Chess is an intellectual art. Not to object means to agree Philosophy of chess game

Chess philosophy.

The phrase itself is intriguing. Especially because today it exists non-authoritatively and outside the system. It is significant how the concept of chess philosophy is recalled by experienced chess player and coach I. Zaitsev, who, before the Kasparov-Kramnik match in London, wrote about Kasparov like this: “On the side of the multiple world champion, in addition to his vast knowledge, rich experience and fantastic combinational abilities, there is, as I suppose, one more component , the existence of which most chess players may not even suspect. (Interesting, interesting! - SA). By saying this, I mean a complete philosophical concept that allows you to make the transition from the art of playing chess to the art of chess. (A vague wording - let's wait for an explanation! - SA). But neither Kasparov himself nor anyone else has ever told me anything affirmative about the existence of such a system of views.

However, those who have ears, let them hear! Behind separate unexpected reprises and reasonings of the most general order, slipping in Kasparov's comments, the contours of the philosophical platform are undoubtedly guessed. In order not to be unfounded, I will quote a short statement that I read from Kasparov a few years ago, which sounds something like this: at the basis of any opening system lies a small tactical nuance (in other words, “a river begins from a blue stream”). For the accuracy of this formulation, I could vouch for all my many years of activity as an analyst.

And that is all. The mountain gave birth to a mouse - the existence of a complete philosophical platform is proved by one private statement, and an attempt to collect material documenting the "contours" has not even been made. But thanks to Zaitsev for at least a snapshot of the situation. He noted that many chess players are unaware of the existence of a chess philosophy (or its section on the transition "from the art of playing chess to the art of chess").

However, tautological transition aside! Now let chess philosophy be something hidden. It is still necessary for a growing chess player who needs guidelines and finds them wherever he needs to. Let a mature player hardly try to generalize. I admit that it seems shameful to a professional to talk about abstract things. There are specific options and positions, and any generalization is the risk of breaking away from solid ground.

When a chess player tries to formulate and abstract, he won't gather many words. There are several great formulas about the game - Botvinnik liked to repeat after Capablanca "you must always play in position", Alekhine said that at each move you need to force the opponent to play with your head, Tal similarly advised giving the opponent an opportunity to make a mistake (that's why he was a great counter ). Clear truths that are forgotten first and therefore should be repeated.

The paradoxical statement of Petrosyan, who said that a positional superiority is proved by a tactical strike, is more complicated - his aphorism generalizes real experience. S.Dolmatov spoke amazingly about the assessment of the Sicilian - he once said that if all the pieces are removed, then the resulting pawn structure is better for Black and almost all Sicilian endgames, therefore, should be with an advantage for Black.

There are also some unauthorized aphorisms like "pawns don't move back" and advice like "change all active opponent's pieces". Not enough, very specific, without attempts to further generalize, although it really has to do with chess.

An essential part of chess philosophy is immersed in positional teaching - from Philidor and Steinitz to Reti and Nimzowitsch. The general principles of the game here are adapted to examples, but step over them. True, in this bundle one can see a real philosophical contradiction. Not every principle can be generalized without limitation. The principles imply the classification of positions and binding to certain structures. Therefore, Philidor suddenly turns out to be the greatest genius - he understood one of the main motives for classifying positions - the pawn structure. This is how Bent Larsen described him: “The greatest in the history of chess is, without a doubt, Philidor. At the end of the 17th century, he formulated the principles that we still use today. No one seems to be so ahead of their time!”

So, the choice of examples from one's own practice may, for example, call into question the universality of Nimzowitsch's teaching. He was a very original player who explained well his way of playing and his vision of chess. His terms have come into use. But their applicability runs into its limitations, which are no longer so systematized.

Well, and then many great chess players weren't as good writers as Nimzowitsch. They could potentially formulate the rules of the game for themselves, for their favorite positions, but they didn't. Fortunately, there are their parties and the transfer of ideas is possible in a non-verbal (non-verbal) way. The greats often recall that someone's games determined their attitude to the game - Karpov commemorates Capablanca, Polgar - Keres, Kramnik - Karpov. There could be incredibly many examples, real genealogical trees of continuity could be built.

Reti recalls how Capablanca surprised him by not making an obvious developmental move in one of their advisory games, but by playing a specific variation and gaining an advantage. From this impression, it seems, hypermodernism arose, as games not for abstract development, but games “under the idea”. Reti verbalized Capablanca.

Who is verbalizing modern game who can describe it in words? I would say that this happens continuously, but no one systematizes the results.

Modern chess philosophy manifests itself in comments on games, in the conversations of professionals about chess, in the instructions of coaches, in the general discussions that the interviewed chess players engage in (those “unexpected reprises” that Zaitsev mentioned are just about this). There is no generalization.

After all, part of chess philosophy, by analogy with other professional systems, is the rules for adapting general behavior to game situations and observing the peculiarities of chess, which chess players do all the time.

A real philosophy should teach about the world and its faces, such as phenomena, events, and people, their closeness and difference, give an idea of ​​the goals of human existence. As a limit, it is intended to give a system of views and guidance to the correct behavior of man in the world. Chess philosophy does the same at the level of private statements, but it will not create a single system in any way.

Everyone who has achieved something in chess talks about their attitude to the game, about their understanding of chess, formulates rules of conduct, develops various considerations about everything in and around chess. But there are no general classifications, no hierarchy, no division, not even headings. The hubbub of merged voices, characteristic of the chess press, is partly even sympathetic. But he buries a lot of excellent thoughts, interesting considerations, beautiful ideas, catchy biographical details. Once upon a time, when the number of chess heroes was limited to two dozen, everything seemed to be in plain sight, in any case, every vivid detail was replicated by journalists endlessly. Now almost nothing is repeated and just falls into the archives.

It would be quite accessible to set as a goal to introduce headings of topics into chess polyphony and partially fill them with statements. How it would look, I will try to present further.

What will the collection of quotes give?

Revelations about chess.

Jaan Ehlvest

"Chess is a very intense game, it permeates you."

Bent Larsen

“I always believed that the spirit in chess should prevail over matter... But to play like Tal, you need to have a lot of energy!”

"In chess there is no pronounced criterion of "correctness" - they are diverse."

Growth targets.

