The Art of the Game of Chess 0813232813, 9780813232812

Table of contents :
Contents
Foreword by Andrew Soltis
Acknowledgments
Introduction
The Book of the Liberal Invention and Art of the Game of Chess
The King
Ruy López of Segura’s Epistle Nuncupatory
Book I
1. In which the game of chess as a game of science and mathematical invention is addressed
2. In which the game of chess and laudable pastime, which is not just an indulgence but is necessary for the conservation of human life, is addressed
3. In which the identity of the inventor of this game is identified
4. In which when and where this game was invented is explained
5. In which the reason that the game was invented is explained
6. In which the reasons there were sixty-four squares, a square board, and elevated sides for the game of chess are explained
7. In which the meaning of the board’s thirty-two squares is explained
8. In which the names of chess and the pieces are explained
9. In which the name, shape, and position of each of the pieces are explained
10. In which the shape, position, and movement of the king are explained
11. In which the shape, position, and movement of the queen are explained
12. In which the shape, position, and movement of the bishops are explained
13. In which the shape, position, and movement of the knights are explained
14. In which the shape, position, and movement of the rooks are explained
15. In which the shape, position, and movement of the pawns are explained
16. In which the quality and advantage of each pawn, as well as which pawns are good for one thing and which pawns are good for another, are explained
17. In which the previous shape of the king’s pawn is described
18. In which the previous shape of the queen’s pawn is described
19. In which the previous shape of the king’s bishop’s pawn is described
20. In which the previous shape of the queen’s bishop’s pawn is described
21. In which the previous shapes of the king’s knight’s pawn and the queen’s knight’s pawn are described
22. In which the previous shape of the king’s rook’s pawn is described
23. In which the previous shape of the queen’s rook’s pawn is described
24. In which the meanings of the pieces and the pawns of this game, in the order in which they appear, are explained
25. In which the meanings of simple check, double check, checkmate, and stalemate, as well as the reason the king in check does not leap, are explained
26. In which the reason the white squares of the board, and not the black squares, are on player’s right is explained
27. In which how to move the chess pieces, how to capture them, how to play from memory, as well as aspects that must be considered, are explained
Book II
1. The first way to arrange the game with the first move
2. Another way for the player with the first move to open and to arrange the game
3. Another way to arrange the game, beginning similarly
4. Another way to arrange the game with the first move
5. Another way to arrange the game, beginning similarly
6. How Black can arrange his game against the aforementioned moves without the first move
7. Another way to play, opening with the king’s pawn
8. Another way to play, opening with the king’s pawn
9. Another way to play, opening with the king’s pawn
10. Another way to arrange the game, beginning similarly
11. Another way to arrange the game, opening with the king’s pawn
12. Another way to arrange the game, opening with the king’s pawn
13. Another way to arrange the game with the king’s pawn
14. Another way to arrange the game, beginning similarly and playing as in Italy, where the pawn passes battle
15. Another way to arrange the game, beginning similarly
16. Another way to open the game with the kings’ pawns and the king’s bishop’s pawn, beginning similarly
17. Another way to begin the game with the same kings’ pawns and the king’s bishop’s pawn
18. Another way to arrange the game, beginning with the aforementioned pawns
19. Another way to arrange the game, beginning with the same kings’ pawns and and the king’s bishop’s pawn
20. Another way to arrange the game, beginning similarly
21. Another way to arrange the game, beginning with the same king’s pawns and the king’s bishop’s pawn
22. Another way to arrange the game, beginning similarly with the aforementioned pawns
23. Another way to arrange the game, beginning with the same pawns
24. Another way to arrange the game, beginning similarly with the aforementioned pawns
25. Another way to arrange the game, beginning similarly with the same pawns
