From: DCBCS@CANAL.CRC.UNO.EDU (Dennis Baker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Peter Romanovsky book
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:14:00 GMT

The *other* great book I've discovered recently is _Chess Middlegame
Planning_, by Peter Romanovsky.  Not only is the game analysis superb,
with particular attention to "the plan" (as the title of the book 
suggests), but there are such treasures as these:

Romanovsky on Dynamics:

  "Sometimes, in the thinking of one and the same chessplayer, a serious
metamorphosis takes place.

  "An interesting and instructive example in this respect is the fate of
Nimzovich.

  "In the first period of his creative work, his fiery temperament, dynamic
thoughts, splendid and original imagination, earned him deserved fame as an
artist of chess.  While Nimzovich was just such an artist, his sporting and
creative path was crowned with a series of brilliant achievements and he
gained a reputation for himself as an important innovator, for ever searching,
for ever daring.

  "However, from a certain moment Nimzovich had too high an opinion of himself
as a chess philosopher, a bearer of chess truth, a herald of chess justice.
Coming out against the conservative views of Tarrasch, particularly on the
question of the centre, Nimzovich unwittingly slipped into the position of a
conservative.  Out of the definite, conventional methods of chess struggle
amongst masters, he created the theory of restraint, blockade, overprotection,
broadcasting it widely and rather like a self-advertisement as "My System"
[Sounds like one of Hanon Russell's book review complaints here! - Dennis],
hindering the development of the opponent's forces, blockading his pawn
chain, centralising of pieces, preparing to replace a pawn outpost with a
piece (overprotection) -- all these "principles" had to be guiding threads
for the chessplayer's thought and served as absolute guarantees of victory.
By elevating these "principles" in this way to the rank of dogma (as Tarrasch
had done in his time, to maintain sporting form, corresponding to one's
talent) [<== I'm not sure I understand this parenthetical remark - Dennis],
Nimzovich came to suffer telling defeats when encountering opponents renowned
for great dynamicity of thought, particularly Alekhine.  Not long before his
death, Nimzovich lost a match with Stahlberg, though he undoubtedly was 
superior to him in strength and in knowledge and experience.  The reason for
Nimzovich's defeat cannot but be seen as the dogmatic touch which
distinguished his thought in the match.

  "Dynamic planning -- this is not waiting, not restraint, not blockading,
but foresight and preparation of a decisive course of events.

[What a great comment!!  Dynamic planning is NOT waiting, NOT restraint, NOT
blockading, but foresight and preparation of a decisive course of events.  I
love it! - Dennis]

  "Morphy, in describing the play of Staunton, the famous English chessplayer
of the 19th century, saw his shortcomings in an inability to foresee the 
course of events.  Interpreting Morphy's thoughts, one can say that he
reproached Staunton for his insufficiently dynamic play.

  "The struggle for the dynamic realisation of a plan consists of looking
for the shortest way and the most energetic means of achieving the objective."


Hear, hear!  I have to admit, I'm guilty.  One of those of the negative school
of chess, those restraint guys, those Petrosian/Ulf Andersson monsters.  No
longer.  If you don't get this book, all I can say is, well, I feel free to 
use what I gain from this book against you!? :)

Dennis Baker
<DCBCS@uno.edu>