Lajos Portisch

“It seems to me that I started playing chess late - at the age of 12. At this moment, many skills that could be acquired at the level of instincts, if you start playing at the age of five or six, you basically have to educate yourself - and this may affect sometime in the future ... "

Bent Larsen

“I am a typical self-mader. I didn't have a mentor, I can't say that I especially read chess books. With the exception of Nimzowitsch's books, I can't name anyone who made a special impression on me... I just worked a lot on chess."

“Everything comes with experience... Understanding your own strength and your own weakness - at some point you begin to understand yourself better, and a qualitative leap occurs... It was convenient for me that, while playing, maybe not in the strongest tournaments, I had a wide field for experiments with his own style. At that moment, I could run different tournaments in a completely different manner. I became more experienced, my horizons expanded - most importantly, I was not afraid of mistakes and spared no time to correct them. I also brought up fighting qualities ... "

Sergei Rublevsky.

“You quickly broke through to a decent level - did someone help you, did you work with you?

- The classes at the “Panchenko School” mainly had an effect - in fact, there I developed as a chess player. I got there when I was 10 years old. It’s good that the classes were held in Chelyabinsk, where I often went to competitions ... Then, when I already began to dangle in various youth tournaments, I also contacted Panchenko.

“Classes at the “Kasparov School” simply put an end to my formation as a chess player. I was, so to speak, launched into orbit!”

Pavel Kotsur.

“After all, I don’t have the school that the students of Panchenko, Dvoretsky, Smyslov, Kasparov, finally received ... It’s noticeable: people play according to the schemes that they were taught in childhood. Where can I get such beautiful stencils? And I really spend some games, misunderstanding something. But all this is compensated by, let's say, a large number of own ideas! For example, my endgame technique is still lame: to remember how I myself comprehended all this from books ... Of course, you will better understand this or that type of position if at first they “chew” everything for you, show you the mechanism, and you are on the received basis You will already be building your superstructure! Moreover, they will show not some elementary thing, but a complex position: what to strive for, what exchanges are profitable, in what positions the bishop is stronger than the knight and vice versa, what to do in general ...

Jaan Ehlvest

“It's just that it's often difficult for a chess player to sort himself out alone... To make a shift in your game and mood, you need a very smart assistant (such, for example, was Yurkov for Sokolov). At that moment, there was no one to help me. And it suddenly turned out that I was no longer so young, that my rating was not so high, and that the organizers of major tournaments did not need Grandmaster Elvest so much ... In such a situation, I actually had only one way back - to prove my worth among " mere mortals." Now I even sometimes regret that I didn’t go into commerce back then - it was hard to imagine that the life of a chess professional would change so much.”

Job

Sergei Rublevsky

“For me, chess has always been an interesting pastime. I enjoyed playing and practicing. It is not surprising, therefore, that they have become my profession.”

“When everyone is happy, everything is fine, there is no incentive for improvement. When you see your shortcomings, you try to work, eliminate them - and thus you progress. And chess is so difficult game that you can progress almost indefinitely.

Pavel Kotsur

“I was not given a lot in chess, and I have to extract these grains of knowledge myself: from communication, from the analysis of my own mistakes. There are many competent chess players who will arrange everything in the right way - it's hard for me to argue with them on this. But in terms of pressure and, perhaps, creativity, they are far from me! What about underestimation? Everyone thinks that he plays no weaker than me - maybe he thinks correctly, but at this stage I am stronger.

"I feel that in Lately became calmer! I have a balance in my soul, I even have a desire to play chess - in principle. Two years ago, I just came to the tournament to play, chat and test myself at the grandmaster level. And now I just want to work. The period has passed when I "dangled at the tournament, and, returning from regular night vigils, with a stale sat down on the board with his head ... "

I am a chess player.

Bent Larsen

“Often, completely opposite qualities converged in me: imagine, sometimes at the beginning of my career, before the game, I had to choose between the King's Gambit and the Catalan Opening! Heaven and earth... I “learned” this from the same Nimzowitsch, when his game looked either too simple or too complicated - after all, the main point of your moves is that your opponent could not figure out your plan!”

Sergei Rublevsky.

“I am not fond of soul-searching, dreams about the future. I have one task: to progress, to play stronger than before. While it turns out - slowly but surely growing.

“I love wrestling! The very spirit of it, the process gives me great pleasure. Although, perhaps, “fight” is not a clear word ... A duel! That's what really attracts me! Two people are sitting here, and everyone wants to win - sometimes this is much more interesting to me than the position in the tournament, the number of points. I play against you, you play against me. All! I don't set a goal to become a world champion, to earn a bunch of money - I play, and it gives me pleasure ... So far, fortunately, I just like to play. This is good: I know many chess players who would gladly give up all this long ago, but they can’t really do anything anymore!”

Pavel Kotsur

“It’s always like this for me: either everything or nothing! There is no density that distinguishes chess players like Yandemirov: he will not lose a single one, he will win a couple - and that's all right. I have to lose in order to win later.”

“I try to play almost all positions to win. Even if I understand that I need to offer a draw or make it myself, I still implicitly think that either the opponent will make a mistake, or I will come up with some brilliant idea in the position and win!”

“Yes, I’m just not afraid of anyone! But there is no special will here. Will is when a person has set a goal and in the wild he wins everything or loses nothing!”

“I strive to improve results. What about stability? As a rule, after the next crisis, the bar is raised for me. I am not going to constantly playing with one strength is contraindicated for me: I begin to calm down, and the strength of the game falls. That is, it remains the same, but ... falls.

Sergey Volkov

“I’ve been working quite a lot lately, but… as one grandmaster told me a long time ago: “It’s very difficult to correct your shortcomings, you can only progress if you learn to use your strengths!” Indeed, much can be achieved through this. I try to use my best sides: maybe I don’t get very expressive parts, but this kind of playing suits me better in spirit. I do not like to go too far, to rush into some tactical complications ... "

Jaan Ehlvest

« Roughly speaking, I already belong to a different generation of chess players than the same Kramnik or Topalov. Of course, I don't consider myself an old man, but age still leaves its mark on my attitude towards chess. I also have my advantages - yes, I'm older, but that's why I played more games, I have strong tournaments, probably more was richer experience. True, I am inferior to them in pretense, tactics can fail ... But in classical chess, I will definitely not yield to them. They need to show endurance, depth. They offer me the tactic of complications, pull on multi-move home variations - but I strive to maintain uncertainty on the board for as long as possible, so that they play "their own mind". I use unfashionable systems, for example. Here the Queen's Gambit is considered a boring opening, young people do not want to play it with Black. On the other hand, it is easy to understand that against an extra-class grandmaster, any opening with black is a test. I took this question philosophically: let them attack me, in the end I risk little, but in the classical beginnings it is easy to go too far. And then..."