26. Another way for Black to arrange the game against the king’s bishop’s pawn’s attack
27. Another way for Black to arrange the game against the king’s bishop’s pawn’s attack
28. Another way for Black to arrange the game against the king’s bishop’s pawn’s attack
29. Another way to arrange the game, beginning with the player whose first move is the king’s pawn; the opponent’s is the queen’s pawn
Book III
1. Beginning to arrange the game, according to Damiano
2. Beginning to play, according to Damiano’s first way
3. Another way to arrange the game, beginning with Damiano’s same game
4. Another way to arrange the game, beginning with Damiano’s same game
5. Beginning to arrange the game, according to Damiano’s second way
6. Beginning to arrange the game, according to Damiano’s third way
7. Which addresses the true way to know how to play the gambit game, with a statement about the oversights and errors that Damiano committed in the way he showed how to play this gambit. Stating, lastly, why this Game, more so than any other, is called a gambit game, what a “gambit” means, and where the term “gambit” originates
8. Another way to begin the game on offense and defense, beginning with the moves from Damiano’s second and third games
9. Another way to begin the game on offense and defense, beginning with Damiano’s method
10. Another way to attack and to defend the game, beginning like Damiano
11. Another way to attack and to defend, beginning with Damiano’s aforementioned method
12. Another way for Black to arrange the game against the aforementioned attack
13. Another way for Black to arrange the game against the aforementioned attack
14. Another way for Black to arrange the game against the aforementioned attack
15. Another way to protect the king’s pawn against the opposing king’s knight’s attack
16. Another way to arrange the game, according to the second way to protect the pawn
17. Another way to arrange the game, according to the second way to protect the king’s pawn against the knight’s attack
18. Another way to arrange the game against the king’s knight’s attack, according to the second way to defend
19. Another way to arrange the game against the knight’s attack, according to the third way to defend the pawn
20. Another way to arrange the game against the knight’s attack, according to the fourth way to defend the pawn
21. Another way to arrange the game against the king’s knight’s attack, protecting its pawn, according to the fifth way to defend the pawn
22. Beginning the game with the queen’s pawn, according to Damiano
23. Another way to arrange the game, beginning with the queen’s pawn
24. Other ways to begin the games, not starting with the aforementioned ways
Book IV
1. How to arrange the game to defend against a player who receives an advantage of two moves
2. How the player who receives an advantage of two moves for the king’s bishop’s pawn should arrange the game
3. Another way the player who receives an advantage of two moves for the king’s bishop’s pawn can arrange the game
4. How the player who receives first move advantage for the king’s bishop’s pawn should arrange the game
5. Another way for the player who receives first move advantage for the king’s bishop’s pawn to arrange the game
6. Another way for the player who receives an advantage of the king’s bishop’s pawn for the first move to arrange the game, according to Damiano
7. Which addresses several of the chapter’s errors and the aforementioned method of playing, according to Damiano
8. How the player who receives an advantage of the aforementioned pawn and the first move should arrange the game, according to Damiano
9. How the player who receives an advantage of a knight for the aforementioned pawn and the first move should defend, according to Damiano
10. Another way the player who receives an advantage of a knight for the king’s bishop’s pawn and the first move should defend, according to Damiano
11. How the player who receives an advantage of a knight for the first move should play, according to Damiano’s doctrine
12. Another way the player who receives an advantage of a knight for the first move can arrange the game
13. Another way the player who receives an advantage of a knight for the first move can arrange the game
14. Another way the player who receives an advantage of a knight for the first move can arrange the game
15. Another way the player who receives an advantage of a knight for the first move can arrange the game
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

