Talk:Chess theory

tens of thousands?

The article says "Today there are tens of thousands of books on chess openings." Is this accurate? The largest chess library I've heard of has 20,000 books. So I don't doubt that 10,000 books on the opening have been written. But I have my doubts about "tens of thousands". Bubba73 (talk), 04:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Lothar Schmid's library has way over 20,000. But I changed it to "Thousands of books have been written on chess openings." which I think is unquestionably true. Krakatoa (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds like you are nearer the truth than I am. Susan Polgar describes Schmid as having over 20,000 volumes, the world's largest private collection. (To me, that would seem easy to beat if one had the time, inclination, and money, especially if you collected books in all languages (can you imagine how many books there are in Russian?!; take a look on eBay sometime).) The John G. White collection at the Cleveland Public Library has 32,000 books and 6,000 bound volumes of periodicals. http://pinoychess.informe.com/forum/special-chess-records-by-gm-susan-polgar-dt385.html See also http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz132.pdf I was in Cleveland four years ago, volunteering for Kerry's campaign. Stupidly, I didn't think to go there. But then again, if I'd gone before the election, I would have had a hard time tearing myself away and would have felt that I was neglecting the campaign. After the election, I would have been too ill to get much enjoyment out of the collection. Krakatoa (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the change to “Thousands of books have been written on chess openings” as it doesn’t sound as questionable.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Chess Informant publication date

Wasn't the first issue of Chess Informant published in 1966, not 1972? I'm confused. -- Jao (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. That's what our Chess Informant article implies, and see All Volumes of Chess Informant from their website. Volume 1 has the dates January to June 1966. Quale (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are both right. I opened up my physical copy of Chess Informant, Volume 1, which quite plainly says "Beograd 1972" and also reflects a copyright date of 1972. When I saw "1972" (and thus wrote it in the article) I was kind of amazed, since I too had been sure that Informant came out before that. Volume 2 says the same thing. (I'm not going to bother to look at the rest.) Maybe the copies I have were physically printed in 1972, but are republications of the original 1966 books. That must be it. Krakatoa (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds very plausible. Thanks for addressing this (minor) concern! -- Jao (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Lucena position

Most sources say that the Lucena position was not actually in Lucena's book; that it was attributed to him in a later work. What do you have on that? Bubba73 (talk), 23:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Good question. The source I cited (Golombek, A History of Chess, p. 101) quite clearly says that Lucena's book included what we now call the Lucena position (R+P v. R; building a bridge and all that). Golombek's Encylopedia of Chess, p. 187, likewise says that Lucena's 1497 book includes analysis of "the basic Rook and pawn ending known as the 'Lucena position.'"

On the other hand, The Oxford Companion to Chess (1st ed. 1984), p. 195, says of the Lucena position, "It is not in Lucena's book, but was first published in 1634 by Salvio who attributes it to Scipione Genovino." Fundamental Chess Endings by Muller and Lamprecht, p. 179, quotes the Chess Cafe Holiday Quiz 2000 by Russell and Kingston to the same effect.

Basic Chess Endings (Fine and Benko 2003), pp. 287-98, calls it the "Lucena Position," as everyone does, but doesn't say when or by whom it was first published. The Batsford Chess Encyclopedia by Divinsky mentions Lucena's book (of course), but doesn't say whether it included the Lucena position. Nor does Anne Sunnucks address the point in The Encyclopaedia of Chess, p. 296. She does mention that in 1922 Lucena was proved (by H.J.R. Murray) to be the author of the Gottingen Manuscript. (Here and with respect to Muller, I'm not using the proper German characters, but the English "u" and "o.") Maybe that contained the Lucena position? (Rampant speculation.)

I figured Edward Winter would resolve this issue once and for all, but to my amazement a Google search doesn't show anything by him addressing this conundrum. Do you have Lothar Schmid's phone number handy? He has one of the ten surviving copies of Lucena's 1497 work, so he should be able to set us straight.