“My own style... I can’t call myself a pronounced tactician or strategist, rather a certain symbiosis of directions is manifested. Too many things leave an imprint on the style: constant communication with coaches, assistants, studying opening theory, in a way, thinking about the game of opponents. It is generally accepted that style is a person. At least, this definition has nothing to do with me. There are inexplicable "eversions". Sometimes my style itself seems incomprehensible. It was like someone else was playing. When there were breakdowns, I was perplexed: “how can you play like that?”, “How can you make such mistakes?”. It's important to control yourself."

Other.

Pavel Kotsur " I strongly feel people who envy me, wish me failures. But others who treat me neutrally or even rejoice at my successes inspire confidence and make me reach for new heights. But I hate "black envy" - I start to twitch, get nervous, and nothing works out for me. I am especially annoyed by the senseless talk that I, they say, am obliged to win some next tournament, that there are no competitors, etc. - if you do not win, all your previous victories are automatically entered into the category of random ones.

Barcode portraits of rivals.

Jaan Ehlvest

“Now I look at new chess players with some skepticism: here, Judit Polgar, she cannot beat weak chess players, because she is only prepared to play with super grandmasters.”

Bent Larsen

“Petrosyan was closest to me. Probably because he and I had the same basis: “My Nimzowitsch system”. We are, as they say, “blood brothers.” But, as I noticed, we had a completely different sense of position ... and a sense of Petrosyan did not lose as many games as I did - on the other hand, I won much more than him."

“Of course, the biggest phenomenon of my chess youth was Tal! But, fortunately, I never tried to play in his style - I just liked to watch him play, to see how his brilliant plans, ideas, combinations were born ... I never complained about the speed and depth of calculation, but doing it with such fantastic speed as he, in my opinion, was not given to anyone. And besides, Tal possessed a rare fearlessness, no one before or after him made such a number of incorrect combinations! He just crushed his rivals ... "

Defeats and victories.

Sergei Rublevsky.

“In general, I don’t differ much from most chess players who live according to the formula: if you lose, it’s not luck, if you win, it’s class!”

What happens in chess.

Jaan Ehlvest

"Chess began to develop rapidly in the early 90s - the culprits" were Karpov and Kasparov, who made the debut of the main strike force. I "yawned" this moment. Before that, I was a kind of "follower" of Karpov, transferring the main burden of the struggle to the middlegame and endgame. And suddenly it turned out that I was completely unprepared to wage a full-fledged fight. By the way, something similar happened to Yusupov and some other grandmasters.”

“After all, the main goal of every grandmaster is to become a contender, to go down in history. It's no secret to anyone... For a professional chess player, being happy means being somewhere in the top six of the world. From this point of view, I have not achieved satisfaction. There are shortcomings and there will be in the future. Even if you internally tune in to good result, an error-free game is unlikely to be achieved ... The career of a chess player is a very dangerous "thing". Especially now, when it is not enough to be just a grandmaster, you need to be a super grandmaster. At one time, the state supported the strongest chess players with scholarships, coaches, the possibility of training... I don't think that today being a grandmaster is a great happiness. Sport is very cruel, and I consider today's chess a sport. The only thing that truly supports us all is that we all really love this game.”

"Iron Friend"

Yaser Seirawan

“Garry Kasparov came up with a completely monstrous idea, called “advanced chess”. The bottom line is that a person, uniting with a computer in a single gameplay, becomes the chess guide of this computer. I think it's a terrible idea."

Bent Larsen

“What annoys me lately is Kasparov's matches with the computer. And the games in advanced-chess seem completely crazy to me! Do they not understand that this is a road to nowhere. They destroy the mystical shell of chess: now no one will look at chess as an art, the spirit is being eroded from them... It hurts to see that it is the world champion who destroys them.”

Lajos Portisch

"Chess in last years change a lot - I don't really like the processes that are taking place in the chess world, especially the widespread introduction of computers raises fears... I understand when they are used as a keeper of information: when instead of the previous many hours of searching, you need a few seconds, but when the computer starts playing, analyzing, almost advising chess players what to do in one or another situations!.. For example, a show called advanced chess is just an insult from my point of view human intelligence... It's too much"

“I just think the computer is killing chess. Soon or not, but inevitably! If computers are already playing such a big role in chess world, what will happen next?! It's like doping given to chess players before a game... Have you ever seen boxers or runners in front of everyone, without hesitation, swallow doping? I have always considered chess an art, and now I don’t know what to call it.”

Vlastimil Gort.

“Unfortunately, today's chess players are destroying chess... They forget that chess is primarily a game of man against man, a struggle of intellects... And they all drowned in endless computer analysis. I can name a lot of grandmasters who think that their "research" moves chess forward, but in reality they just kill them. Destroy the joy of chess communication!”

“I have never heard of a virtuoso mathematician performing in a variety show doing his additions, multiplications, etc. badly due to lack of a suitable mood. But just from the artist, nervous system who reacts in the most subtle way, one cannot demand that he achieve perfection at any time. Reti

‘The noble game is chess. Noble unusual, philosophical harmony. Its depths are revealed only to the initiates, and the deeper you comprehend it, the wider horizons open before you. As in philosophy, as in mathematics, as in poetry.

One intelligent person said that Shakespeare's dramas were not written by anyone: they are the same product of nature, like air, water, and the sun. In the same way, the game of chess is not composed by anyone: it is governed by the same laws, obeying which the sun rises and sets, the oak tree grows and the nightingale sings. Nothing can be added to it and nothing can be taken away.

Until now, there has been an almost widespread opinion about chess as a phenomenon of an exclusively mental, rational order.

Only in recent years has a different understanding of their essence begun to take shape, revealing the features of art in them.

The experimental results obtained by us give the same basis to characterize chess as signs of knowledge (intelligence) and signs of art (creativity, images). We cannot formulate this connection more precisely than by the proposition that chess is an intellectual art. Their intellectualistic, rational nature is revealed in a vivid form by the general contemplative psychology of the chess master and by the significant power of synthetic thinking and representation inherent in him. Their belonging to the world of art is no less vividly evidenced not only by the immense creative prospects that are revealed to any player, but also by the intuitive, “shaped” moments of the game and, finally, by the visual-contemplative material underlying its entire complex mental strategy.

