Chessville
...by Chessplayers, for Chessplayers!

Today is

Site Map

If you have disabled Java for your browser, use the Site Map (linked in the header and footer).

Chessville
logo by
ChessPrints

Advertise
with
Chessville!!

Advertise to
thousands
of chess
fans for
as little
as $25.

Single insert:
$35
x4 insert:
@ $25 each.

From the
Chessville
Chess Store

An Introduction to Chess Strategy for the Novice Player

Controlling the Center: Pawns or Pieces
or
“What the Heck is the Center?”

“Control the center” is a battle cry written in every chess book from the beginner level on up. If someone ever writes the chess book equivalent of “Pat the Bunny”, I am sure that one of the pictures it will contain (in a nice soft felt panel I am sure) will be of a center. Down through the ages, interpreting the center is almost as contentious as actually vying for it. Early masters quickly figured out that if they were able to place a pawn on e4 and d4 or e5 and d5, they would have an excellent chance of limiting their opponent’s operations and perhaps carrying out an attack. Since control of the center is often a prerequisite for an attack, this approach often yielded stunning results in an age of poor defensive techniques. Once again, it was Steinitz who refined the concept of “the center” into a principal that everybody could use. Masters of the Classical or Scientific school occupied the center with pawns as a means of control. It was no accident that double king pawn openings like the Ruy Lopez and the Queen’s Gambit Declined begin to emerge during the period from 1880-1910. These openings are still played today at the highest level, which is a testament to the concept of controlling the center by occupying it with pawns.

The center can be occupied or controlled. In classical openings like the Ruy Lopez or the Queen’s Gambit Declined, both sides attempt to occupy the center and maintain pawns on key squares. The Hypermodern School argued that it was better to control squares with pieces rather than pawns. Aaron Nimzowitsch and Richard Reti were two of the leading proponents of this school. Centers can either be maintained or attacked and destabilized. Most openings revolve around trying to accomplish one or the other. The Steinitz Defense to the Ruy Lopez is an example of an opening where black attempts to maintain a strong center at the cost of a cramped game. The defense goes as follows:

The Steinitz Defense to the Ruy Lopez

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 exd4 6.Nxd4

This one of the earliest defenses to the Ruy Lopez, having been explored by none other than Lopez himself in 1561. Wilhelm Steinitz popularized it and Emanuel Lasker played it as well.

Alekhine,A - Brinckmann,A (1927)

[click here for an interactive board]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6

This is the start of the Steinitz Defense to the Ruy Lopez.

4.d4

White begins the attack on the Black pawn center.

4...Bd7

Develops a piece and breaks the pin on the Knight.

5.Nc3

Develops a piece and threatens Bxc6 followed by dxe5, winning a pawn.

5...Nf6

Black counterattacks the pawn on e4.

6.Bxc6 Bxc6 7.Qd3

Defending his e pawn and preparing to castle Queenside.

7...exd4

Black liquidates his center.

8.Nxd4 g6 9.Bg5 Bg7 10.0–0–0 Qd7 11.h3 0–0 12.Rhe1 Rfe8

Both sides are fully developed.

Now it is Black who is attacking White's center. Can White maintain his center?

13.Qf3 Nh5 14.g4 Bxd4

Black exchanges pieces to relieve a cramped position.

15.Rxd4

15...Ng7 16.Bf6 Re6 17.Rdd1 Ne8 18.Bd4

White's center is still solid and Black has a serious weakness on the dark squares around his King.

18...Qe7 19.Re3 Ng7 20.Qf4 Qh4 21.Rde1 Rae8

Black is nothing if not stubborn. He is still trying to undermine the white center by attacking it with pieces.

22.b3 a5 23.a4 b6

There will be no attack on the Queenside.

24.Kb2 R8e7 25.Qh2 Ne8 26.f4

The Kingside is another story however.

26...Nf6

Four pieces attack the e-pawn, but only three defend it.

27.f5

27...Rxe4

Black sacrifices an exchange for a pawn to free his game.

28.Nxe4 Nxe4 29.Qf4

Threatening to win the Knight.

29...g5 30.Qf1 d5 31.c4

Black finally gets a center and posts his Knight on e4. White immediately attacks the center pawn on d5.

31...Qh6 32.f6

Cutting off the Black Queen.

