xiii-xve siècles, il
ne se trouve que dix mats inverses. Au xvie siècle, il existe
trois mats inverses. (V. N° 1.) Depuis leur nombre s'est accru peu
à peu ; dans le Recueil d'Alexandre (1846) résumant tous
les problèmes antérieurs, on en trouve environ cent
vingt. Ils sont tous du genre « antique ». Dans le
procès de modernisation qui survint, le mat inverse suivit le
mat direct à une distance considérable.
Tandis que le mat direct s'émancipait bientôt des vieilles
positions à jeu long et monotone, arrivant à une mode
complexe et de transition qui donna lieu aux positions artistiques de
l'école moderne, le mat inverse ne s'est jamais
entièrement libéré des anciens modèles.
Cependant il se développa jusqu'au style artistique et fini
comme le fît le mat direct, mais, néanmoins il a retenu
aussi les positions longues et forcées, que l'on nomme de nos
jours Challengers.
L'on dirait que toutes les solutions longues et forcées qui se
rencontrent dans tous les problèmes d'avant 1850, sont devenues
l'apanage des compositeurs de problèmes inverses et même
aujourd'hui le problémiste qui trouve quelque idée
à longue portée la présente, presque toujours,
sous la forme inverse. Cela se voit clairement dans l'ouvrage que M.
Williams a justement intitulé : The Modem Chess Problem. Ce
livre contient cent problèmes choisis parmi ceux de son auteur :
86 sont des mats directs en deux et trois coups ; les 14 autres sont
des inverses, dont 13 de six à onze coups.
Tandis que l'étude du mat direct n'est que l'analyse historique
du développement du style moderne artistique, plus ou moins
complexe, l'étude du mat inverse se divise en deux parties.:
celle des positions complexes, analogues au mat direct moderne, et
celle des problèmes à solution longue et
forcée-Cette dernière classe a été de
beaucoup la plus féconde; elle aussi a eu son
développement vers l'art, l'économie, la beauté
des mats, l'originalité d'idée, mais sa forme
extérieure a bien peu changé, en comparaison de l'autre
classe. On trouvera quelques exemples de problèmes forcés
dans ce livre, N08 2 à 12, mais je me suis limité presque
entièrement au genre complexe, de façon à pouvoir
traiter à peu près complètement au moins l'une des
deux classes. La vieille forme, comme je viens de le dire, a
été bien plus prolixe. Ce sera un travail à faire
plus tard, d'essayer d'en coordonner les meilleurs résultats,
dans une autre grande collection. La ligne de démarcation, entre
les deux classes de problèmes ; le genre forcé et le
genre complexe, est souvent difficile à indiquer, comme le sont
toutes les lignes exactes dans l'analyse des problèmes. J'ai
décidé, arbitrairement, d'exclure toute position qui
n'aurait qu'une ligne de jeu et d'accueillir toutes celles en ayant
deux ou davantage, mais je me suis permis quelques exceptions.
Trois éléments entrent dans le développement du
style complexe. Le plus rudimentaire est de présenter une
idée monotone dans une position qui permet de donner quelque
liberté aux Noirs, liberté qui peut changer ou varier le
jeu des Blancs sans toucher à l'idée fondamentale, Les
N° 13 à 19 en sont des exemples. Aucuns ne sont d'une date
très ancienne et, quoiqu'il y en aie de beaucoup plus antiques,
la mode des problèmes monotones variés me semble
être plutôt un effet que la cause du nouveau
développement que nous sommes en train d'indiquer. Car, si nous
analysons cette façon de donner de la liberté d'action
aux Noirs, nous voyons qu'elle est souvent libérale et qu'il
faut du talent au compositeur habitué cependant à
contrôler un certain nombre de possibilités.
