On Exchanges, Open Files, and the Seventh and Eighth Ranks

The possible motives for exchanging pieces.

In order to show the student the danger lurking in indiscriminate trading, we propose to enumerate the cases in which an exchange seems to be indicated. If an exchange does not come under one or other of these it is bad.

Earlier, we analyzed the exchange with consequent gain of tempo. And, we also often exchange in order not to be forced to retreat, or to make time-losing defensive moves. Both cases are to be regarded as tempo combinations, though, in fact, the question of tempo plays an essential part in every exchange. A salient instance is the exchange of a newly developed piece for one which has wasted several tempi. In the middle game the tempo motif finds expression when:

We exchange in order to seize, or open, a file without loss of time.

A very simple example:

We destroy a defender by exchanging.

We destroy him, that is to say, because we look on him as a defender. We have made the acquaintance of defending pieces whose functions varied: pieces which protect a pawn obstructing the way in an open file; pieces which stand by to aid a blockader; and pawns which help to protect an outpost, etc. The destruction of any one of these is, in every single case, worth striving for. But by a “defender” we mean something much wider. A stretch of territory can also be defended, as for instance entry to the 7th rank, or a possible enemy approach can be warded off; as in:

Further it is well known that a knight at f3 defends the whole castling wing (preventing, e.g., ... Qh4). So, too, in the case of a centrally posted blockading piece, e.g.:

The rule therefore runs: Every defender in the narrower or wider sense of the word must be regarded as an object of our destructive wrath. In the diagram below, where White wins by a series of exchanges, both kinds of motives are exemplified:

We exchange in order not to lose time by retreating.

We are here as a rule concerned with a piece which is attacked. If we are faced with the choice whether to withdraw the piece with loss of tempo, or to exchange him for an enemy piece, we choose the latter alternative, especially if we can use to our advantage the tempo we have saved ourselves by not withdrawing the piece. The question of tempo must therefore be an actual one in some form or other. The simplest example would be:

If a major piece on each side is attacked we have a special variety of this third case and we call it: “Selling one’s life as dearly as possible.” In the position:

When and how exchanges usually take place.

A detailed discussion of this question would require a great deal of space, so we will only quite briefly point out that:

• Simplification is desirable if we have superiority in material. Whence it follows that exchanging can be used as a weapon to force the opponent from strong positions.
• When two parties desire the same thing a conflict arises. In chess this conflict takes the form of a battle of exchanges. For instance:

• If we are strong in a file, a simple advance in that file is sufficient to bring about an exchange, for our opponent cannot suffer an invasion of his position, and at worst must seek to weaken it by exchanges.
• There is a tendency for weak points or weak pawns to be exchanged, the one for the other. The following endgame illustrates this:

The genesis of open files.

A file will be opened by the disappearance of one of our own pawns. This disappearance will be brought about peacefully if the enemy feels it incumbent on him to exchange one of our centrally well-posted pieces, and the recapture is made by a pawn.

We must here stress the word “central,” for it will be but seldom, and never in the opening, that you will be able to force your opponent to open a file by the exchange of a piece which you have posted on a flank. You will gain your object much more quickly if it is centrally posted; for pieces thus established in the middle of the board, and exercising their influence in all directions, are those which will be exchanged.

A file is said to be open for the rook when no pawn of his is in it; or if there be one, he is in front of it. For example:

This definition implies that in deciding whether a file is “open” or “closed,” we are not concerned with the question whether that file gives an avenue of attack on unoccupied squares or on enemy pieces (as a rule, pawns). There is in fact no fundamental difference between play against a piece or against a square. For example:

The game Thomas - Alekhine, Baden-Baden, 1925, provides a good example of exchanges resulting in open files:

Hence post your pieces centrally, so long as you can do so safely, i.e. without inviting the advance of the “pawn-roller.” Thus will your opponent be provoked into an exchange which will give you an open file.

Let us imagine the following from Diagram 9:

It is always the file next to the objective that should be opened. To sum up: no pawn exchanges, no file-opening; no file-opening, no attack.

