How Not to Play Chess

To complement my chess manual, I checked How Not to Play Chess by Eugene Znosko-Borovsky out of the library. This book contains only general chess advice, and though it's explained through examples, the advice stands on its own well-enough that I thought I'd post it here:

How Not to Play Chess

• Do not make mistakes; instead, understand that a cramped king can lead to loss of material or mate.
• Do not memorize opening variations; instead, understand the ideas behind the main lines of play.
• Do not believe all that you are told; instead, hold fast to the logic of fundamental rules without applying them illogically.
• Do not abandon the center to your adversary; instead, develop your game centrally to increase the strength of your pieces.
• Do not give up open lines; instead, seize them and hold them with your bishops, rooks, and queen.
• Do not create weak points for the enemy to seize; instead, establish a pawn skeleton that secures squares near your opponent's base without leaving holes near yours.
• Do not leave any piece where it has no range of action or is out of touch with your other pieces; instead, concentrate on co-ordinating your forces.
• Do not lose time; instead, complete your development earlier and press home your attack quicker than your opponent, without exchanging well-developed pieces for poorly-developed ones.
• Do not fail to analyze the position; instead, note everything on the board, which pieces are well- or ill-placed, and the strengths and weaknesses of the squares; if you have the advantage, attack; if your opponent has the advantage, defend; if either's advantage is small, play circumspectly.
• Do not play too quickly; instead, fathom the peculiarities of the weaknesses, threats, and chances on either side.
• Do not seek the best move; instead, seek a realizable plan which will give you orientation.
• Do not despise the small details; instead find in them the idea of the position.
• Do not be content with attacking an existing weakness; instead always seek to create others.
• Do not think too soon about what your opponent can do; instead, first get clear what you want to do.
• Do not entangle yourself in a maze of calculations; instead, whenever your opponent's moves are not forced, ask yourself what plan your opponent may form to counter yours.
• Do not lose sight of your idea, however thick the fight; instead, have confidence in your judgment.
• Do not relax in the hour of victory; instead, beware of carelessness once the end game is reached.
• Do not omit to blockade an enemy passed pawn; instead, mechanically stop its advance with a piece, the less valuable the better.

-- Eugene Znosko-Borovsky

Thank you for sharing this, very helpful !

Thanks for sharing, this is some of the most solid advice I've seen in the forums. 👍👍👍

Thanks

Nice summary :)

You can read the book online and/or download a pdf copy...

How Not to Play Chess
By Eugene A. Znosko-Borovsky

Its a relatively short book (120pp).....but a great book.....well worth reading....

https://www.scribd.com/book/271630471/How-Not-to-Play-Chess

https://www.scribd.com/document/428025813/Znosko-Borovsky-How-Not-to-Play-Chess-pdf

https://www.pdfdrive.com/how-not-to-play-chess-e162383432.html

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/scribd-com-for-online-chess-book-reading

Thanks for that RussBell! I just downloaded the pdf and started reading, but got stuck immediately. If you (or anyone else) has a moment, can you tell me how I'm misreading the first diagram - Diagram A on page 16. Bottom of page 15 says "28. R x R, P x R; 29 Kt x P on which Black answered P-B6??". 

But I just can't follow this on Diagram A. I assume Kt means knight? So it takes the pawn on A4? But then the next move pawn to B6 is impossible as there is already a white pawn on B6 right? 

It then says "30 Q-B2". But in the diagram the queen is already on B2? Then the alternative follow up doesn't seem to match either with black's move 30...P x Q. I thought the pawn was on C4. 

Not sure if I'm confusing the old notation or something.

The book uses descriptive notation. 

As mentioned by the OP, the book is written in the older Desciptive Notation (not Algebraic Notation)...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_notation

Ahhh it was the both sides having their own ranks numbered from their own point of view that I didn't know. Makes sense now. Cheers to you both!

👍

Yeah. It took me a while to work that one out. 😁

great stuff!