Quotes Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy

Exceptions from abstract rules and principles 

...there may be games in which one should make only two pawn moves and develop a new piece with every move, but there are so many 'exceptions' that to take such a guideline to heart would merely limit one's strength as a player.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

The rule which states that 'a player with more space should avoid exchanges', for example, is so riddled with exceptions as to have lost its usefulness.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

...a guideline, which has very many exceptions and yet is still a useful thing to ponder over the board, is the idea of improving the position of one's worst piece.    
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

Abstract rules, principles, and dogma  

Memorize opening variations, endgame techniques, combinations, ideas, even whole games if you can, but not rules and dogma.   
– Mihai Suba, Dynamic Chess Strategy   

…mechanical application of chess rules would be disastrous.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

…abstract rules and principles are of limited usefulness.  
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy  

…any chess principles should be learned in a realistic context, with attendant ambiguities, and also with plenty of counter-examples. 
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy 

…as [Jonathan] Tisdall absolutely correctly says, rules "gain more general relevance the later the stage of the game they refer to", and therefore I acknowledge that endgame principles are definitely worth paying heed to.   But even in that stage of the game, as any prolonged association with grandmasters will teach you, a concrete knowledge-base of countless specific positions both informs those rules and is essential to their correct application.  
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy  

Modern chess players  

…modern players will often neglect development for structure, allow backward pawns in the opening, move pawns in front of their king, attack the front of a pawnchain, and advance flank pawns when the central situation is unresolved.

On the other hand, they will just as often do the traditional thing (develop quickly, avoid backward pawns, keep kingside pawns on their original squares, etc.).   

We found that bad bishops are often not bad at all, that knights can be strong on the edge of the board, and worst of all, that the knight-pair can be superior to the bishop-pair in either very closed, semi-closed, or wide-open positions! You can successfully grab flank pawns in the opening with your queen when you're staggeringly behind in development; or you can do so and quickly be mated. And so forth when it comes to exchange sacrifices, prophylaxis, etc.     
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

When real chess improvement takes place  

Once we accept that general rules are inadequate to lift our play to the next level, the question of what constitutes chess knowledge can be addressed.  
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy  

Experience and thoughtful study will provide you with a better and more delicate positional judgement than a set of rules ever could. Good players look at concrete sequences of moves and assess the resulting positions, not according to some artificial construct about which piece likes which kind of position, but in line with their own judgement, refined by years of thinking about similar positions.  
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy  

…we are looking at concrete games and positions. This is the level at which real improvement takes place; you have to develop your intuition and judgement by studying countless actual situations. I think the frustrated player desiring to achieve mastery has to confront that reality before anything else.  
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy  

Why should we follow the advices they don't follow themselves…  

…just about every instructional book or magazine article out there… Haven't you seen it time and again: "Don't memorize openings; just learn the 'principles' behind them" … "you shouldn't be trying to learn by heart; understanding the 'ideas' is what really counts" … "young players spend too much time learning openings, when they should be mastering the fundamental principles of the game", and so forth?  

This advice is given with a straight face by strong grandmasters whose entire time is occupied by (and whose chess upbringing consisted primarily of) studying and memorizing opening variations and whole games!   

And if this were an endgame book, I could say something less strong but similar: grandmaster authors who for years were drilled and inundated with the memorization of specific endings breezily inform their readers that they shouldn't be learning a lot of specific endings by heart, but rather be absorbing fine principles about rooks behind passed pawns and bringing the king into play!  
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy  

Middlegame books in general,  
'How-to-improve' chess books   

As [Mihai] Suba complains about middlegame books in general, they teach 'only the art of playing against very weak opposition', i.e. someone who has given us every advantage which we could desire, without bothering to create counterplay.   

So the first question for those of you looking to improve your game is: do existing instructional books help by showing you such unambiguous examples? My answer would be that, above the 1800 level, this is at best only marginally helpful. Good players won't give you such a stereotyped minor-piece advantage; and if you go by rules like 'open the position when you have the bishops', or if you dawdle and try to 'close the position when you have the knights', you will consistently be killed by players who understand how seldom and poorly such rules apply.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

'How-to-improve' chess books may well be able to raise the level of your practical skills or even your rating (although I am sceptical of the degree to which they can do so beyond a certain playing strength). But they won't do much, if anything, for your knowledge of the game itself. Such books can only deal with one side of the equation, for example, thinking techniques, psychological approaches, and sporting considerations (e.g., time management, repertoire choice, and the like). But your knowledge of the interplay of positional and tactical elements, and the paradoxical nuances of initiative and momentum, for example, are a separate and ultimately more important realm.      
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

About rejecting rules   

One must always keep in mind the difference between a description of play and the play itself.   
For all I will say about rejecting rules, it is still true that we must use them as tools when annotating a game.   