The ideal (or goal) of every operation in a file.

The ideal which lies at the root of every operation in a file is the ultimate penetration by way of this file into the enemy’s camp, that is to say to our opponent's 7th or 8th rank.

A very important postulate is the following. Supposing that by operating in the D-file we reach the 7th rank by a round-about way, by, say, the maneuver Rd1-Rd4-Ra4-Ra7, this cannot be regarded as direct exploitation of the D-file.

A few elementary examples will now be given:

Putting it shortly, we may say: given deficient resistance, the attacker, after safeguarding the lines of invasion, raids the 7th and 8th ranks, and, doing so, will not seldom be rewarded by the chance of a marauding expedition or of a driving attack.

So far the operation has been as readily intelligible as it is easily executed. Unfortunately in real life there are often great obstacles to overcome.

The possible obstacles to be met with in the line of operations.

We have seen how great may be the significance of a forced entry into the 7th and 8th ranks, This being the case, it is natural to presume that nature herself may have done something for the protection of this sensitive area. The characteristic and natural defensive position is shown below:

The pawn, as we have before insisted, is to be regarded as a sure defender. Protection by pieces may almost be called a confusion of terms; the pawn alone will stand on guard solidly, patiently, without a grumble. Hence a “protected pawn” means a pawn protected by one of his fellows. If our pawn has been enticed away from the confederation of pawns he will be subject to attack by many pieces.

The obvious idea is then to win the pawn by piling up attacks on it; firstly for the sake of the gain in material, but secondly in order to break down the resistance in the file. This will be technically managed by first bringing up our pieces into attacking positions. A fight will then be waged round the pawn. As often as we attack, Black covers; so we now seek to obtain the upper hand by thinning the ranks of the defending forces, which can be done a) by driving them away, b) by exchange, c) by shutting off one of the defending pieces.

That is to say we transfer our attack from our opponent to his defenders. The following endgame will illustrate the method:

The maneuver against the obstructing pawn so far considered is contained in the concept of incremental attack. The whole manner of concentration against one point, in order eventually to get superior forces to bear upon it, implies this. The goal, too, was symptomatic; it was, in fact, partly material gain (the win of a pawn was welcome) which tempted us, partly the ideal of conquering the 7th rank. This mixture of motives was significant.

Quite another picture is revealed in the process employed below:

Simple as is this ending, it seems to me to be of the greatest importance as bringing clearly before us the difference between the incremental and sacrificial forms of attack.

We will therefore give yet another example:

The idea of sacrificial attacks lie, as is here clearly shown, in opening by sheer force an entry to the 7th or 8th rank which had been barred to us. One rook sacrifices himself for his colleague, that the latter may reach the objective, the 8th rank.

In what chronological order are these two methods of attack to be employed? The answer to this is: first try the converging attack, i.e., attack the obstructing pawn with several pieces. By so doing opportunity may be found to force the defending pieces into uncomfortable positions where they will get into one another's way, for the defense will often be cramped for space. Afterwards, see whether among other things there is a possibility of a break through by force, in other words of a sacrificial attack.

The outpost.

Let us glance at the diagram below:

By outpost, we mean a friendly piece, usually a knight, placed on an open file, being protected, by a pawn, within enemy territory.

Because of its radius of attack, a knight, when protected and supported, exercises an unsettling effect and causes our opponent to weaken his position in order to drive him away. Therefore we may say that a) an outpost creates a base for new attacks, and b) an outpost provokes a weakening of the enemy's resistance in the file in question.

It is important for the student to know that the power of an outpost lies in its strategic connection with its rear ranks. The outpost does not derive its strength from itself, but rather from the open file and the protecting pawn, and if suddenly one or other of these points of contact fail, it would almost entirely lose its strength.

For instance, in the following diagram:

Frequently the outpost will be exchanged at his square. If the attacker has played correctly, the retaking piece or pawn will yield full compensation for the taken piece. Then, transformation of advantages is the order of the day. For instance, in the diagram above, if after Nf5 a piece takes the knight, this will be recaptured by the E-pawn, and White now receives the e4 square for a rook or his other knight, and in addition the chance (after g4-g5) of opening the G-file. Further the pawn now at f5 will effectively immobilize the black pawn at f6, our object of attack.