Une seconde manière de donner de la variété
consiste à faire une série d'échecs, permettant
cependant plusieurs réponses des Noirs. Malgré la
théorie des livres, une série d'échecs est
quelquefois artistique, comme au N° 20, où une suite
d'échecs croisés forme la base même du
problème. (Voir aussi les N° 578, 697.) Les Nos 21 à
36 démontreront comment, dans les problèmes en plusieurs
coups, les échecs répétés se fondent peu
à peu dans une série de coups tranquilles. L'on
remarquera que les dates de ces compositions sont toujours assez
modernes; quoique ces problèmes montrent quelque
variété et une absence d'échecs, le nombre de
coups ne diminue toujours pas. Ces problèmes appartiennent
à une classe à mi-chemin entre les longues positions
forcées et les versions complexes, en moins de coups. Ils se
l'attachent plutôt à ces premières, car le nombre
de coups est un élément dont il n'est guère facile
de se libérer. La troisième cause qui contribua à
la naissance du mat inverse complexe moderne, a été
l'étude de la promotion du Pion. En 1849 H. Pollmächer et
R. Schurig publièrent un problème incorrect dans lequel
un Pion noir devient Dame sans faire mat immédiatement, le
N° 37 est leur version rectifiée. En 1859 un problème
en 36 coups faisait Dame sur une case contiguë à celle
qu'occupait le Roi blanc, mais P fait D donnait le mat. L'année
suivante est paru le N° 38, le comte A. Pongracz le résolut
et fit remarquer que par un petit changement l'on pouvait supprimer le
Pion blanc et économiser un coup ; MM. Bezzel et O. Wülfing
firent la même découverte, voir le N°39. Bien qu'un
peu incorrects ces problèmes ont une grande importance
historique, ils établissent que différentes pièces
noires peuvent être employées dans un entourage fixe.
A ce résultat on ajouta, pendant les dix années qui
suivirent, l'émulation de plusieurs concours importants, de
sorte que l'on voit les éléments complexes se
développer d'années en années. Le concours du New-York Clipper,
en 1859, a produit un problème tout à fait moderne :
N° 163. Dans le concours de Londres, en 1862, soixante-seize
problèmes se mirent en ligne, mais un seulement, le N° 41,
mérite de retenir l'attention ; c'est un exemple excellent du
style complexe aux échecs répétés. Dans les
tournois allemands de 1804, 1867, 1869, la proportion des
problèmes modernes avança à pas de géants
et deux des problèmes de l'envoi primé au concours du Clipper
de 1868, N° 51 et 497, sont des œuvres extrêmement
difficiles, eu égard à la date de leur composition. En
même temps les journaux du continent, notamment la Schachzeitung, organe du club d'échecs de Berlin, mieux connue sous son nom actuel la Deutsche Schachzeitung,
réunissait un groupe nombreux de jeunes enthousiastes du mat
inverse ; on en trouvera des spécimens aux N° 43, 52, 55
à 57. Le Handbuch der Schachaufgaben de Lange, 1862, et
l'Anthologie de Dufresne et Anderssen, 1864, contiennent, parmi deux
centaines de mats inverses, seulement quelques positions complexes
— les études de promotion de Pion noir, dont je viens de
parler, et un ou deux essais de Sam. Loyd, dont le génie
devança toujours son temps — lesquels peuvent
prétendre à la valeur moderne. Mais vers les
premières années après 1870, BlumenthaJ, Nadebaum,
Minchwitz, Jensen, Brown, Shinkman, etc., N° 59 à 76,
forgeaient déjà la chaîne des problèmes qui
devaient relier les principes de la vieille école aux formes
progressives de la nouvelle.
Les années 1876-1877 furent très importantes pour le mat
inverse. Sur le continent, le grand concours de la Stratégie
marquait l'arrivée d'un genre nouveau, en raison de la condition
imposée, d'avoir un temps de repos permettant aux Noirs
plusieurs réponses, N° 77 à 88. En Amérique
avaient lieu les deux premiers concours pour les deux coups inverses.
(Voir la Table des positions primées.) On peut donc dire
qu'à cette époque, vers 1880, le mat inverse, nouvelle
étoile sur le firmament des échecs, se voyait, pour la
première fois, distinctement à l'Orient. La
réaction du vieux genre long fut bien violente. Loyd, dans son
ouvrage Chess Strategy,
1879, prévoyait, avec moins de clairvoyance qu'à
son ordinaire, que le deux coups inverse serait bientôt la limite
pour les problèmes acceptables de ce genre. L'éditeur du British Chess Magazine, en 1882, réclamait
vivement l'envoi de problèmes en deux coups. A partir des concours du Croydon Guardian et du English Mechanie,
en 1883, le mat inverse en deux coups a fait son apparition en
Angleterre et il y a toujours conservé sa plus grande
popularité. Sur le continent, les collections de mats inverses
d'Antoine Demonchy, 1882, formaient la dernière étape du
vieux genre, quoique la nouvelle mode s'y établissait lentement.
