CHESS FOR CHAMPIONS

Hokitika Guardian, 24 January 1929, Page 7

CHESS FOR CHAMPIONS

SHOULD THE BOARD BE , ALTERED.

(London Daily Mail.)

Senor Capahlanea’s proposal is, it will be remembered, as follows: 1. Eli large ibc board from eight squares by eight to ten squares by ten. 2. Give to each player two extra pieces, one having the combined powers of a rook and a knight, the other those of a bishop and a knight; these pieces to stand between the king and queen and their respective bishops,- and, of course, to have a pawn each. ,‘L Allow the pawns at their first move the choice id' moving, one, two, or three squares.

It is a curious fact that all attempts to alter the chessboard itself have been stillborn. More than once the powers and arrangement of the pieces have been changed, to the great improvement of the game. Hut although .there have been at least three attempts to introduce a hundred-square board, besides proposals for a round board ol sixty-ifour squares, and, of course, Tamerlane s Great Chess, which I mentioned yesterday, none of them has had a lile ol more than a 'few years. There really seems to bo some special virtue in our eight-by-eight board, and the experience of history is here against Senor Capablanca. Nevertheless I do not quite like Sii Richard Barnett’s suggested amendment to the scheme— namely, to keep the present board and pieces but allow the queen to move like a knight as well as like a rook or bishop, as she can at present. Such a terrible piece, which could mate the lone king at the side without assistance, or- in the middle of the open board with the help of her own king, would bo too much out of proportion to the other pieces. AIT GET BE CLUMSY.

Tf we accept the hundred-square board Senor Capablanca’s proposals for new pieces seem logical. We have at present the rook, bishop, and knight each able to move along a line oif its own which is not open to the other two. These three powers can be combined in three different ways: (a) rook and bishop, fbf bishop and knight, (c) knight and rook. If we call the pieces having these powers A, B, and C wo sec at once that A exists already and is called the queen, while B and C are the pieces Senor Capablanca proposes. It is very difficult to judge without trial the probable strength of these now pieces. But I should say that neither of them would turn out much weaker than the queen. At first sight it might seem that B would he tho weakest of the three, because it does not include the rook’s power, and we know that the rook is stronger than either bishop or knight. But when we remember that the weakness of the bishop compared with the rook is due to the I act that ha - the squares of tho board arc permanently closed to him, and that this difficulty does not apply to piece B-, we may perhaps expect that piece o »•" ppt practically oqmll to C and to the queen, With the adverse king in the corner, it could give mate unassisted, which neither the queen nor piece ( could do.

Tho ordinary knight would suffer In comparison with the bishop, for the larger hoard favours the long-range Pieces. I should think that in some ways the now game might he rather clumsy. We already notice a certain cunibl’oiisneua about a position m which a file is commanded by the queen and doubled rooks of one player or both ; when such a battery is reinforced by piece C the effect, will he more ponderous still. But I think the most notable consequence will be a pronounced weakening olf tlie pawns. One o| their great uses in existing chess is for obstruction ; but they obstruct knights very little. DEFECTS OF THEORY. In the new game, the number ol pieces possessing knight’s powers would be doubled, and half of them could use the knight’s move to surmount a pawn barrier and then do terrible execution with the moves of a bishop or a rook behind the lines. I his, I think, is a definite defect; for pawn-play provides some of the principal subtleties of I lie game and to weaken the pawns is to impoverish chess. The proposal to allow the pawns to move three squares at their first move is a merely logical provision to compensate for the larger hoard and in no way overcomes the weakening of the pawns by the presence of the new pieces. Incidentally the en passant rule would need revision. Those criticisms, 1 am lully aware, have the defects of pure theory. We cannot really pronounce judgment on Senor Capahlanen’s game until we have given it a trial. 1 hope some manufacturer olf chessmen will put some sets of the new pieces and boards on the market.. As to their shape, I suggest that piece B should ho like a knight, hut with a mitre on the horse’s head, and that piece (' should he a rook with a horse’s head at the top. If 1 were asked for names I should like to keep the feudal nomenclature or the game, calling piece B the chancellor and piece C the marshal.