"The Development of Chess Style" Reviewed by Taylor Kingston 1997, International Chess Enterprises, figurine algebraic notation, softcover,

224 pages, $22.50. Max Euwe's "The Development of Chess Style," first published in 1968, belongs to a small but important class of chess literature, the broad historical survey. Other noteworthy members of the genre include R. N. Coles' "Dynamic Chess" (1956), Reuben Fine's "The World's Great Chess Games" (1951), Anthony Saidy's "The Battle of Chess Ideas" (1972), and R. E. Fauber's "Impact of Genius" (1992). They are chess equivalents of the "Story of Civilization" kind of textbook, providing an overview of the game's development, usually starting from the 1500s (Ruy Lopez et al) at the earliest or the 1700s (Philidor) at the latest, and ending at the present day. They are somewhat distinct from biographical surveys (such as Stahlberg's "Chess and Chess Masters," Hartston's "Kings of Chess" or the Edward Winter-edited "World Chess Champions") in that personal detail is usually secondary to the discussion of chess theory; i.e., they are less likely to note the effect French alcohol had on Alekhine's play, than the effect Alekhine's play had on the French Defense. Players are treated mostly as abstract embodiments of schools of thought. Such books differ less over factual matters than in style and emphasis. Coles for example gives a very lucid view of the development of Classical and Hypermodern theory, but rather skimps on annotations in illustrative games. Fine discusses the most players but thereby loses depth, and he overemphasizes some minor figures at the expense of some major ones. Saidy deals with the fewest players but is arguably the best writer, while Fauber has the most colorful and pungent language. In contrast, Euwe's tone is somewhat dry and academic, reflecting perhaps his mathematics doctorate. However, "The Development of Chess Style" has other strengths, its explanation of the nature of chess style and theory, and its selection of illustrative games and their annotations. In the former respect Euwe is as good as any and better than some, in the latter is he clearly foremost. This is most true of the chapter on Steinitz, probably the clearest and most comprehensive presentation of his theories I have seen. It covers 50 pages, 18 of heuristic discussion followed by 32 pages of closely annotated illustrative games. The annotations are frequent enough to aid the lower-rated player but deep enough to satisfy the master. A good example is his concise assessment of this position, from Pillsbury-Steinitz, New York 1894 "White has combined well and seems now to have some slight advantage, for the pawn position has become symmetrical and he has the two bishops. The sequel will show, however, that the whole operation was premature. "The momentum of White's attack is spent for the present and now it suddenly emerges that, thanks to several little threats, Black has the initiative. White's b-pawn is attacked; his d-pawn can be besieged by ... Bg4 and ... Nc6; finally the outlying e7-rook is in danger of being cut off by ... Be6 and then captured by ... Nc6. To parry all these threats White will at least have to relinquish his hard-earned advantage of the two bishops."

