Was Basman right? Iconoclasm, ridicule and chess – TheArticle

A new book brings to mind two quotations from great minds, one a chess Grandmaster, the other one of the greatest of satirists.

AronNimzowitsch once wrote:Ridicule can do much, for instance embitter the existence of young talents; but one thing is not given to it, to put a stop permanently to the incursion of new and powerful ideas. Nimzowitsch, it will be recalled, formed the inspiration for much of Marcel Duchamps love of chess.

Meanwhile, the following (probably apocryphal) quotation is attributed to the philosophe and wit Voltaire (pictured above): I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

The book, written jointly by the English International Master MichaelBasmanand the Dutch expert, Gerard Welling, isU Cannot Be Serious! AvantGardestrategy in Chess,published by Thinkers Publishing. It amounts to an anthology ofBasmansbest games, featuring the extraordinary flankstrategies whichhe has developed. His illustrious victims include Grandmasters John Nunn, Jon Speelman, Tony Miles, Dragoljub Velimirovic, Vladimir Savon, UlfAndersson, Alban Planinc, Henrique Mecking, Jonathan Tisdalland James Plaskett.

I say that I recall the two quotes, since on the one hand I doubt the ultimate soundness of Basmansmore extreme concepts, yet, on the other, I absolutely defend his right both to deploy and explain his outr ideas.

Indeed, amongst much contumely heaped uponBasmanseccentricities, I am mentioned in despatches in the book as a lone voice crying in the wilderness, lauding his adventurous spirit. (See my article Basmaniaat the Benedictine in the journalModern Chess Theory, 1982.) Co-author Welling refers to this article but sadly no link is available since I wrote it in the Cretaceous period of chess evolution.

Here is how Welling describes the intervention of iconoclasm into the theory of chess openings:

Modern chess is getting to be more and more a young man s game. Over the last decades, with the growth of internet and the development of chess engines, high quality chess material has become readily available. And the young generation knows how to put these opportunities into effect, the result being a much larger pool of strong players than the aged authors have ever witnessed in their respective primes. Openings are researched and tested with the strongest computer programs; this has led to a revival of concrete evaluation of positions and the good old intuition being pushed towards the background. Contemporary chess is lively and we see experimental approaches, but in general backed up with accurate calculation.

When a player has the impertinence to open a game with 1. h3 and follows up 1 e5 2. a3, howls of protest descend from the internet forums. The least practised players especially backed up with their Stockfish engines are quick to abuse the player who had the impudence to sin against their feeling of what correct chess is supposed to be. It is easy enough to attack a skilful player of an experimental inclination, shielding oneself behind the back of the champions (and their supposed opinions on chess matters) or the negative balance in fractions of pawns (!) that an engine indicates. But is it fair to attack a player who plays a couple of unusual moves when the critic does not understand what is happening on the board? It is easy to demonise a move, but it is the underlying idea that should be understood, before it can be contradicted.

Michael Basman has been an avant-garde strategist on the chessboard from his early days as a tournament player and has collected his share of ridicule and scorn throughout the years. But he has also been fairly successful, so we can ask ourselves: who has been right, the master or his critics? Former world champion Mikhail Botvinnik saw through the facade of experimental play and named Basman a creative and talented player.

But on the British player s home turf, there was often sharp rejection of his way of playing chess. Interesting wins were more than once described as lucky, and losses as the natural consequence of sins against chess. Even in the late 1970s, when Mike Basman was a household name in British chess, British Chess Magazine was still writing he was handicapping himself by his unfortunate opening choices. An interesting exception to this trend was Grandmaster Raymond Keene, who back in 1982 wrote an extensive article on Basman s games from the Benedictine Masters in Manchester. He praised the strategical ideas but criticised the implementation. And he finished his article with an example of how these ideas could have found a place in one s own strategic arsenal.

Of course, as a kind of counterweight, avant-garde chess has a cult-following of players that catch the spark of inspiration, study the examples and often copy the ideas. Co-author Gerard Welling was an example of a player that borrowed some ideas from Michael Basman, and even went so far as to play 1. Nf3 h6 in a decisive match in the semi-finals of the Dutch Championship 36 years ago (he won, and qualified). The study of experimental players can widen your horizons and give you new ideas. Even a celebrated chess trainer like Mark Dvoretsky has given this advice. So be critical, but keep an open mind!

Basmanis, indeed, one of the most original thinkers on the current chess scene. He specialises in almost mystical pawn sacrifices and edge-of-the-board strategies, which can confuse the strongest of opponents.

This week I give some spectacular tactical wins byBasmanarising from hiscunning flank encroachments.The first game was played inBasmans debut appearance in the Hastings Premier, where he completely outplayed the Red Czar of Soviet Chess, the great Mikhail Botvinnik. Botvinnik was extremely lucky to escape with a draw.

The most impressive game has Basman playing Black against Grandmaster Henrique Mecking. The Brazilian Mecking was the outstanding prodigy of the day, who went on to become a world championship Candidate. It is enthralling to see howBasmanencroaches from both flanks and then strikes downMeckingsking.

For anyone who mistakenly believes that all chessstrategies have been discovered,Basmans and Wellings book is a blast of fresh oxygen. We might well say, with Hamlet, that there aremore things in heaven and earththan are dreamt of in your philosophy. The most amazing development is that even the reigning world champion, Magnus Carlsen, and other leading grandmasters are now resorting to openings which would have had Capablanca, Alekhine and Botvinnik revolving in their sarcophagi. It must now be apparent, even to one afflicted by the most egregiously struthonian ultracrepidarianism , that there is something in the Zeitgeist which is justifying even the wilder shores of Basmaniac iconoclasm.

Basmans draw v BotvinnikBasmans win v Mecking Basmans win v John Nunn Basmans win v Speelman Carlsen s win against Maghsoodloo

Raymond Keene s latest book Fifty Shades of Ray: Chess in the year of the Coronavirus , containing some of his best pieces from TheArticle, is now available from Blackwell s .

We are the only publication thats committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one thats needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation.

Originally posted here:

Was Basman right? Iconoclasm, ridicule and chess - TheArticle