Von Gottschall, de 1880 à 1898, fermait les portes de la Deutsche Schachzeitung aux mats inverses. Il n'y eut pas un seul concours ouvert aux mats inverses sur le continent depuis celui de la Stratégie, en 1876-77, jusqu'à ceux du Täglichen Rundschau en 1900 et de la Stratégie
en 1900-02. Dans certains lieux où les mats inverses
florissaient, c'était plutôt les plantes exotiques de
Tolosa que des espèces sérieuses et dignes
d'études. Le titre même de la collection de Fischer : Humor im Schach,
1904, le prouve. Ses positions sont généralement des jeux
d'esprit, des échos, des groupes de positions se ressemblant en
fait ou en idée, depuis des deux jusqu'à des octaves
triples. Sans doute il y a beaucoup d'esprit dans de telles
conceptions, N° 915 à 921, mais elles ne constituent pas le
terrain dans lequel on doit chercher les orchidées
indigènes : les plus beaux mats inverses complexes,
Au nord, le mat inverse eut une adolescence plus rationnelle, de Lemke
et Wennberg jusqu'aux Jensens, aux Larsens, à Broholm, Lose et
Jespersen. En Amérique, le développement du mat inverse
est en grande partie l'histoire des problèmes de W. A. Shinkman.
Les autres compositeurs qui le suivirent à distance, Wheeler,
Teed, Lissner, n'ont jamais essayé de le dépasser sur son
propre terrain, qui, comme nous le verrons plus loin, embrasse toutes
les formes d'idées les plus distinctement inverses.
Le zénith fut atteint par le mat inverse en Angleterre. Sous la
direction de Townsend, Slater, Andrews, Frankenstein et Planck
s'éleva une constellation encore plus brillante. Quoi que moins
habile comme compositeur, John Augustus Miles, par ses relations comme
correspondant, critique, juge dans les concours et amateur, encouragea
l'étude des mats inverses plus qu'aucun autre homme. Ses
collections, les volumes de Chess Stars, dont j'ai déjà
parle, formèrent une série dans-laquelle chaque auteur de
mats inverses espérait trouver place. Malheureusement pour la
cause du mat inverse, deux éditions seulement furent
publiées. M. Miles mourut à Norwich le 23 juillet 1891,
à l'Age de 74 ans. Une troisième édition plus
développée devait paraître prochainement, mais elle
est encore manuscrite. Je dois a l'obligeance de M. John Keeblc,
l'exécuteur échiquéen de M. Miles, d'avoir pu
copier une cinquantaine de positions destinées au présent
travail.
B. G. Laws, l'un des auteurs du Chess Problem Text Book est au premier
rang des amateurs anglais; les mats inverses, qu'il a composés
de 1884 à 1894, sont très nombreux et de haute valeur. Il
est suivi de très près par G. Hume qui est aussi
retiré depuis longtemps des rangs actifs; c'est un auteur un peu
moins fécond, dont les œuvres sont toujours très
belles-Les mats de J. Keeble datent de la même époque mais
dépassent la fin du xrxe siècle; le nombre de ses
œuvres inédites: a été assez
considérable pour faire porter son nom sur la liste des prix de
presque tous les concours qui ont eu lieu depuis 1887 jusqu'à
nos jours. Les problèmes de G. A. L. Bull sont aussi très
remarquables pour leur grand mérite, quoiqu'ils soient peu
nombreux. L'œuvre admirable de W. Gleavc et celle de R. G.
Thomson sont plus modernes. Enfin, avec A. F. Mackenzie le mat inverse
approchait de la perfection que tous les amateurs estiment possible. La
mort du grand maître est une perte encore plus grave pour le mat
inverse (pie pour le problème direct, car son génie, pour
le premier genre, était presque sans rival. Dans ses mains
habiles, des problèmes tels que les positions primées par
le British Chess Magazine (1901), bien que peu nombreux, auraient vite
placé la stratégie inverse a égalité dans
l'admiration du public, avec le mat direct plus hardi, mais cela ne
devait pas être! L'éclipsé du mat inverse
commença à s'assombrir, en Angleterre, à la fin du
concours du Hackney Mercury en 1894 et elle n'a fait qu'augmenter
depuis. L'école nationale est maintenant éteinte,
malgré les efforts de Wright, de Blake, de Westbury et de
plusieurs autres.
Sur le continent, de nouveaux champions paraissent s'approcher.
L'école bohémienne qui, il y a quelque vingt-cinq ans,
fleurit momentanément sous les efforts de Kondelik, de Mikyska
et de Chocholous, trouve un écho dans l'œuvre moderne des
Autrichiens, notamment chez Feigl et chez. Nemo. H. Rohr, de Breslau, a
été, pendant bien des années, un gladiateur
isolé. Sur ses épaules et sur celles du
vétéran français K. Pradignat repose le
championnat de l'Europe occidentale.