Given the uncertainty on this subject, I'm going to lop out the sentence about the Lucena position until we get something definite on this. Krakatoa (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Edward Winter will respond to questions, at least he did to mine, when I emailed him from the link on his website, and follow the instructions there about emailing. I think I have another book or two that says that the Lucena Position was not actually in Lucena's book. Bubba73 (talk), 02:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional references may not be of much use, though. It might be a situation where (a) many people assume that the Lucena posion was in Lucena's book, vs. (b) one sourse says that it wasn't. And then either everyone either follows suit with (a) or (b). Bubba73 (talk), 02:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That is probably right. Very few people besides Lothar Schmid have a copy of the original Lucena (c. 1497). I assume the John G. White Collection in Cleveland does; whether they'd let one look at it, I don't know. Dunno if any of our Wiki-chess people live in or around Cleveland. FWIW, Golombek on p. 98 of his book states that a facsimile edition of 250 of Lucena's 1497 book was printed in Madrid in 1953, and "I fortunately possess one of those." One hopes he consulted it before writing about the book's contents? Krakatoa (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Quale might, because he got a lot of information about the MCO from that library. Bubba73 (talk), 03:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! It just occurred to me that I in effect double-counted Golombek. The only sources I cited for the proposition that Lucena's c. 1497 book included the Lucena position were Golombek's A History of Chess and Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess, which not surprisingly says the same thing. I've also just taken a quick look at Chess: The History of a Game by Richard Eales and The World of Chess by Anthony Saidy and Norman Lessing, and find no mention of the Lucena position one way or the other.

Hmm, this is very interesting. I have a copy of Andre Cheron's 4-volume Lehr-Und Handbuch der Endspiele. Don't ask me why, since I don't speak or read German. But on p. 117 (No. 190) of Volume I he has what we would call the Lucena position, and he attributes it to "Scipione Genovino (Salvio 1934)." I would think Cheron would know what he was talking about. Barnie F. Winkelman in Modern Chess Endings (David McKay, 1933), p. 87 calls the position, "An old study that goes back to Lucena, and was given by Salvio." I don't know exactly what that means, but if Lucena had published the position and analysis, I would think there would be no need for Winkelman to mention Salvio, who came later. Staunton in The Chess-Player's Handbook also gives what we would call the Lucena position, p. 442, but just calls it "this instructive position" without attributing authorship to anyone. Krakatoa (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be that the position and analysis is by Lucena, but it is not in his 1497 book. Perhaps it was published elsewhere, and others picked it up later. Speculation, of course. Bubba73 (talk), 03:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to confuse things a little more: Irving Chernev in Practical Chess Endings (Dover Publications, 1969), p. 225, attributes the position to "Lucena, 1497." Paul Keres in the identically-titled Practical Chess Endings (RHM Press, 1974?), takes an agnostic position, attributing the position thus: "Lucena (?) 1497(?)." Krakatoa (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Levenfish & Smyslov say it was in Lucena's 1497 book. Minev agrees.

Nunn (Secrets of Rook endings) calls it Lucena but credits it to Salvio, 1634.

Averbakh says "...frequently is incorrectly attributed to Lucana (1497)."

Kortchnoi just says "Lucena". Both Emms and Ward say about the same, just Lucena or Lucena Position. Bubba73 (talk), 04:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What a mess! So if we care about the subject, (a) you can e-mail Edward Winter and see what he says; one would think he would love this sort of thing, whether or not he's looked at it before, (b) we can ask Quale if he feels like checking it out, if indeed he's around Cleveland-way. I suspect he is, since he also revised my revision of Cleveland Public Library. I hope he wouldn't deem that OR. Krakatoa (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll email Winter. This is almost exactly like three weeks ago when I asked him who said "all rook endings are drawn" - Tarrasch or Tartakower. I had three reliable references for each. He couldn't determine it. Bubba73 (talk), 05:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