The Art of The Game of Chess

Edited and translated by

Michael J. M c Grath Foreword by Andrew Soltis Grandmaster and United States Chess Hall of Fame Inductee

RUY LÓPEZ

The Art of The Game of Chess

the catholic univerSity oF aMerica preSS Washington, D.C.

Copyright © 2020 The Catholic University of America Press All rights reserved The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standards for Information Science—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. ∞ Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: López de Segura, Ruy, active 16th century, author. | McGrath, Michael J., editor, translator. Title: The art of the game of chess / Ruy López ; edited and translated by Michael J. McGrath ; foreword by Andrew Soltis. Other titles: Libro de la invencion liberal y arte del juego del axedrez. English. Description: Washington, D.C. : The Catholic University of America Press, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020021224 | ISBN 9780813232812 (paperback) | ISBN 9780813232829 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Chess—Early works to 1800. Classification: LCC GV1442 .L8513 2020 | DDC 794.1—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020021224

For Bri Hurst, whose kindness and love will never be forgotten

j

CONTE NTS Contents



Foreword by Andrew Soltis

xv

Acknowledgments

xii

Introduction 1 The Book of the Liberal Invention and Art of the Game of Chess  15

The King

16



Ruy López of Segura’s Epistle Nuncupatory

17

Book I

1. In which the game of chess as a game of science and mathematical invention is addressed

23



2. In which the game of chess and laudable pastime, which is not just an indulgence but is necessary for the conservation of human life, is addressed

27



3. In which the identity of the inventor of this game is identified 30



4. In which when and where this game was invented is explained

32



5. In which the reason that the game was invented is explained

33



6. In which the reasons there were sixty-four squares, a square board, and elevated sides for the game of chess are explained

36



7. In which the meaning of the board’s thirty-two squares is explained

37



8. In which the names of chess and the pieces are explained 39



9. In which the name, shape, and position of each of the pieces are explained

40



10. In which the shape, position, and movement of the king are explained

42



11. In which the shape, position, and movement of the queen are explained

47

12. In which the shape, position, and movement of the bishops are explained

51



13. In which the shape, position, and movement of the knights are explained

55

14. In which the shape, position, and movement of the rooks are explained

58



15. In which the shape, position, and movement of the pawns are explained

59



16. In which the quality and advantage of each pawn, as well as which pawns are good for one thing and which pawns are good for another, are explained

64



17. In which the previous shape of the king’s pawn is described

67



18. In which the previous shape of the queen’s pawn is described

68



19. In which the previous shape of the king’s bishop’s pawn is described

69

20. In which the previous shape of the queen’s bishop’s pawn is described

21. In which the previous shapes of the king’s knight’s pawn and the queen’s knight’s pawn are described

70 71

22. In which the previous shape of the king’s rook’s pawn is described

71

23. In which the previous shape of the queen’s rook’s pawn is described

73

24. In which the meanings of the pieces and the pawns of this game, in the order in which they appear, are explained

74

viii

Contents



25. In which the meanings of simple check, double check, checkmate, and stalemate, as well as the reason the king in check does not leap, are explained

78

26. In which the reason the white squares of the board, and not the black squares, are on player’s right is explained 80

27. In which how to move the chess pieces, how to capture them, how to play from memory, as well as aspects that must be considered, are explained

82

Book II

1. The first way to arrange the game with the first move

119



2. Another way for the player with the first move to open and to arrange the game

120



3. Another way to arrange the game, beginning similarly

121



4. Another way to arrange the game with the first move

126



5. Another way to arrange the game, beginning similarly

128



6. How Black can arrange his game against the aforementioned moves without the first move

131



7. Another way to play, opening with the king’s pawn

132



8. Another way to play, opening with the king’s pawn

133



9. Another way to play, opening with the king’s pawn

136



10. Another way to arrange the game, beginning similarly

137



11. A nother way to arrange the game, opening with the king’s pawn

139

12. A nother way to arrange the game, opening with the king’s pawn

143



145

13. A nother way to arrange the game with the king’s pawn

14. A nother way to arrange the game, beginning similarly and playing as in Italy, where the pawn passes battle

146



15. Another way to arrange the game, beginning similarly

149



16. A nother way to open the game with the kings’ pawns and the king’s bishop’s pawn, beginning similarly

151



Contents ix



17. A nother way to begin the game with the same kings’ pawns and the king’s bishop’s pawn

154



18. A nother way to arrange the game, beginning with the aforementioned pawns

154



19. A nother way to arrange the game, beginning with the same kings’ pawns and and the king’s bishop’s pawn

157

20. A nother way to arrange the game, beginning similarly

21. A nother way to arrange the game, beginning with the same king’s pawns and the king’s bishop’s pawn

160 162

22. A nother way to arrange the game, beginning similarly with the aforementioned pawns

163

23. A nother way to arrange the game, beginning with the same pawns

164

24. A nother way to arrange the game, beginning similarly with the aforementioned pawns

166



25. A nother way to arrange the game, beginning similarly with the same pawns

26. A nother way for Black to arrange the game against the king’s bishop’s pawn’s attack

167 168

27. A nother way for Black to arrange the game against the king’s bishop’s pawn’s attack

171

28. A nother way for Black to arrange the game against the king’s bishop’s pawn’s attack

172

29. A nother way to arrange the game, beginning with the player whose first move is the king’s pawn; the opponent’s is the queen’s pawn