Here lies the great difference between a chess player and a mathematician. Both must have a highly developed ability of generalization and abstraction. But among mathematicians an even more important place is occupied by the ability of analysis, which manifests itself relatively little in the psycho-mechanics of a chess player. In addition, for a mathematician, his abstractions always remain only abstractions, i.e. impersonal associations of absolutely homogeneous, "detached" units - in a chess player, his generalizations are made within the limits of the real and always remaining for him variety of individual characters of individual pieces and individual fields. The mathematician in his generalizations is a statistician, the chess player is a teacher and an artist. For a mathematician, all cells are equal; for a chess player, each piece, each field of the board is a special individuality. That is why only a mentally defective mathematician can seriously worry about his numbers. On the contrary, only a mentally defective chess player can not worry during the game. The computational ability of any mathematician cannot fluctuate from day to day. The game of a chess player fluctuates continuously. In connection with this, we cannot but dwell on the role of objective factors in the game of chess, which has sharply caught our eye and recorded in our protocols, according to the testimony of a number of master chess players.

That the strength of a chess player's game is not a constant value, the chess players themselves and their observers have long been well aware. However, as to the causes of this phenomenon, there is considerable diversity of opinion, if not none at all. The general uncertainty of all, those explanations that are usually given to moments of failure, which often befall the greatest chess players in competition even with much weaker partners, has found a special terminology for itself: a chess maestro who played unsuccessfully in a tournament is said to be “out of shape”. ". The observations made by the laboratory revealed a whole series of factors that determine this state and partly reveal for us, therefore, the riddle of random chess victories and, mainly, temporary defeats. First of all, it is necessary to note the enormous role of a purely local, local, geographical moment.

All foreign chess players, on the whole, played relatively weaker with us, almost all Russians, correspondingly, relatively stronger than their usual game in international tournaments. This forces one to state in a clear and distinct form the fact of a more advantageous, preferential position in the game of chess for those who play at home, compared to those who play on the side, i.e. in a foreign country. Lasker's championship with Capablanca and the resounding success of Bogolyubov confirm this in the best possible way. Spielmann's failure with us and now the victory at Semmering confirm this even more. This is completely natural and understandable, given how foreign air, water, food, the atmosphere of life and the atmosphere of the tournament affect every foreigner.

The laboratory protocols also contain genuine statements of this kind by individual representatives of the tournament (Shpilman, Ayts, Rubinstein, etc.), who gave a number of valuable indications based on their own experience regarding the reasons for success or failure in a chess game. This is also confirmed by Bogolyubov's own explanations for his failure in New York.

Another regularity, to a greater extent of a subjective nature, but having a strictly objective significance, lies in the great importance of the player's subjective "chess" well-being, determined by the success or failure of previous tournament games. The chess player who lost the previous game has a subjective predisposition to lose the next one. Losing 3-4 games in a row already has a demoralizing effect on the player in the full sense of the word.

Here we get a complete analogy with the actual struggle and even war, and the complete coincidence of the "chance of winning" for a chess player who has lost several games with those that an actual commander and an actual army that has suffered several defeats have. But there is no less complete analogy here with the actual in a creative way an artist in whose progressive development (career) each subsequent step is directly conditioned by previous success or failure.

The social and pedagogical role of chess

Our results force us to an essentially different estimate pedagogical value chess game, compared with what has been said about it by some who have touched on this issue so far. Already in the comments to the psychogram of a chess player, we gave the answer, because for this we had data regarding which properties of a chess master should be considered innate and which ones acquired during the game. We must not, however, forget that the difference between innate and acquired is always only temporary and relative. Everything that was acquired by more or less distant previous generations is recognized as innate and is transmitted to us by inheritance, as a ready-made property.

This means that a far-sighted social pedagogy should base its assessments not only on the factor of individual achievements, i.e. acquired during personal life, but include in them everything that is generally positive from the point of view of the interests of social development.

As we saw above, the psychological prerequisites for chess "talent" are, apparently, some more strongly expressed certain general intellectual and mental functions in general, which are: the synthetic power of thinking; wide, “distributed” attention, which does not lose its intensity, adapted to the perception of dynamic relationships; general formal, but at the same time contemplative, logical, but at the same time not abstract-logical, but object-logical mentality - all these properties have not only a narrow chess meaning, but also a much broader universal human one. On this, apparently, broad psychological basis, as a result of practicing chess, the kind of organization of mental material that we outlined in the psychogram of a chess player is developed, which is much more important for a chess player than the pure function of memory, imagination, and, perhaps, even attention.

From this point of view, regarding the evaluation of the significance of a chess game, there can be no two opinions: the ability to synthesize and generalize; wide, alien to one-sided concentration, attention, grasping the more lively, actual (dynamic) side of objective relations, objectivity, i.e. a kind of "realism" of thinking of a chess player; finally, the undoubted actualism of the game, from the point of view of its purely psychological content, combining - under the control of the intellect - both the emotional and volitional sides of ours. of the psyche - leaving our will completely open to influencing the external world - all this makes us recognize the unconditionally positive value of the game of chess and the training that is acquired by seriously practicing it.

Since the listed qualities are, of course, positive character traits, the chess game becomes a powerful method of self-discipline and self-development, benefiting not only those who can become a master, but also those who do not have these inclinations: it contributes to the development of pedagogically valuable qualities.

Our positive assessment of the mass dissemination of the game of chess itself frees us from the dangerous aspects of exclusive and one-sided specialization in the field of chess and only chess. Since, according to the data we have received, the game of chess leaves the will of a person free and open to practical life activities, it does not in itself in the least compel such one-sided and exclusive specialization. Since chess training, to a greater extent than any other, turns out to be positively dependent on free gaps and intervals not filled by the game, which never lead to a decrease in the player’s strength, but always to its increase, - insofar as the combination with chess some other practical (or even scientific) activity is even necessary. So, in reality, it happens in the vast majority of cases: not only small and medium players, but also great masters almost always combine some other service or activity with the game of chess. Lasker (philosopher), and Capablanca (diplomatic adviser), and Alekhine (lawyer), and Vidmar (professor), and, of course, almost all masters of the chess game, except for a few, can serve as an example of this.

We are inclined to admit, however, the validity of the opinion expressed by the Russian author that the exclusive self-limitation of oneself only to the circle of narrowly chess interests, due to the exceptional power of drama and emotions inherent in the game discovered in our experiments, can lead to fatal shocks for the player's personality.