…there is no substitute for saying something like: "and Black stands better because of his two bishops and White's backward pawn on the open d-file." One simply has to bear in mind that such a statement has an implied subtext, for example:   
"Black stands better because, although there are many cases of two bishops being inferior, this is not one of them, since the knights in this particular position have no useful outposts and White can't play the pawn-break that might force force a transformation of the pawn structure leading to the creation of an outpost (or he could do so, but at the cost of allowing a strong attack against his king, as shown by this variation…, etc.). Also, although backward pawns are perfectly acceptable in many positions, the one in this exact position is actually weak because it lacks the protection of a bishop on e2 and White can't implement the dynamic pawn-breaks by b4 or d4 which would normally justify taking on such a backward pawn. For example, 23 b4 would fail to …", and so forth.   

Naturally, we don't kill trees for the sake of such explanations, which in reality are usually even more complicated and qualified than the one I have given.   
Instead, we use abbreviated statements of principles as indicators to guide the reader's thoughts in the direction of our own.   
It is very important to realize that a player's use of such descriptions in written notes by no means implies he had given thought to them during the game.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

Treatment of a normal central pawn-mass with two leading pawns   

If one's pieces can't follow and support the attack, central pawn advances tend (with exceptions, of course) to be premature.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

…the pawn advance…derived its strength from the readiness of the pieces behind them to occupy central squares.   
– Aron Nimzowitsch   

Pawn majorities queenside   

Steinitz first drew attention to the subject of pawn majorities as a separate element of the game. For years thereafter, teachers and theoreticians put great stock in majorities, and in particular, in the queenside majority, which was supposed to be a significant advantage.   

How often have we read an annotator saying that one side or another has an advantage due to his queenside majority? But as chess has evolved, the value of the queenside majority has become controversial.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

Pawn majority – Pawn minority   

…we have just seen positions in which a minority is more effective than a majority. Furthermore, the advance of a majority will often simply expose weaknesses behind the very pawns which have advanced.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

Pawn majorities are only useful if they are mobile   

One of Nimzowitsch's contributions was in focusing on the mobility of pawn majorities, i.e., to point out that majorities are only useful to the extent that they are mobile. He also systematically worked at restricting the mobility of majorities in his own games.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

Queenside majorities still wins…   

Nevertheless, one can still find examples of effective queenside majorities.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

Doubled pawns   

Nimzowitsch developed a theory about the restraint of doubled pawns, considering them much like passed pawns, i.e., full of dynamic potential if they were allowed to remain mobile.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

…Nimzowitsch did a great deal to modernize the treatment of doubled pawns.   
…he developed… the Nimzo-Indian (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4) and French Winawer (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4), in which the move …Bxc3 tended to create doubled pawns in a great many variations.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy    

Nimzowitsch's work set the standard for the modern view of doubled pawns, and we still see his ideas used in the opening named after him.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

Today, players allow doubled pawns in all kinds of positions, merely because they know that the weaknesses can't be exploited, or because those pawns are useful in covering squares or even helpful in attack.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

In a majority of cases the doubled pawns are still a disadvantage    

Needless to say, doubled pawns are still a disadvantage to their possessor in a majority of cases. But today, we have come far from the dogma which used to dominate theory, and the decision to take on doubled pawns has become a pragmatic one, based upon potentially compensating factors.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

The isolated ('isolani') queen's pawn ('IQP') d4 white/d5 black    

…in the absence of a second weakness, it is often impossible for the side playing against the isolani to convert his advantage in the endgame to a win. The presence of a defensible back-up position (when things go wrong) is one reason why IQP positions are still quite respectable in selected openings.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

A plan    

There is a popular opinion that the highest strategic art is the ability to envelop nearly the whole game in a profound plan, and that this is precisely how leading grandmasters think. This is a delusion. It is nonsensical to map out an overly long plan – the very next move could totally change the situation on the board and give it a completely different direction.   
– Mark Dvoretsky    

Statistically   

…the bishop-pair is statistically superior under all of the above material distributions.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

While it bears repeating that the strength of the bishops or knights is dependent upon the particular features of the position, it is also true that in a majority of actually arising positions, the two bishops will beat either the knight-pair or a bishop and knight.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

Overrated knights, 
Overrated knight outposts, 
Play around the outpost   

There have been some interesting developments in the assessment and use of knight outposts.   