E. Winter says that it was not in Lucena's book, see the new #5536: chess notes. Bubba73 (talk), 14:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good. I knew Winter would have the answer to this sort of thing. As to your other question, it has to be Tartakower. Tartakower loved cute aphorisms like that, whereas Tarrasch was way too serious and dogmatic to make a statement like that, which is obviously not literally true. Krakatoa (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have Tarrasch's posthumous 1938 book The Game of Chess. FWIW, he analyzes rook endings at pages 49-61, and never says "All rook endings are drawn." or anything resembling that. Nor does he even make less categorical but true statements along the lines of "The side a pawn down in rook endings often has good drawing chances." The categorical statements he does make are things like, "In complicated Rook endings the most important rule is one laid down by the author: The Rook's place is behind the passed pawn; behind the enemy pawn in order to hold it up, behind one's own in order to support its advance." (page 57) Krakatoa (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it sounds like Tartakower too, but I asked Soltis and he said that he never saw it among list of quotations. At Ksawery Tartakower#Quotations, I give the three references for Tartakower and three for Tarrasch. Bubba73 (talk), 14:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh, another conundrum. I've heard the quote about a million times, but it's not in any of my four books of chess quotes. Krakatoa (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to suspect that neither of them actually said it! Someone just decided to attribute it to one or the other of them. Bubba73 (talk), 16:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That is certain a plausible theory. Maybe I should say it, you can attribute it to me, and I'll be famous forever! Krakatoa (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Due to the conflicting sources, the lack of Soltis and Winter to resolve it, and the fact that isn't in the four books of quotes, I moved it from Taratakower to chess endgame. I'll add "US Master Fredrick Rhine said it, but he wasn't the first." :-) Bubba73 (talk), 00:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) When I first heard that R+P vs. R was more likely to be a draw than minor piece and pawn vs. minor piece, I thought that was strange because the defending rook doesn't have the defense of giving itself up for the pawn. But the checking power of the rook more than makes up for that. Bubba73 (talk), 00:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Publisher

You have Levenfish & Smyslov and two of the Averbakh volumes published by Chess Digest. The ones I have were published by Batsford. Is Chess Digest right, or Batsford? Bubba73 (talk), 01:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Both. Rook Endings lists the English translation as being by Batsford, 1971; it was first published in the U.S. in 1971 by Chess Digest, having been printed and bound in Great Britain by C. Tinling & Co., Ltd. "for the publishers, Chess Digest, Inc." Similarly with Pawn Endings and Queen and Pawn Endings: both are listed as the English translation being copyright Batsford and, in the same year, a British printer (not Batsford), printing and binding the books for the publisher, Chess Digest, Inc. So it appears that Batsford was responsible for the translation of all three books, and each was issued in the same year by Batsford and Chess Digest. Krakatoa (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My Batsford copies give dates 1976-78 for translation and first publication (in the UK). Bubba73 (talk), 03:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

But I know the 1971 Chess Digest editions exist. Bubba73 (talk), 03:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that Chess Digest published the books other than Rook Endings in 1971. Pawn Endings was '74 and Queen and Pawn Endings was '75. Krakatoa (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

PCO date

The text says that Fine's Practical Chess Openings was in 1948, but the footnote says 1943. Bubba73 (talk), 02:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I'll correct -- original was 1943, revised edition was 1948. By the way, my use of "1930's" and such is quite deliberate, and my understanding has been that this is correct. (Yes, I know it's not a possessive.) In attempting to support my view, I grabbed the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers (6th ed.) off the shelf. To my chagrin, it disagrees with me on page 91: "Do not use an apostrophe to form the plural of an abbreviation or a number." Bastards. Krakatoa (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. OK, I'm totally senile. I meant the first edition of Ideas Behind the Chess Openings was 1943, the sequel was 1948. I have no excuse for the discrepancy with the PCO dates. Krakatoa (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

