Questions of Modern Chess Theory (Lipnitsky, 2008)

Questions of Modern Chess Theory (Lipnitsky, 2008)

A Soviet Classic

Questions of Modern Chess Theory is the lost masterpiece of Soviet chess literature. It was written by a two-time Ukrainian Champion, and published in the Soviet Union in 1956. Russian experts say it is one of the most influential chess books of the 20th century, yet it has never been published in English. Questions of Modern Chess Theory has been edited to make it useful for the 21st century and is now accessible for the first time to an English-speaking audience.

About the Author
Isaac Lipnitsky was a major player on the Soviet chess scene just after World War Two, strong enough to take the scalps of Keres, Smyslov and Petrosian. He would no doubt have been a household name had he not tragically passed away at a young age in 1959.

p.76 The immense merit of the outstanding representatives of the Russian chess school... lies precisely in promoting the sole correct method of approaching the evaluation of a position, the essence of which is to establish the objective truth by means of analysis... various chess rules... are now applied not dogmatically but imaginatively, with a direct and specific regard for all the possibilities inherent in the position.

p.82 It is naive to fear that with the evolution of theory and the disclosure of its secrets, the chess struggle may at some time lose its attractiveness and be reduced simply to the application of ready-made formulae.

p.85 the validity of any chess laws and maxims is wholly dependent on the concrete circumstances.

p.87 To sum up, we may say that the correct assessment of a position is inconceivable without probing deeply into its content - without specific attention to its obvious and, especially, its concealed factors. A concrete, creative decision is not at all a denial of chess generalities, since the rejection of some laws and maxims - which are often obvious ones - is counterbalanced by the affirmation of others which perhaps are more covert.

p.88 We may agree to divide all chess positions into two categories: "critical" and "settled" positions. Settled positions are those which can be assessed according to a number of positional factors without any additional calculation of variations.

p.90 The foregoing examples show that in evaluating "settled" positions, the calculation of variations plays a secondary subordinate role, conceding the central place to various positional factors.

It is a much more complicated matter to evaluate positions which have not assumed a settled character. It is these unclear, as yet unsettled, positions that I propose to call critical.

p.90 The vast majority of positions that a chessplayer encounters fall within the "critical" category... A position of this kind has to be subjected to diligent analysis - in other words, you have to resort to calculating a range of variations. Analysis permits you to envisage the various ways in which the position may develop further. It is only after studying the dynamics of a critical position that you can judge it correctly and select an effective plan or move.

Thus, the true evaluation of a critical position is very largely dependent on analysis. On the other hand, analysis itself means evaluating the positions that arise one after the other in the process of calculating variations. A kind of closed circle is formed; analysis leans on evaluation, and evaluation flows from analysis. Is this logically understandable?

p.90 The goal of analysis is to arrive at a position that is not 'critical' but 'settled' in character.

p.98 I have already said that the aim of analysis is to convert "critical" positions into "settled" ones which can be evaluated on the basis of familiar positional factors. Correct understanding of the position is therefore of decisive significance for a chessplayer.

p.98 It has to be acknowledged that mastering the art of positional chess is extremely difficult, but it is imperative to work towards it if you want to progress as a player.

p.166 in Capablanca's words, "the fundamental principle of the middlegame consists in co-ordinating the pieces" which have already been brought into action.