Increasingly, players allow attractive knights to nestle in their position, because those knights achieve little and/or are only established by allowing concessions elsewhere.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

The English Opening and Sicilian Defence provide some well-known examples of outposts which appear stronger than they are.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 g6 4.g3 Bg7 5.Bg2 e5 6.0-0 Nge7 7.d3 0-0 8.a3 d6 9.Rb1 a5 10.Bd2 Rb8 11.Ne1 Be6 12.Nd5 b5 13.Nxe7+ Nxe7 14.cxb5 Rxb5 15.b4 axb4 16.axb4 c4! …and Black was better (superior centre) in Csom – Hartoch, Skopje Olympiad 1972.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

The main line of the Sveshnikov Sicilian provides an example of a rather powerful white knight on d5 vis-à-vis a backward pawn on an open file.   
Again, Black often just 'works around' the knight and obtains activity for his two bishops and rooks.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

A final point to make about overrated knights has to do with knight outposts on the sixth rank. Traditionally, knight outposts on the sixth rank have been considered towers of strength, and barring a quick exchange of the infiltrating steed, the defence was supposed to crumble in short order. To be fair, knights on the sixth, if well-secured, can be very powerful. But players and annotators today are aware that this is just a probabilistic advantage, not a hard-and-fast rule.   

Any number of playes in their notes have made the point that sometimes, such advanced knights merely spectate while the action takes place elsewhere. It has also been remarked upon that the farther the advanced knight is from the centre (assuming that it isn't parked right in front of the enemy king), the less effective that knight is likely to be.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

Superfluous knight outpost,  
Avoid exchanging opponents superfluous knights   

…knights can be superfluous, in that two of them may be competing for the only available outpost, so that one will end up being relatively less effective.    
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

The knight pair are never happy protecting each other. Then, they step on each other's hooves, and reduce their own range. When protecting each other they often become paralysed in this configuration. They are best when employed side by side, when they can influence a virtual barrier of squares.   
– Jonathan Tisdall, Improve Your Chess Now   

The exchange sacrifice (= The sacrifice of a rook for a bishop or an knight)   

The increasing frequency of the exchange sacrifice is probably the most widely-acknowledged change in modern chess technique.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

…when we look at the analysis of the older masters in tournament books, games collections, and opening books. Time and again, variations are dismissed because one side or the other wins the exchange, although the other side might have a pawn, active play, and an 'obviously' better game if that exchange is captured.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

The exchange sacrifices are played in order to establish long-term advantages, long-term initiative or long-term attack.   

Prophylaxis   

Taken from the Greek word prophylaktikos, meaning to guard or prevent beforehand…   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

Dynamism   

In the context of today's game, we see that more and more players today are employing opening strategies in which dynamic considerations predominate.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

One's real positional understanding   

…the GM doesn't spend much (if any) of his time in a position thinking "is that outpost strong for my knight?" or even "how do I improve the position of my worst piece?". Rather, he already knows how good or bad the knight is there, and automatically takes into account the badly-placed piece. He simultaneously weighs such factors in with a few hundred other considerations, most of which he is familiar with because he has faced similar positions before. Sure, he might occasionally 'step back' from the board and consider general issues, but anyone who has analysed extensively with strong players knows that the concrete possibilities in analysis dominate, with such positional factors being simply imbued in the play itself… One's real positional understanding increases non-verbally as one refines one's judgement.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

Intuition   

…when players must calculate to a certain depth in a position and then simply make an intuitive judgement about whether the resulting situation will be favourable or not.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy    

Rook endings   

…rook endings are not particularly drawish.  
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

Draw – the result of a perfectly played chess game    

…what is the proper result of a perfectly played chess game?
As you probably already know, it is a draw.   

Of course, I can't prove this, but I doubt that you can find a single strong player who would disagree.   
– John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy   

Well, chess is a draw.   
– Garry Kasparov