p.42 a Queen and a Knight may be stronger than a Queen and a Bishop.
p.115, 116, 117 The Middle Game
Very little has been written on this subject. There is a book by Znosko-Borovsky called "The Middle
Game in Chess." It is about the only book on the subject that I consider worth reading... there is, in my opinion,
a fundamental error at the very beginning of the book that makes more obscure the rest of the treatise.
At the very beginning of the book the author says: " The elements of chess are: -
1. Force, which is displayed in the Chessmen, or pieces, and acts in
2. Space, represented by the chess board, and
3. Time, developing with the moves." ... It is true that later he [Znosko-Borovsky] speaks
of the valuation of position, and of superior and inferior positions, but this does not correct the original statement. The
fact is that chess consists of those three elements plus the inherent element of position, and that position
is first, last, and foremost. Position, as the word indicates, has reference to the location of the pieces on the
board; and it is generally valued by the greater or lesser mobility of the pieces, plus the pressure that these pieces
may exert against different points of the chess-board, or against certain pieces of the opponent... This does not mean that
you should neglect any of the other three elements, but that you should give pre-eminence to the element of position.
p.120 the underlying principle of the middle game: "Co-ordinating the action of the pieces."
p.138,139 Valuation of Position in the Middle Game [section title] To judge accurately
the value of an involved position is one of the most difficult things in chess... The first thing
to look at is material. If one side is one pawn ahead that constitutes an advantage, and very often a decisive advantage
among players of equal strength. To upset such an advantage there must be for the other player a much greater freedom of action
for his pieces (that would generally be in Space), or he would need to have the possibility of a strong attack against some
weak point which would result in his recovering at least the Pawn lost. As a compensation he might also have an attack against
the King involving the possibility of mate. This latter alternative would be much more common among average players, as they
are generally more apt to see a chance for an attack against the King than for an attack against weak points.
The second thing to consider would be the greater or lesser freedom of the pieces together
with the greater of lesser chances of co-ordinating their action. A cramped position is a bad position. An open position
with freedom for the pieces, but with the pieces so placed that their action cannot be co-ordinated for some time, is a bad
position. In general the things to consider are: - Force, Freedom of manoeuvre, and Co-ordination of the action of
the pieces.
p.139-151[Capablanca evaluates several positions]
p.201-202 In the middle game:
1. Co-ordinate the action of your pieces.
2. Control of the centre is essential to a successful attack against the King.
3. Direct and violent attacks against the King must be made en masse, with full force,
to ensure their success. The opposition must be overcome at all cost; the attack cannot be broken off, because that
generally means defeat.
4. Other things being equal, any material gain, no matter how small, means success.
5. Position comes first; material next. Space and Time are complementary factors of Position.
6. If the game will go to an ending for a decision, consider the type of ending to come before exchanging
pieces.