173

Book III

1. Beginning to arrange the game, according to Damiano

177



2. Beginning to play, according to Damiano’s first way

181



3. A nother way to arrange the game, beginning with Damiano’s same game

182



4. A nother way to arrange the game, beginning with Damiano’s same game

185

x

Contents



5. Beginning to arrange the game, according to Damiano’s second way

186



6. Beginning to arrange the game, according to Damiano’s third way

188



7. Which addresses the true way to know how to play the gambit game, with a statement about the oversights and errors that Damiano committed in the way he showed how to play this gambit. Stating, lastly, why this Game, more so than any other, is called a gambit game, what a “gambit” means, and where the term “gambit” originates 192



8. A nother way to begin the game on offense and defense, beginning with the moves from Damiano’s second and third games

201

9. A nother way to begin the game on offense and defense, beginning with Damiano’s method

203



10. A nother way to attack and to defend the game, beginning like Damiano

204



11. A nother way to attack and to defend, beginning with Damiano’s aforementioned method

208

12.  Another way for Black to arrange the game against the aforementioned attack

210

13. A nother way for Black to arrange the game against the aforementioned attack

211

14. A nother way for Black to arrange the game against the aforementioned attack

213



15. A nother way to protect the king’s pawn against the opposing king’s knight’s attack

216



16. A nother way to arrange the game, according to the second way to protect the pawn

218



17. A nother way to arrange the game, according to the second way to protect the king’s pawn against the knight’s attack

220

18. A nother way to arrange the game against the king’s knight’s attack, according to the second way to defend

221





Contents xi



19.  A nother way to arrange the game against the knight’s attack, according to the third way to defend the pawn

20. A nother way to arrange the game against the knight’s attack, according to the fourth way to defend the pawn

21. A nother way to arrange the game against the king’s knight’s attack, protecting its pawn, according to the fifth way to defend the pawn

223 226

228

22. Beginning the game with the queen’s pawn, according to Damiano

230

23. A nother way to arrange the game, beginning with the queen’s pawn

233

24. Other ways to begin the games, not starting with the aforementioned ways

236

Book IV

1. How to arrange the game to defend against a player who receives an advantage of two moves

241



2. How the player who receives an advantage of two moves for the king’s bishop’s pawn should arrange the game

243

3. A nother way the player who receives an advantage of two moves for the king’s bishop’s pawn can arrange the game

245



4. How the player who receives first move advantage for the king’s bishop’s pawn should arrange the game

246



5. A nother way for the player who receives first move advantage for the king’s bishop’s pawn to arrange the game

247

6. A nother way for the player who receives an advantage of the king’s bishop’s pawn for the first move to arrange the game, according to Damiano

250

7. Which addresses several of the chapter’s errors and the aforementioned method of playing, according to Damiano

255

8. How the player who receives an advantage of the aforementioned pawn and the first move should arrange the game, according to Damiano

259









xii

Contents







9. How the player who receives an advantage of a knight for the aforementioned pawn and the first move should defend, according to Damiano 10. A nother way the player who receives an advantage of a knight for the king’s bishop’s pawn and the first move should defend, according to Damiano

