Igor Zaitsev's Attacking the Strongpoint
A philosophy of chess from a man who chose the shadows
Hey everyone - a quick update on what I’ve been working on. After 3 months and 200+ hours, I've just hit a major milestone on my first video course. I’ll share more details in the next post and open a waitlist for anyone who wants early access before launch.
A hundred years ago, Aron Nimzowitsch coined the term overprotection: protecting an important pawn or square more than seems necessary. The opponent will be discouraged from attacking it and the latent potential of the protecting pieces can become deadly as the position evolves.
In the 1960s, Igor Zaitsev became convinced that a well-planned breakthrough of a strongpoint - or Attacking the Strongpoint - is one of the basic active tools of strategy. Attacking a square which the opponent is overprotecting!
This book (thanks Gary for the rec) is the life’s work of Russian grandmaster Igor Zaitsev (1938–). He was an analyst for Tigran Petrosian and the leading trainer for Anatoly Karpov in no less than seven world championship matches.
Zaitsev is known for his numerous contributions to opening theory, such as the Zaitsev System in the Ruy Lopez.
I could write a whole post on his amazing opening ideas and novelties, some which influenced World Championship matches (see his games here). But like the title of his book suggests, Zaitsev was an original thinker for every part of the game.
The idea that left the biggest impression on me was his definition of the word strategy. I’d say most players (myself included) see it as the long-term plan when compared to positional play which is more improving your position in the short term.
Zaitsev had another view.
Strategy, figuratively speaking, is in fact just pawn play. Every alteration in the pawns, whether by capture or by advance, indubitably bears a strategic character. When the last of the pawns leaves the board, although there still may be calculation and planning, there is no longer strategy — only tactics.
Strategy is nothing more than attempting to alter the pawn structure advantageously, or directing the evolution of the pawn structure.
Is there no positional pawn play then? Does strategy (pawns) combine with positional play (pieces)? Is thinking about this kind of thing purely semantics or does it actually help your chess? I’ve learnt that the important thing is to have your own opinion, test it in practice and keep refining, while learning about other viewpoints. That’s why I think chess books are still so valuable because you learn from players and games of the past, concepts and different ways to think about the game that shapes your own.
For example, I know a GM who starts thinking about a position from the pawn structure; and I know another who thinks ‘positional chess’ is a waste of time. Each game you play is, whether you’re conscious of it or not, a testing of your own hypotheses about chess and all its parts. Whether you agree with Zaitsev or not, what he unashamedly gives you is a philosophy that comes from decades at the top level.
He [Zaitsev] will talk about chess and about life simultaneously, such that even afterward you will remember him, and be left arguing with yourself over whether you agree or disagree with him.
—Anatoly Bykhovsky, from the Epilogue
Having said that, I wouldn’t recommend this book to someone new to chess books. You’ll get more out of it if you know some chess history, have your own chess philosophies or opinions on the game, and… don’t mind wordy prose. It’s probably the most Proustian chess book I’ve read.
My favourite chapter was Point of Absurdity: Tigran Petrosian. Getting a behind-the-scenes look of Petrosian and Efim Geller cooped up in a dacha analysing a variation in the English Opening for several days was beautiful and I would gladly read a thousand pages of stories like that (alas, that chapter was only 8 pages and this whole book, the only book of Zaitsev’s, 240).
And that’s the thing with figures like Igor Zaitsev. He’s spent a whole life in chess, is one of the most renowned analysts of the whole 20th century, he worked with two of the most positionally gifted World Champions, and yet we know very little about him. The poetic words of warning David Bronstein told Zaitsev when the latter decided to become a full-time trainer and analyst rather than a player were prescient:
From this day forward, you will have to be prepared always to be in the shadows. Like the moon, you will only shine by reflected light.
It makes you think of all of those in the past and present who have dedicated some of their time on this earth to the game, each with their lives and stories in chess and outside of it. And at the end of the day, don’t we all have our philosophies and stories to tell, or rather should share, not just keep inside us?
Attacking the Strongpoint - a museful work by an unassuming giant of our game.
It is imperative to understand once and for all, that in chess, as in any other art form, “stronger” does not always mean “better” — even a perfectly retouched (or edited) copy is never as valuable as the original.
Good review Junta, its been some years since I read it, but as I recall I loved the chess examples in this book, but found the writing a bit dry. (not uncommon for books of that era)
"Proustian" indeed!