Il faudrait voir jusqu'à quel point peuvent s'unir des groupes
de compositeurs aux principes tellement éloignés. Si une
nouvelle école doit suivre l'éclipse actuelle, elle sera
probablement internationale, unissant les principes de toutes les
nations. Si elle doit naître, elle sera basée sur les
positions qui composent cette collection, apportant aux diverses formes
et aux diverses idées, le piquant, le massif, le pur, une forme
extérieure raffinée qui donnera au mat inverse les
mêmes beautés du XXe siècle que le mat
modèle et les théories économiques ont
donné aux fleurs les mieux cultivées du mat direct.
En classant les problèmes que contient cet ouvrage, j'ai
principalement considéré deux points. En
général, les idées échiquéennes,
hormis certains tours de force définis, ne peuvent être
classées d'une manière scientifique, mais dans les mats
inverses la force libre des Noirs qui le plus souvent est assez
restreinte et la position des deux Rois sont des éléments
si importants qu'ils donnent souvent, à eux seuls, un cachet
particulier au problème.
Notre premier chapitre, si nous considérons les N° 1
à 89 comme positions introductoires, comprendra les Nos 90
à 300 et s'occupera exclusivement du jeu d'une pièce
noire. Dans les N08 90 à 134, l'idée consiste à
attirer la Dame noire, par plusieurs séries d'échecs,
d'une position retirée, jusqu'à une case où elle
doit donner échec et mat. Dans les No 90 à 95, la Dame
est seule sur l'échiquier, mais dans les autres positions elle a
plus ou moins de renforts, d'ailleurs très peu actifs. Les
problèmes sont rangés suivant le nombre de coups, ainsi
que selon le nombre de cases desquelles provient le mat.
Les mats de la Dame sont moins intéressants que ceux des
officiers moins forts. La série de la Tour, N° 135 à
158, commence avec cinq problèmes curieux, les N08 135 à
139, dans lesquels un mat se répète jusqu'à cinq
fois. Les autres problèmes avec la Tour déploient
d'autres mats répétés quelque peu analogues, ou
donnés toujours d'un côté, ou bien de deux
directions, en écho.
Les mats du Fou, Nos 159 à 192, sont classés selon le
nombre de cases sur lesquelles le Fou est forcé de donner le
coup de grâce. Ceux-ci montent d'une seule case, N° 159, et
jusqu'à quatre dans le remarquable N° 192.
Les mats du Cavalier, Nos 193 à 240, sont assez restreints en
nature, mais ils ont un cachet frais et agréable après
les mats plus monotones de la Tour et du Fou. Les mats du Cavalier
étaient les favoris de l'école bohémienne, et ils
forment la base de positions aussi intéressantes que le N°
193. Elles s'adaptent aussi très bien à des
problèmes plus longs, tels que les Nos 203 à 209.
L'écho est la forme la plus connue des mats du Cavalier, parfois
il est volontaire, N° 210, mais plus habituellement il est
forcé, N°* 211 à 213. Il s'obtient de
différentes manières : directement N° 214 à
229, ou obliquement N° 230 à 240.
Il arrive rarement qu'une pièce blanche forme l'idée d'un
mat inverse. Le N° 241 est une exception, un tour de force du genre
de la « Rosace ».
Le Pion est souvent employé dans les mats inverses, car il est
facile à guider et il se prête bien aux idées
légères, N08 242 à 266. Il y a néanmoins
peu de virilité dans cette classe de positions.
D'autre part, le Pion est très intéressant à
étudier dans ses différentes promotions. Les N°s 267
à 269 montrent les promotions du Pion blanc; les Nos 270
à 300, 676, 714, celles des Pions noirs. Les variantes
ordinaires auxquelles donnent lieu les promotions habituelles, N°
270 à 284, sont déjà beaucoup trop usés,
mais les autres exemples montrent que de la stratégie moins
conventionnelle est également possible, soit en utilisant plus
d'un Pion à la fois, soit en cherchant quelque nouvel emploi,
tels que les mats découverts par la pièce promue. Le
N° 987 et le Frontispice indiquent un autre emploi : celui dans le
genre « à prise » auquel nous reviendrons plus tard.