This becomes especially clear if we give a clear characterization of the chess game as a phenomenon of an exclusively intellectual, brain, brain order - in which, nevertheless, despite the description in this work of many factors operating in this game, one cannot but see the essential one-sidedness of what it gives development. It goes without saying that the interests of health and physical development, which, as we have seen, are not useless for the game of chess itself, not only allow, but most urgently require, special attention to the purely physical side of the life of our organism, i.e. physical exercises, physical labor, hygiene of life - standing so far from the interests of a narrow chess training.

However, these additional requirements not only do not narrow, but, on the contrary, greatly expand the circle of those who can be called to play chess. Eliminating the negative aspects of a narrow, one-sided specialization, we thereby turn the art of chess into a mass folk occupation, for which tournament wrestlers, masters and champions are only examples and scales for evaluation.

Chess - certainly, both by its nature and by the history of its origin - deserves to become a mass game. folk game, rather than the subject of tournament competition, which, of course, will always be needed as a model and standard.

Chess game as a phenomenon of social life

A board divided into 64 squares. Two parties of unpretentious figures - black and white. Each of them is at the disposal of one of the players. The movement of pieces on the squares of the board, regulated by certain rules, is the entire content of the game. The task of each player is to put one of the opponent's pieces (the main one) in such a position that, according to the rules of the game, it could neither move nor remain in an occupied position, but would be forced to surrender - to be "killed".

This is the outer side of the chess game. Something simple, almost primitive, childish. The names of the figures: "king", "elephant", "horse", further enhance the naivety of the whole construction of the game, the proximity to the children's fun game. What a poverty of imagination, what a frivolity of the situation! As if the first pathetic means that came across were taken in order to get away from reality, from serious, vitally valuable work, worthy of the time and strength of a cultured, adult person.

But hundreds of thousands of people sit for hours and days at this game. Having originated in ancient times, the game is experiencing states, changes in the political system. Its spread is not limited either by the originality of culture, or by the isolation of estate, class, ethnic and state groups, or by the peculiarities of the profession. Philosopher, mathematician, diplomat, worker - combine with their special life work passion for the game of chess. The gray-haired scientist rearranges the figures with no less seriousness and excitement than a youngster just starting school. The illustrious masters of the game enjoy the same recognition and admiration among representatives of different countries and classes, they are world-famous celebrities whose names are no less popular than the names of famous representatives of art and science.

Numerous clubs and circles of chess players contribute to the satisfaction of interest in this game, which, in addition, is given a place in almost all clubs. The connection between individual organizations that cultivate the game of chess acquires an international character and finds expression in the organization of tournaments, where players from different countries compete in skill and where world champions of the chess game are nominated in the competition of champions of individual countries.

The wide distribution of the game and the serious interest in it caused the appearance of an extensive literature, not inferior in size to any branch of science. In addition to manuals on teaching the game of chess, in addition to books on special issues, the theory and technique of the game of chess, dozens of periodicals in all languages ​​distribute the novelties of the chess world. A specially developed conditional language makes it possible to facilitate international communication in this special area. After that, it will not be surprising that prominent specialists in the game of chess devote their entire lives to it or to literary work related to it, finding in this their life calling and source of existence.

The above facts clearly indicate that the game of chess claims a fairly significant place in the public life of people.

Therefore, neither social psychology, whose task is to scientifically elucidate the manifestations of social life, nor social pedagogy, which evaluates these manifestations from the point of view of the interests of social construction, as a means or expression of the cultural development of society, can pass by it. The first explains the inner content, nature and nature of this or that phenomenon of social life, its causes and its influence on certain aspects of the life of society and its members. The second gives an assessment of this phenomenon in terms of the main tasks facing society and the individual, and indicates the means for strengthening and spreading it or for combating it.

In relation to the game of chess, the very fact of its enthusiasm and its wide prevalence is of the greatest interest. At first glance, it may seem downright mysterious. And only a psychological analysis of the game can explain this strangeness, revealing what exactly this game gives the personality, what aspects of the personality it affects, what interests and needs it gives satisfaction. And along with this, the key can be given to those innermost corners of the human psyche, from where the passion for the game of chess and other similar phenomena grows.

The game of chess, distinguished by its strict certainty, completeness, and clarity of its logical structure, which is a favorite pastime of cultured adults and retains the most typical features of the game in general, can serve as the most valuable material for studying the psychological meaning of any game in general, its significance in the life of the individual and society, and to determine those sides and forms of the game that should be cultivated in the interests of social development.

Philosophy of chess game

As a general conclusion from our experiments, we have to point out the extraordinary variety of mental functions that manifest themselves in the game of chess. Moreover, all of them are not practiced separately, but are given in a synthetic combination, characteristic of natural life manifestations. Here is an experimental reproduction of the most essential life phenomenon - the struggle: And in this reproduction the very essence of the life process - the clash of contradictions - is vividly presented. Moreover, this struggle bears all the signs of a real struggle, an actual competition of two, independent from each other, warring wills.

Although the very process of the game, which consists of solving a whole series of purely mental problems, is, as it were, of a specifically intellectual character, nevertheless, the role of the volitional principle in the game of chess remains enormous. Here, more than in any other of our creative work, shows all the enormous importance of volitional effort, as a regulator not only of our actions and movement. but also our inventive, combining, testing, experimenting thought.

Here, indeed, there can be moments when the “will to win” makes our thoughts reach supernatural tension, far exceeding the boundaries of normal and permissible, and it is precisely these moments that are the cause of mental catastrophes that so often befall chess players. Here, in the purely psychic sphere, exactly the same thing happens that happens to our physical organism in any physical struggle that surpasses our strength: just as the physical organism of a winner in sports competitions can be defeated in all its basic vital functions, broken, so the intellect of a chess player is endangered. disorganization and destruction.

That is why our “psychogram of a chess player” speaks not in general about the need for a strong will for a chess player, but about the need for a disciplined will, wishing to emphasize by this the urgent need for skillful calculation of one’s strengths, timely precaution against over-forcing one’s thoughts.

Philosophically profound, in essence speaking, victorious, though misunderstood by chess players, refusal the most brilliant chess player of modern times E. Lasker from prolonging his objectively unsuccessful match with Capablanca should serve as a heroic example for many years to follow for all chess players in general and masters in particular.

However, if the will manifests itself in this game exclusively as the will to win, then, on the contrary, subjective emotions play a completely different role and manifest themselves in a completely different way.