In a flank file the outpost square should be occupied by a heavy piece. Flank files are the A-, B-, G-, and H-files; center files the C-, D-, E-, and F-files.

In the following diagram, a flank file is in question, and the occupation of an outpost square in a flank file by a knight would have little effect, for the attacking range of a knight would be small:

We shall provide another example, chosen not for entertainment but for instruction, taken from a game between Nimzowitsch (White) and an amateur:

In the normal course of events, it will only be late, when we pass into the endgame stage, that the 7th rank will be seized. We are therefore disposed to regard the 7th and 8th ranks as endgame advantages, and this despite the fact that numberless games are decided by operations in these ranks in the middle game. The student should, however, try to break into the enemy’s base as early as possible, and find that the the 7th and 8th ranks will be not merely a mating instrument, but much more, a keen-edged weapon.

It is of the greatest importance to accustom ourselves to carry out operations in the 7th rank in such a manner that we have, from the start, some settled, definite objective. Such an objective, as we have learnt, may be a pawn or a square; which, matters nothing. But aimlessly to drift from one to another, this will expose you to a strategical disgrace.

The convergent and the sacrificial attack in the 7th rank.

The affair takes a similar course in the position below:

The nature of an incremental attack on a chosen objective would seem to have been sufficiently illustrated by this example. Before, however, passing to the sacrificial form of attack, we would underline an important rule: If the objective takes to flight, the rook must attack from the rear.

For example, a rook in the 7th rank holds a black pawn at b7 under attack. If now ... b5, then Rb7, and not a flank attack in the 5th rank.

This rule finds its explanation in the following considerations:

1. The 7th rank is to be held as long as possible, since it is here that new objectives may present themselves.
2. The driving attack is the strongest form of attack, ranged in ascending scale:
   1. frontal
   2. flank
   3. deflecting
3. This often forces the enemy to undertake cramping defensive measures.

This example shows us the idea of a sacrificial attack applied to the 7th rank. One pawn is forcibly got out of the way in order that action in the 7th rank may be extended to that neighboring square which we had thought of as our objective.

Another example is shown below:

Now consider the following:

The five special cases in the 7th rank.

1. “7th rank absolute” with passed pawns.
2. Doubled rooks giving perpetual check.
3. The drawing apparatus of rook plus knight.
4. The marauding raid in the 7th rank.
5. Combined play in the 7th and 8th ranks driving a king from a corner of the board.

The first special case: By “7th rank absolute” we mean that our control is such that the enemy king is shut in behind it. That with well-advanced pawns wins almost always.

The second special case: Draw by perpetual check, which has an interest from a psychological error which is common.

The third special case: The drawing apparatus, for perpetual check, rook plus knight.

The fourth special case is quite simple, but is indispensable in view of the very complicated fifth case: It consists of a driving maneuver. The king will be forced out of his corner, and then a marauding raid follows. An example:

In this fourth case the capacity of the combined rooks to drive the king from his corner to the C- or F-file must be noted. This capacity provides the basis of the 5th case.

The fifth special case: Combined play in the 7th and 8th ranks driving a king from a corner of the board.

The position arrived at after 2... Kf8 above, is the typical starting point of all driving maneuvers in the 7th and 8th rows.

The king who is threatened by an driving attack must maintain contact with the nearer rook as long as possible so mate cannot be given. The rooks on their side must seek to shake loose from the contact. The king who is threatened must struggle towards the corner, and the rooks must and will drive him from it.

In addition the the fourth case, White can try two maneuvers: a) a mating combination by breaking off contact between king and rook, or b) a tempo-winning combination.

We have now sufficiently illustrated the five special cases, and have made it clear that the first thing to do is to bring about the “starting point position.” We will close with one more endgame, from the game Nimzowitsch - Bernstein, Vilnius, 1912:

-- Aron Nimzowitsch, 1929