Notre deuxième chapitre, N° 301 à 502, concerne le
jeu des deux Rois. Dans les mats directs, le Roi blanc est souvent hors
du combat, occupant une position sûre, pendant que ses soldats
poursuivent l'ennemi. Il arrive même que le compositeur
éprouve de la difficulté à trouver la case
désirée et si ce n'était en raison des conventions
universelles, il est probable que le Roi blanc serait
entièrement omis dans la moitié des problèmes.
Cela ne peut que rarement se produire dans une position inverse, car ce
sont les échecs livrés à un Roi qui incitent ceux
qui doivent mater l'autre. Les Rois sont en contact immédiat, de
sorte qu'un problème inverse est bien plus une bataille royale
que ne le peut être aucune classe de problème direct, sauf
celles des échecs croisés. Les luttes les plus
acharnées seront ainsi celles que nous envisageons maintenant,
car, outre l'action passive des deux Rois pour attirer le feu de
l'ennemi, l'un ou l'autre prend part activement à la direction
de leurs forces.
Quand le Roi blanc se meut, c'est habituellement afin de forcer un
contre-échec par un échec découvert : directement,
N° 301 à 330; ou obliquement, N° 331 à 337.
D'autres fois le monarque s'offre plus paisiblement au sacrifice, soit
qu'il se livre dans plusieurs directions, selon le jeu des Noirs, soit
encore qu'il entreprenne des voyages plus lointains. On trouvera des
exemples de chaque genre parmi les N° 338 à 357. Il arrive
rarement que tous les coups dans la variante d'un problème
complexe soient joués par le Roi lui-même. Dans les deux
coups, cela n'est pas très difficile; mais je connais seulement
un trois coups et un quatre coups, Nos 338, 336, 343, de ce genre.
C'est quelque chose d'utile pour l'étudiant d'approfondir ses
recherches. Dans un problème avec une seule ligne de jeu, il lui
serait plus facile d'y arriver. L'œuvre de K. Fischer, toujours
très hardi dans ses conceptions, est à son apogée
dans ses études sur le Roi blanc recevant le mat sur des cases
éloignées l'une de l'autre, N° 364 à 367. Le
N° 365 est un chef-d'œuvre.
Nous avons déjà vu que le Roi noir pouvait
répondre directement aux attaques de son adversaire
couronné. Maintenant nous arrivons aux problèmes
où l'offensive est prise par le Roi noir, lui-même. Les
découvertes obliques sont peut-être la forme qui sert de
base aux attaques des Noirs. Nous l'avons rencontrée dans
l'antique position de Polerio, N° 1 ; un problème d'ailleurs
qui, avec les quelques transformations exigées par les
règles du jour, tel que le transfert du Roi blanc à la
case 4D, aurait pu être composé par un auteur vivant,
tellement son idée est conforme aux thèmes actuels. La
même idée trouve sa forme la plus simple dans le N°
368; mais bien des exemples pourraient être ajoutés au
choix libéral que j'ai lait des positions les plus complexes,
Nos 309 à 426. L'on remarquera les Nos 391 et 392, dans lesquels
le R noir découvre mat sur un maximum de six cases. De
même les découvertes directes sont de toutes
espèces, depuis les versions complexes anglaises, en deux ou
trois coups, jusqu'aux piquants stratagèmes de Shinkman et de
Rohr, en 4 et 5 coups, Nos 427 à 501.
Les mats découverts ont en effet un tel charme, dans la
stratégie inverse, que j'y ai consacré un chapitre, N08
503 à 605.
Le Fou s'emploie tout aussi bien pour les embuscades des officiers et
des Pions que pour celles qui visent le Roi. Les Nos 503 à 506
sont des exemples de l'embuscade avec les Cavaliers ; les Nos 508 a 531
du jeu de Fou et Pion. Ensuite vient l'embuscade latéral du Fou,
N° 532 à 539, ou avec Pion équivalent, Nos 540
à 563. Les découvertes en passant des N03 551, 561 et 562
sont surtout merveilleuses et surprenantes.
Les échecs doubles, Tour et Fou, se voient dans les Nos 564
à 578, et l'inverse, Fou et Tour, dans les N° 579 a 586. Ces
échecs peuvent eux-mêmes être doublés, d'une
seule espèce dans une variante, N° 587 et 588, ou des deux
espèces dans deux variantes, N° 589 et 590. De la
stratégie indienne, encore plus compliquée, se trouve
dans les Nos 591 à 595. Le mat double du Cavalier et de la Tour,
N° 596 et 597, ressemble aux mats simples du Cavalier, N° 193
à 209; et la doublure de ce mat, N° 598 à 002, doit
être comparée avec les Nos 211 a 213.
À suivre