The game of chess is distinguished by an exceptionally rich, heightened emotionality. In no other game do emotions manifest themselves with such brightness and sharpness, because in all other games, we always have the opportunity, in case of defeat, to appeal to a higher evaluation criterion, in the face of which the defeat we have suffered is relatively unimportant, secondary, insignificantly.

Is it a lot of offense that I am not the first strongman in weightlifting competitions? Of course, nothing more than the absence of a prize - and nothing more. How offensive is it that I was beaten in boxing or outstripped in running? Of course, no more than how much of this resentment lies in the presence of not the strongest fists and not the fastest legs. What is especially offensive to me that I am a bad shooter, a bad rider, even a bad musician, artist or poet - if I can be an intelligent person, a thinker, a theorist, a person of deep knowledge, and so on and so forth?

This is precisely the core of the tragedy lurking here. Based on the deepest biological law of evolution, which placed the mind on the last and highest degree of achievement of all life on earth, this mind is for us the last and highest instance of appeal.

What gives chess?

They give an objective measure of our reason, they deprive us of the opportunity and the right to appeal to something even higher and more authoritative. They, in case of defeat, destroy our last hope for self-justification, plunging us into a truly tragic state. It is precisely on this, at first glance, deeply intellectual soil that the deepest, oddly enough, exceptionally heightened emotionality of the whole game arises.

Every single move, ours or the opponent's, insofar as it brings us closer to victory or defeat, evokes in us a whole symphony of more or less strong and sharp emotional experiences. These emotions have nothing directly to do with the process of the game itself, on the contrary, they almost always, without exception, obviously harm it, complicating the already difficult situation of our mind and our will with their unrest. And yet, they always and inevitably rise at every step of the game, rising in sharp, dramatic moments to a truly pathetic strength.

The results of our experiments force us to admit that another moment in the psycho-mechanics of a chess player plays a significant role here, which is so clearly revealed by our experiments, namely what we called the objective nature of the thinking of chess players.

This objectivity of thinking, along with the objectively competitive nature of the game itself (two independent unrecognized opponents for each other) and along with this “test of the mind,” provides yet another strong reason for putting the psycho-technique of a chess player in conditions not only of real struggle and war, but also a struggle that is catastrophic, tragic in nature, a struggle that stands on the border of human strength.

Chess is, therefore, not just intellectual game, but an intellectual game that has an objective-objective nature and is clothed in a mental attire of genuine moods and experiences that are no longer characteristic of the game as such, but of real competition, actual struggle and war, and, moreover, in a complicated, dramatic form.

It is a struggle, however, in some isolated sphere that does not merge and does not come into contact with life, and it is precisely this isolation that nevertheless preserves for her, despite the drama and acuteness, the true features of art and inspiration.

However, the study of any complex phenomenon only then receives its final completion when all the individual conclusions of the work - clarifying the constituent elements of the subject under study, their nature and mutual connection - find their expression in a general formula that embraces the uniqueness of the phenomenon as a whole. It is not always possible to give a precise definition. The more complex the phenomenon, the more fully and deeply the basic laws of life are reflected in it, the more difficult it is to fit it into the framework of certain concepts, to subordinate it to the laws of formal logic. A definition will always be a limitation (determinatio-negatio).

Hence the need arises for such terms and such forms of thinking that would correspond to the complexity and mobility of the properties and manifestations of reality. Instead of frozen and constraining formulas, a description is put forward as more flexible, capable of embracing diversity and variability. But the description can separate the moments of a single whole. For true knowledge, it is necessary to restore the specific completeness, integrity of the subject being studied. If not an exact formula, then a word full of living meaning, a word as a symbol, can express the nature and the very essence of an object.

So the building of the "White House" has become a platform for sports battles! Old-timers remember that in the old days there was a stadium in its place. But since the new facility was built, apart from impromptu fisticuffs with the participation of government officials, there have been no manifestations of sports hardening here. Today, deputy Dastan Bekeshev broke the trend and organized an unusual chess match within the parliamentary walls, in which he fought with the country's champion Nurisa Otorbayeva. Chess is perhaps the most intellectual and intelligent sport. It is these qualities that our people's deputies very often lack.

Usually outsiders are not allowed into the White House, but this time they made an exception. Dastan Bekeshev invited his activist fans from social networks and they came to cheer for him.

Strong chess players should not be played according to the theory they know, but come up with original moves! he kept secret. - I think we will play two games of blitz.

Will there be no classical chess?

It's long. The audience will get bored and fall asleep!

Soon the current champion of Kyrgyzstan among women in chess Nurisa Otorbayeva came up with her coach Islam Baisynov. She recently played chess with inmates to promote the game in correctional facilities. Now he will speak in the parliamentary session hall.

I was the initiator of the resolution on the popularization of chess in the country, I proposed to include this game in the school curriculum, - Dastan Bekeshev recalled. - However, state bodies do nothing in this area, you have to act on your own. The coaches of Nurisa Otorbayeva offered us to play, and I agreed. I play in my free time and mostly with a computer. And I want to be with people!

There, the parliamentary coalition is disintegrating, and you are playing chess here! someone noticed.

Chess unites! If the head of government, Omurbek Babanov, who, by the way, heads the Kyrgyz Chess Federation, invites the deputies to play a match, I think it will do us good.

Nurisa Otorbayeva, excited by the attention of the press, praised Dastan Bekeshev and called him the best chess player countries.

They put them a special chessboard with holes and relief figures. It is very difficult for a blind person to play chess, because one must not only remember one's own moves, but also keep an eye on the opponent, recognize his tactics. Such players deserve true respect. The opponents exchanged pawns, and off they went.

Will Nurisa go to the World Chess Olympiad, which will start in Turkey the other day? I asked Islam Baisynov.

I would very much like to, but she has health problems,” he said. - We planned a meeting with Dastan Bekeshev for a long time, that's why we came. At the end of the game we will go to the hospital.

Despite the illness, Nurisa Otorbayeva did well and played very carefully. About 15 minutes after the start of the first game, Dastan Bekeshev, playing white, made a mistake and was punished by the loss of an important piece.

"Go horse!" I wanted to say something, but for some reason I kept silent. Perhaps because he hasn't played since elementary school and slightly lost his skills. Yes, and the reputation of the horse in our country is now tarnished ...

Left without a prompt, Dastan Bekeshev made a couple more moves and, after intense thought, resigned.