Such annotations make Euwe's book the most instructive of its type. Any of the books I have mentioned will teach one a lot about chess history, but only with Euwe's will one also be learning much about how to play better chess. This is not surprising, considering that, with the possible exception of Fine, he is the strongest player to author a book of this type, and the only world champion among them. The one problem with the Steinitz chapter is that it sets a standard other chapters don't quite match. For example the ideas of Nimzovich and the Hypermoderns were of comparable importance, but they get half the space. This is not to say the shorter chapters are at all bad; rather one gets the feeling that, if they were all on the level of the Steinitz segment, a very good book would have been a great one . As time passes, books of this type benefit from updating, as was done by Coles in 1966, Fine in 1976, and Saidy in 1994 (renaming his book The March of Chess Ideas). Euwe having died in 1981, the task of revising and expanding "The Development of Chess Style" was taken up by British GM Dr. John Nunn. His contributions are significant. In the annotations, Nunn has added many minor footnotes, and a few major corrections and revisions. None of these overturn any important Euwe thesis, but some do point up definite errors in the first edition, such as this from EuweReshevsky, AVRO 1938. Euwe here played 39. Rdd1, but says "39. Rfd1 would have been a little better." Nunn points out that this would have allowed mate in two by 39. ... Qe1+. Oops! Nunn's major enhancements, though, are an extensive rewrite of chapter 8, on the Soviet School, and four completely new chapters on Fischer, Karpov, and Kasparov, and finally on Anand, Kramnik and Topalov as Kasparov's nearest rivals today. These are in the main very well done, both in terms of discussing playing styles, and of game selection and annotation. The writing is quite similar to Euwe's, though with a somewhat less formal, more conversational tone; also more historical detail is provided (as these books typically do when discussing more recent times). Nunn shows good insight into latter-day players' styles and contributions to theory, noting for example that "Petrosian was particularly fond of repeating moves to emphasis his opponent's helplessness; it is amazing how many times his opponents declined the repetition with an inferior move", or that "Fischer showed that [the superiority of bishop to knight] applies in a wider range of positions than was previously thought." He also adds the occasional bit of humor"A life-style of getting up at midday, playing over a few games from Informator, watching some television, looking at an opening for an hour or so and then going out for a few beers is not uncommon [for many grandmasters]. Of course ... there are many hard-working and well-organized grandmasters (there are also some who manage without the Informator and opening analysis parts of the day)." Overall, Nunn here is well-organized and has worked hard; he has earned a few beers. Reviews of "The Development of Chess Style" often ascribe to it a thesis that the changes in style and theory over the centuries reflect the growth of the individual player from novice to master, a chess equivalent of evolutionary biology's "ontogeny recapitulates

phylogeny." However I find that Euwe hardly stresses this point; it is mentioned in the introduction and then practically forgotten. Just as well; the idea has limited validity, and to pursue it would have required ignoring or distorting inconvenient facts (a sin Coles occasionally falls into). As a pragmatic, post-Hypermodern era world champion, Euwe was too smart to insist on an inflexible ideology. There are some errors of omission. Euwe and Nunn, like many others, completely ignore Louis Paulsen (1833-1891), who anticipated many Hypermodern ideas and from whom Steinitz actually derived much of his theory; of the books mentioned only Fauber's does Paulsen any justice. Adolf Anderssen is only halfunderstood; the emphasis is all on his combinative powers to the exclusion of his positional side. Euwe, with typical modesty, avoided almost all reference to himself, citing a few positions and only one complete game (a loss, at that), while giving special attention to less important contemporaries such as Flohr and Bogolyubov. If those players merited mention by Euwe, it seems fitting for Euwe to get at least a brief segment by Nunn, but there is none. A minor factual error: the game Reti-Gruber, given as Vienna 1928, was actually from 1923. These shortcomings are small compared to the book's overall strength. One welcome omission: Nunn avoids mention of Deep Blue, declaring "my discussion is limited to carbon-based life forms." The serious student of chess history should read "The Development of Chess Style," but he is also well advised to compare others of the genre. Their differences of opinion are interesting. Euwe, for example, says of Emanuel Lasker "It is not possible to learn much from him; one can only stand and wonder.", while Fine says "In reality all chess players are [Lasker's] pupils ... many of his games are bottomless wells ... [of] new ideas ...". Of Anderssen Euwe says "He represents ... not the starting point of new methods but rather the high point of the old." In contrast Fauber sees Anderssen and Paulsen as the two "Roots of Modernity" in Impact of Genius. Coles, in Dynamic Chess, sees Capablanca as the apogee of the fading Classical School, while Euwe seems to join Reti in labeling him as a "forerunner of the modern masters." Hey, who do ya read? For a balanced view one needs several of these books. One final quibble - the cover is most unattractive, a low-contrast mix of milky blue and dull gray (which ICE has unfortunately used for a spate of recent releases). An irrelevant, ill-focused snapshot of a vapid-looking Kasparov fills it like an over-inflated balloon. Adolf Anderssen, from an old lithograph, looks annoyed at being shoved into the background. Dock the art director a week's pay for this mess. However, it is substance, not appearance, that counts. "The Development of Chess Style" has ample substance to recommend it strongly, especially to those who want both to increase their understanding of chess history and to improve their chess play.