<The Romantic Era: Morphy and Anderssen In spite of the diversity of options, a careful observer of chess history will not miss the fact that some dominant ideas and characteristics mark its crucial periods. We shall start by observing the time and ideas of Paul Morphy and Adolf Anderssen.

Before them, the interpretations of the centre were characterized by a certain naivety of pioneer days or in the best case they can be ascribed to a small number of great masters of the chessboard living and playing ahead of their time. In the play of Morphy and Anderssen, as well as the young Steinitz and a number of other masters, we perceive for the first time that the stormy, brilliant games characterizing the second half of the 19th century were governed by a well-studied method of play in the open positions that generally arose. The chess master of the period did not build a pawn-centreand he did not use pawns to occupy the vital squares of the board. On the contrary, pawns were used to disintegrate the centre, which rapidly became open following early exchanges. It is that disintegrating, open centre we can look upon as characteristic of the period and the method of play can be seen as the most valuable legacy of the epoch. A couple of selected games will illustrate the point.>

Selected games: Morphy vs Adolf Anderssen, 1858, J Rosanes vs Adolf Anderssen, 1862 (year given as 1861)

<The lesson of these short, exciting games is clear. In the sharp positions arising from the king’s pawn openings, the aim of both sides was to develop quickly, to seize the initiative and to attack first. In order to achieve that, no sacrifice was considered too risky. Chess was played with delight and abandon. With such an attitude underpinning it, the game of chess was an open fight. The centre was subordinate to the principle of development. The structure often broke down in the early phase of the game. The central pawns were exchanged or sacrificed in order to seize the initiative. The centre was open, inviting vivid tactical play. It was time that counted; each tempo was priceless.

In parallel with the maturing of the positional school, in the 1920s and 1930s a new school of thought developed. They called themselves 'hypermoderns' and their ideas had a dramatic impact on the problem of the pawn-centre. Their spiritual leaders, Aron Nimzowitsch and Richard Réti, published their revolutionary works in the 1920s. Réti's New Ideas in Chess came out in 1922, while Nimzowitsch's editions of My System started in Berlin in 1925. These two books left an indelible trace in the decades to come. They felt that the fixed centre limited the scope for imaginative play, directing plans towards well-trodden paths. They also rejected the emphasis placed on 'rules' in previous teachings. Striving to do so, they introduced some utterly new concepts. Especially significant was their view of the centre. Considering it a principle of opening strategy, they supported the view that the centre should neither be occupied by pawns nor left to disintegrate. The centre, they proclaimed, should be controlled by pieces. It meant completely new pawn-structures in the centre, flexible use of pawns in the early phase of the game and maximum cooperation of pawns and pieces. Whole new openings were born on that basis: the Nimzo-Indian and the Queen's Indian Defence in the first place, but also the Réti Opening, the Alekhine Defence and some minor things as well.>

Selected games: Reti vs A Pokorny, 1923, Nimzowitsch vs Spielmann, 1927

<…These games by Réti and Nimzowitsch convincingly demonstrate the advantages of the new theoretical outlook on the pawn-centre. In the early phase of the game they use pawns sparingly. This saves time for the development of pieces, which exercise their power on some of the central squares. As a rule, a fianchettoed bishop, whose diagonal cuts across the centre, and a knight focus their efforts on one of these squares. The control of the centre is often enhanced by the pin of an enemy piece that might otherwise exert influence on the relevant central square. The game is characterized by the clever use of bishops on the diagonals and the coordinated activity of knights. In Réti’s game it is his fianchettoed light-squared bishop on the long diagonal, and in Nimzowitsch’s game his dark-squared bishop and king’s knight which focus their activity on e5. The other bishop pins the knight at c6, thereby achieving total domination of the e5-square. When the stage has been set, the pawns can be engaged to open the position and seize the initiative.

The consequence of such reasoning is visible in the pawn-formations. We move from the classical, symmetrical structures to new, restricted central set-ups, more flexible and increasingly distant from the traditional ideal.

The Post-War Soviets

Selected games: Szabo vs Boleslavsky, 1950, F Zita vs Bronstein, 1946

<The games we have just analyzed remain the cornerstones of the King’s Indian Defence and of the new concept of the centre in general. With Boleslavsky and Bronstein we cross a new frontier.

The movement away from the classical ideals and towards newer forms, more dynamic and more flexible, started with Nimzowitsch. This led to the rise of openings with asymmetrical pawn-formations, a tendency that grew stronger in the decades after the Second World War and found its full expression in the Benoni and numerous systems of the Sicilian Defence.

Together with these new concepts we recognize in the games of the Post-War generations one more fundamental element of modern chess – its dynamic character.

This trend was already clear in the 1930s, most notably in the games of Alexander Alekhine, who belonged to a school of thought that knew no prejudices. He came to the conclusion that while action is being taken on the board all the static values lose their significance, so that the assessment of the position depends exclusively on the value of the action itself. The 1950s and 1960s saw continued investigations in the field of bold play based on mobile, aggressive pawn-structures. Players were prepared to seize the initiative by all possible means, including positional sacrifices and taking into account psychological considerations. This aggressive modern style launched to the chess summit Mikhail Tal, who possessed one of the keenest chess minds ever. …Fearless, of penetrating mind and stunningly quick calculation, Tal was ready to take every risk imaginable. He was an idol of the crowd, but also the leader of an audacious generation of great explorers whose domain consisted of dynamic new systems built on asymmetrical pawn-structures and whose weapon was the initiative.>

Selected games: Tal vs Tolush, 1956, Averbakh vs Tal, 1958

<Neither this nor the previous one were flawless games, but they are characteristic of the period in terms of the pawn-structure, the aggressive mood and the psychological subtleties – a true testimony of the time!