Everything happens in life, that's why it's interesting! - Philosophically uttered he, arranging the pieces for the new party.

In the second game, the deputy acted more attentively and deserved a draw. The tote did not accept bets on the result of this confrontation, but I foresaw such an outcome. At the decisive moment, friendship won.

It can be seen that Dastan Bekeshev is seriously engaged in chess! - said Islam Baisynov. - At the beginning of the first game, he had a solid advantage.

I'm satisfied! - said the deputy. - In the future, I would like to organize several tournaments where my colleagues could play with Russian chess players.

Athletes presented him with a medal for his contribution to the development of chess. The flattered deputy promised to continue supporting the glorious game in the republic. I want this promise of the people's choice to be fulfilled.

No one knows exactly when chess appeared. It is only known that this happened in India no later than the 6th century AD. But there is no complete agreement on this point either.

According to one version, the divination technique developed in China in the 6th-1st centuries. BC. to determine the balance between the energies of yin and yang, formed the basis of chaturanga, a game that is the prototype of modern chess (in Sanskrit, “chaturanga” means “four kinds”, that is, an army with four types of weapons: chariots, elephants, cavalry, infantry). In chaturanga, according to Biruni (India, 11th century), the goal was to destroy the enemy forces, and not to checkmate the king. But in Chinese literature, the first known information about chess appears in the 8th century. AD

Apparently, the ancient Etruscans were also engaged in divination on a 64-cell board: their mythology mentioned a magical horse-horse covering the entire heavenly space in 64 jumps (in chess, a horse can bypass the entire board in 64 moves).

Through Iran, chess entered the Arab countries. In the Near and Middle East, the game acquired the name "shatrang" (Persian) or "shatranj" (Arabic). In the Persian parable-novela “The Acts of Ardashir Papakan” (circa 600 AD), it is said that its hero showed great skill “in playing ball, riding, in shatrang, hunting and in other competitions.” The Oxford Handbook of Chess (1984) cites this quote as "the first mention of chess in world literature". But other sources (for example, G. Golombek's reference book) believe that even earlier chess was mentioned in Indian poems of the 6th century. "Vasvadata" and "Hartaharita".

“Some undoubtedly authentic chess pieces found during excavations in Italy have been identified as dating back to the 2nd century BC. AD Although no one questions the scientific integrity and professional qualifications of the archaeologists who made this discovery, their conclusions about the belonging of the figures to such an early era are usually taken with skepticism. If they are confirmed, the entire history of chess will have to be rewritten” (G. Golombek).

The Persian poet Firdousi, who lived at the turn of the 10th-11th centuries, repeatedly described chess in his works, and in one of his poems he spoke about the arrival of envoys of the Indian Raja with gifts, among which was a game depicting a battle between two armies .

They even say that chess was invented by Palamedes, one of the Greek kings who took part in the siege of Troy (about 1250 BC). Playing chess, Palamedes penetrated the opponent's camp with a knight, and this is what led him to the idea of ​​a "Trojan horse" that brought the Greeks victory in the war. However, we do not know of any mention of chess in Greece at that time.

The Oxford Handbook of Chess categorizes hypotheses about their origins:
1. "Military": learning strategy, from boredom during a long siege, to relieve tension.
2. "Comforting". Thus, the poet Ferdowsi (940–1020 or 1030) in his epic Shahnameh wrote that chess owes its origin to the Indian sages who created this game in order to console the dowager queen Pershnari (lit. “beauty with an angelic face”) and distract her from sad thoughts about the son who died in battle.
3. "Competitive".
4. "Peaceful"(as an alternative to war in resolving controversial issues).

With the conquests of the Arabs, chess penetrated into Spain and Italy - the first countries of Western Europe, where they became known in the 8th-9th centuries. From Spain, chess entered France, and from Italy to Germany. Then they came to England. Their rapid spread and growth in popularity is evidenced by the fact that many ancient families began to decorate their coats of arms with the image of chess pieces or a chess field.

There is no generally accepted hypothesis regarding the penetration of chess into Russia. D. Sargin believes that chess first appeared in Rus' as a result of trade and cultural ties with the East even before the conquest of Iran by the Arabs, i.e. no later than the 7th century. I. Savenkov believes that chess could have penetrated from the East via the Caspian-Volga route (VIII-IX centuries). In 1876, a chess leaflet (issued by M. Chigorin, the strongest chess player in Russia at that time) wrote: “Russia acquired this game not from the West, but directly from India, which is proved by the Russian names of chess pieces.”

Mentions of chess are found in Russian epics: "Sadko ...", "About the good fellow Vasily Buslaevich ...". Interestingly, the ability to play chess was considered hallmark character of the heroes, sung in epics. Based on the archaeological finds of Prof. Artsikhovsky in Novgorod can be considered that in the X-XI centuries. first in the territory of southern Russia, and then in the north, the game of chess became known to the Eastern Slavs.

Chess in the form known to us was formed at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries. The division of the board into dark and light squares came into general use in the 16th century. Previously, they played on a one-color board, divided into square cells. The single color board is still used on Far East. In Arabic chess (at least until the beginning of the 13th century), the queen moved only one square diagonally. The bishop walked diagonally across the cage, he could jump over the piece.

During the Middle Ages, chess was persecuted in many Christian countries, perhaps because it had become a gambling which robbed them of their noble features. But since the XIII century, chess has been used as one of the means of knightly education. Chess, according to an unwritten statute, is one of the seven "knightly virtues" along with riding, swimming, wielding a spear, fencing, hunting, the art of writing and singing poetry.

The most famous work of the Middle Ages on chess is a treatise in Latin by Jacob Tsessolis. The book, written at the end of the 13th century, has a moralizing character, and chess is used in it as a pretext for uttering maxims and edifications of a moral, social, religious and political nature. This work was distributed in numerous handwritten copies in Latin, German, French, Czech and other languages. In the largest European libraries there are several copies of this book (for example, in Prague - nine).

The history of chess competitions goes back many centuries.

The contemporary German historian Helmut Faustin has documented that one of the first official chess competitions in Europe took place in the German university city of Heidelberg in 1467. The Heidelberg tournament contributed to the popularity of the game in Germany, although the center of chess life later moved to Nuremberg. From 1477 chess tournaments began to be held as regularly as the competition of the minnesingers. There were two categories of chess players: masters and apprentices. Tournaments continued until the beginning of the Thirty Years' War of 1618-1648, after which chess life collapsed in Germany.