PCO was my first opening book, back in 1967. Bubba73 (talk), 02:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think mine was Horowitz's Chess Openings: Theory and Practice (1964), which I must have bought in 1973 or so. It startles me to realize that it was published only two years before Chess Informant first came out. CO:TaP was state-of-the-art at the time, but Chess Informant was the wave of the future. Even though they're separated by only two years, they seem like books from different eras. The fact that PCO (1948) could be considered a reasonable approximation of current opening theory in 1967 shows how pathetically undeveloped opening theory was back then. Krakatoa (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I was a 12-year-old beginner then, and MCO overwhelmed me. Later I got MCO-10, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 03:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Decades, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Longer periods. Bubba73 (talk), 02:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Early theory

Not sure if this is the correct talk page, because it effects four separate articles. Was just checking some references for the Ponziani Opening and came upon some information where Gary Lane refers to Lucena mention of the Ponziani Opening in 1497. He does NOT say in which book Lucena said it however, but as other sources say Repetición de Amores y Arte de Ajedrez con ci Iuegos de Partido was published (or written) in 1497, it would seem to be that book. Next I found a book reference with Edward R. Brace p. 225 giving the Ponziani Opening occurring in the Göttingen manuscript 1490. A check of the topic on wikipedia shows that manuscript does include the opening, but we have no specific date. Also in the same book p. 120 it says the Göttingen manuscript was thought to be written by Lucena. If Brace is correct then some of these topics could do with rewording for example Luis Ramirez de Lucena says 'He wrote the oldest existing printed book on chess, Repetición de Amores y Arte de Ajedrez con ci Iuegos de Partido'. Yet if he wrote the Göttingen manuscript in 1490 then that would seem to be incorrect. I've also just recently changed Chess theory because it was making a similar claim. SunCreator (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in saying that Lucena's c. 1497 work was the oldest surviving work on chess theory I was relying on Golombek's book on chess history, which said that. (I also cited Golombek for the proposition that Lucena published what is now called "the Lucena position" in the R+P v. R endgame, which as Bubba73 pointed out is evidently untrue.) I later realized that the Göttingen manuscript makes the claim that the 1497 book had primacy uncertain, since it's not known whether the G.M. came before or after the 1497 book, and whether Lucena or somebody else wrote it. Krakatoa (talk) circa May 2008

Definitions

I think the lead of this article should define chess theory, especially because it's very different from theories in philosophy, math, science, or everyday conversation. As it is, readers have to figure out the definition as they go along. Here's a stab, which I won't put into the article because I have no sources.

In chess, "theory" has two meanings. One is advice based on experience and logic, such as "rooks belong behind passed pawns" or "the best reply to an attack on the wing is a counterattack in the center". The other is analysis of variations, that is, a listing of the moves (or the plausible moves) available in a situation, and the moves available to the opponent after each, and so on. Each such variation ends in an evaluation of the resulting position, such as "White has a winning attack" or "the position is known to be a draw". This second kind of theory is known mostly for the opening, in which there is a limited number of initial moves and positions often recur, and for the endgame, in which the smaller number of pieces makes exhaustive analysis more feasible than in the middlegame.

Also, I think the section on opening theory should define "a theoretical opening". As I understand it, this means an opening in which many variations have been analyzed, especially recently, and knowing less of this analysis than one's opponent is a severe disadvantage.

Maybe my definitions need revision or are totally wrong, but I think the article needs something. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to address your concerns by rewriting the introductory section, adding quotes from Watson, and Hooper and Whyld. You are certainly right that theory has a different and less rigorous meaning in chess than in, say, physics or mathematics. Krakatoa (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, that helped a lot, but it still needs specificity. Consensuses on what in the openings? (About who has the better position and what kind of play can be expected, maybe with something about plans for both sides?) What kind of statements about endgame positions? (I know this one: the stronger side wins or the weaker side draws by the following procedure.) What do you see when you look into one of those thousands of chess books? Imagine one of the millions of people who have played some chess but never looked at a book or heard anyone talk about theory; maybe they've just heard it for the first time and want to know what it is. Again, I'd add material myself and let people edit it mercilessly, but I don't have any sources. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)