32...Re8 33.cxd5 Bxd5 34.Qf5

Black resigns in light of the fact that he is losing the Knight. 34...Nd6 35.Rxe8 Nxe8 is mate. 34... Bc6 35 Rxe4 Bxe4 36. Rxe4 leaves White a piece up with a won game. 1–0

One of the more annoying aspects of chess literature is when a writer or annotator states that White or Black stands better, but without telling the reader why. If we examine the position after move 15, the following attributes stand out:

1) White has total control of the center
2) He is preparing a kingside attack
3) Black, while he has successfully developed his pieces, is reduced to playing passive defense.
4) In addition to the struggle over the center, White’s control of the e-file eventually cements his victory.

This does not create an outright win for White, but it puts him in the position of having the initiative and Black is going to have to play accurately just to draw. While the Steinitz Defense has lost popularity over the last seven decades because of this, it takes a skilled attacker to crack it open. Both Steinitz and Emanuel Lasker used this defense to good effect but not everybody has the temperament to play it.

I am including some additional games, including one by the defense’s namesake. As can be seen from the selections, Black does not always lose.

Gavilan/Ponce - Steinitz,W [C62]
Havana+ Havana, 1888
[click here for an interactive board]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 exd4 6.Nxd4 g6 7.Nce2 Bg7 8.c3 Nf6 9.Bg5 0–0 10.Qa4 Ne5 11.Bxd7 Nd3+ 12.Kf1 Nc5 13.Qc2 Ncxd7 14.f4 c6 15.Ng3 Qb6 16.Re1 Rfe8 17.h3 Nc5 18.Kg1 Ne6 19.Rd1 Nd7 20.Qf2 Ndc5 21.Nxe6 Nxe6 22.Qxb6 axb6 23.a3 h6 24.Bh4 Nxf4 0–1

Lasker,E - Steinitz,W [C62]
World Championship Match, USA/CAN (5), 27.03.1894
[click here for an interactive board]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 Nge7 6.Bc4 exd4 7.Nxd4 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Qe3 Be6 10.Nd5 Be7 11.Bd2 0–0 12.0–0 Ne5 13.Bb3 Bxd5 14.Bxd5 c6 15.Bb3 Nd7 16.Rad1 a5 17.c3 a4 18.Bc2 Re8 19.Qh3 Nf8 20.Be3 Qa5 21.a3 Qb5 22.Bc1 Rad8 23.Rd4 d5 24.exd5 Bc5 25.Rf4 Ng6 26.c4 Qa6 27.Bxg6 fxg6 28.Rh4 h5 29.Bg5 Rd6 30.dxc6 Qxc6 31.Qf3 Qxf3 32.gxf3 Re2 33.Bc1 Rxf2 34.Rxf2 Rd1+ 35.Kg2 Bxf2 36.Kxf2 Rxc1 37.Kg3 b6 38.Rd4 Rc2 39.Rd8+ Kh7 40.Rb8 Rxb2 41.Ra8 g5 42.Rxa4 h4+ 43.Kh3 Rf2 44.Rb4 Rxf3+ 45.Kg4 Rxa3 46.Rxb6 Ra2 47.Kxg5 Rxh2 48.Rb3 Rh1 49.Rc3 h3 50.Kg4 ½–½

Young,R (2300) - Zuckerman,B (2460) [C62]
New York Open, New York, 1990
[click here for an interactive board]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 exd4 6.Nxd4 g6 7.Be3 Bg7 8.Qd2 Nf6 9.f3 0–0 10.Bxc6 bxc6 11.Bh6 Re8 12.Bxg7 Kxg7 13.0–0–0 c5 14.Nde2 Qe7 15.g4 Bc6 16.Ng3 Nd7 17.h4 Ne5 18.f4 Nxg4 19.h5 Rh8 20.Qe2 Nf6 21.Rhe1 Rae8 22.Qa6 Qd7 23.e5 Ng4 24.Qe2 f5 25.exf6+ Nxf6 26.Qd2 Bf3 27.Rxe8 Rxe8 28.Rg1 Nxh5 29.Nxh5+ Bxh5 30.Nd5 Re4 31.b4 Rd4 32.Qc3 Qf7 33.Ne3 Qxf4 34.bxc5 dxc5 35.Kb1 Qe5 36.Kc1 Re4 37.Qxe5+ Rxe5 38.Nc4 Re4 39.Nd2 Re7 40.Kb2 Be2 0–1