In 1616, Duke August von Braunschweig-Lüneburg, hiding under the pseudonym "Gustav Selenus", in the book "Chess, or the Royal Game" wrote: "These Russians, or Muscovites, play chess very well and diligently. They are so skillful in this game that, in my opinion, it is extremely difficult for other peoples to compete with them.

In 1815, chess was declared a compulsory subject at the Military Academy of the Danish Army in Copenhagen. To justify this decision, the head of the academy reported to the Minister of War that "the game, in which there are about 72,000 different ways to make the first two moves, cannot but be useful for future officers in terms of developing their responsiveness to a rapidly changing situation."

On March 28, 1873, the first match took place between the combined chess teams of the two largest British universities - Oxford and Cambridge. Since then they have been held regularly.

In Germany, the "chess" village of Strebeck (Shtropke) became widely known. There are many legends about its history and traditions. According to one of them, it has existed for about 1000 years. In 1823, the teaching of chess was introduced at the local school (from grade 3). Another story tells that the one who wooed a local bride had to "win" her for chess board from her parents. In case of losing the game, the applicant not only received a refusal, but also paid a fine. Often, parents passed the role of the examiner to the village headman - according to tradition, a strong chess player. This provided the Strebeck community with a good income.

Since 1886 (from the Steinitz-Zukertort match) competitions have been held for the title of world chess champion. True, after Kasparov became world champion, the contenders were divided, and the last title draws were held in two independent leagues (two different world champions turned out). Negotiations are underway to merge them. It remains to be hoped that the subsequent history of chess competitions will be unified.

(Does chess need a philosophy?)

. Some people love chess for this, others condemn it for the same reason. The first, of course, is incomparably more than the second. The image of the most intellectual of the games reliably protects chess from criticism. Who wants to be known as a limited person who does not appreciate the intellect? It is considered bad form to talk about chess as a worthless activity. There are, however, "dared men" who are not afraid to tell the "truth": the king is naked. E. Poe: “The notion of chess as a game exclusively useful for the mind is based on a misunderstanding.”
Denis Diderot: "You can be a stupid person and at the same time a strong chess player."

"The winner is always right" . Writers about chess often quote Lasker: "There is no place for lies and hypocrisy on the chessboard. The beauty of a chess combination is that it is always true. The merciless truth expressed in chess eats the eyes of a hypocrite." But no one seems to have explained what truth is in chess and how it manifests itself specifically. Even Botvinnik believed that chess was just a conventional scheme. What truth can there be in a “conditional scheme that has little in common with reality”?
Suppose that truth in chess is expressed in correct (analytically strongest) moves. Then it turns out that old Legal, who captured the pawn on e5 with his knight in 1787 and thus entered the history of chess forever, deserves only condemnation.

Legal - St. Bris, 1787

5. Nxe5 Bxd1 (What signs should be placed for these moves?!)6. Bxf7+ Ke7 7. Nd5#

Modern computer programs refute the combinations of the old masters. However, without these combinations, chess players would not have reached the modern level of play. Where is the hypocrisy here? As I. Maizelis recalled, Lasker liked to tell the following anecdote.

“The doctor recognized the patient as incurable, and he turned to another doctor, who put him on his feet. Six months later, the patient meets his first doctor. The doctor is delighted and surprised: “How are you still alive? Who treated you? - Doctor Schmidt. “That's what I thought! What a hack! - says the doctor. - With the right treatment, nothing would have saved you! - You understand? Lasker added, laughing. - With proper, routine continuations, there is no salvation. So, you have to play “wrong”!”

Is the winner always right? Eat struggle of ideas and eat people fight. And in chess, as in life, they do not always coincide.

“The main thing in chess is a contest of wits” . To humiliate another person solely for the sake of demonstrating the superiority of one's intellect - is it good? German journalist Joseph von Westphalen is convinced that this is disgusting.

«<…>The intention of a chess game is nothing other than to destroy the opponent. It mercilessly excludes the possibility of a happy accident that sometimes helps you in life. Only the enemy's mistakes help here. This is a game without mercy, without charm, without joke. Game for officer casino.
<…>The most beautiful ivory pieces and the most intricate moves cannot obscure the fact that chess is cruel game to Murder, the aristocratic forerunner of computer video games in which teenagers stare at the screen and destroy all sorts of enemies. The connection between chess and the computer is not accidental at all. After all, the stupid logic of chess, which implies only victory and the constant avoidance of any mistakes, does not differ from the computer way of thinking hammered into the head. That's why chess computer has recently turned into a training companion for a passionate chess player. The thinker and strategist now on the chessboard can show the machine which of them is better.

<…>People strain their brains solely in order to destroy the enemy as soon as possible, and are considered the winner of the party even when their own army has almost completely died. Only one king, this clumsy monster, should be protected.
Whether it's on grass, on the cinder track, or on the chessboard, sport is always murder. There is something stupid in the vain need to measure one's strength. And I'm more fond of any poker player playing marked cards with an unsuspecting opponent, any angry participant in the board game "Don't be angry, man!", Than a pseudo-logic at a chessboard indulging in this supposedly democratic game in which a university professor of philosophy with an auto mechanic, and the pastor and burgomaster hone their abstract thinking on the part of destruction.

Damn it, does logic exist only to destroy each other without words?(highlighted by me - L. B). Women know why they avoid this all-male game - barring exceptions,<…>beauties with long eyelashes who need to prove themselves and chess world that with an attractive appearance you can be smart. But being a chess champion is not smart at all. Moreover, it's mean. And meanness, as you know, often has pretty eyes.
I courageously shout in the face of hundreds of chess clubs of all countries, grandmasters and champions large and small, professionals of simultaneous games and child prodigies of all age categories: “Chess is dementia, computer logic, a waste of time. Chess destroys thinking…”
[Joseph von Westphalen "WARUM ICH NICHT SCHACH SPIELE" (Why I don't play chess) http://institute.nnov.ru/topic_show.pl?pid=1219 ]

“The main thing in chess is a contest of wits” To agree with this statement is to admit that von Westphalen is right in many respects. And if you don't agree, then you need to look for another explanation for the phenomenon of chess. Then you will have to turn to a science not too revered by chess players, namely philosophy. But the main thing is to actually change the attitude towards chess! So that they do not seem (and really were not!) Only an instrument of ambition and just one of the sports.

L. Babushkin