269

11. How the player who receives an advantage of a knight for the first move should play, according to Damiano’s doctrine

271

12. A nother way the player who receives an advantage of a knight for the first move can arrange the game

13. A nother way the player who receives an advantage of a knight for the first move can arrange the game

14. A nother way the player who receives an advantage of a knight for the first move can arrange the game

263

15. A nother way the player who receives an advantage of a knight for the first move can arrange the game

274 277 280 281

Bibliography 285 Index 289



Contents xiii

FORE WORD Foreword

Andrew Soltis

When someone begins to study chess, he or she is confronted by a baffling array of names for the standard moves that begin a game. Many of the openings and sub-variations carry the surname of a great master of the past, followed by a noun. There is a Ponziani Opening, a Keres Attack, a Philidor’s Defense, and a From’s Gambit, for example. Some openings bear a full name (the Max Lange Attack). But only one major opening consists of just a player’s name, the Ruy López. It is an enormously popular way of starting a chess game, employed countless times each day in games played on the Internet, in tournament rooms, and in chess clubs. Yet few players know who López was or why he deserves his place in chess history. That history began about a millennium before López (1530–ca. 1580) was born. But what we consider “our” chess dates from the last quarter of the fifteenth century. That is when the rules of play were fundamentally changed. The modern rules, with the enhanced power of the queen and bishop, were first published in 1497 in Luis de Lucena’s Repetición de amores e artes de ajedrez (Repetition of love and the art of playing chess). Today’s players know the name Lucena because it has been (incorrectly) attached to a standard device in rook endgames, the “Lucena Position.” Lucena should have gotten credit for introducing a beautiful smothered mate combination in his book, but it became known as “Philidor’s Legacy.” This is the kind of irony that runs through chess history. Lucena, a Spaniard, was followed by Pedro Damiano, a Portuguese pharmacist, and his Questo libro e da imparare giocare a scachi et de li partii (This book is to learn how to play chess), which was published in Rome in 1512. It must have been very popular, because it went through several editions. Damiano is remembered today primarily as a result of



xv

Algebraic notation is a universal way of recording and describing the moves in a game of chess. The numbers 1 and 2 denote the first moves by White and Black, respectively. With the exception of the pawn, there is an upper-case letter that corresponds to the other pieces: K = King, Q = Queen, B = Bishop, N = Knight, and R = Rook. As noted in the text, White moves the king’s pawn to e4 to begin the game; Black counters by moving his king’s pawn to e5. Then, White moves the knight to the square in front of his bishop’s pawn (f3). Black moves the king’s knight in front of his bishop’s pawn (f6). When an annotation precedes a move by Black, an ellipsis is added to fill the position of White’s move. Further, when a piece captures another piece or a pawn, an x is placed between the piece moved and the square upon which it captures (e.g., Bxf8); when a pawn captures, the x is placed between the file from which it moved and the square upon which it captures (e.g., exd5). A move that places the opponent’s king is check is followed by +; a move resulting in checkmate, by #.

another misattribution: He analyzed the opening moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 and criticized 2…f6 (see figure above). For this reason, this bad move is called the Damiano Defense. Then comes Ruy López. He was a Spanish priest and may have become acquainted with Damiano’s work when he visited Rome in 1560 on church business. At that time, the best players of modern-rules chess lived in Italy and Iberia. López is believed to have easily beaten the most skilled Italians. He may deserve the title of world champion, but that title did not exist until the late nineteenth century. In 1561 López’s great contribution to chess, the Libro de la invención

xvi

Foreword

liberal y arte del juego de axedrez (Book of the liberal invention and art of the game of chess), appeared. Judging by his acid comments, López seems to have been inspired by Damiano: He wanted to refute his conclusions. López’s animus toward Damiano’s knowledge of chess recalls the origin of one of the great twentieth-century books. Richard Réti, a leading player after World War I, was so disgusted by the writing of a popular chess author, Franz Gutmayer, that he was prompted to write Modern Ideas in Chess (1923). Réti did not directly insult Gutmayer in his book. By contrast, clearly López has contempt for Damiano. For example: “Damiano is greatly mistaken,” López writes in book 1, chapter 24, “because he doesn’t know what this game represents.” Historians tend to regard François-André Philidor (1726–1795) as the first great chess thinker. But Libro de la invención liberal y arte del juego de axedrez (Book of the liberal invention and art of the game of chess) shows that the honor belongs to López. His insights are remarkably modern. Philidor was regarded as the first to raise pawns from the level of puny foot soldiers into significant figures. But here we have López describing the usefulness of a pawn center, particularly composed of advanced d- and e-pawns, to act as a shield for advancing pieces and as a safeguard against enemy attacks. López was also concerned with protecting the health of a pawn structure. “The player should know not to leave the pawn helpless or unaccompanied,” he wrote. That is, an isolated pawn (a pawn that cannot be protected by a fellow pawn) is weak. The longest and most interesting chapter, 27 of book 1, covers what López calls rules, though we would see them as practical tips. Remarkably, he begins with gamesmanship: “The first rule is when a game is played on a clear and sunny day, make sure the sun is in the enemy’s face so that it blinds him.” He justifies this suggestion—“it is useful to search for as many advantages as possible”—on the grounds that chess “is a bellic invention.” That is, it is a war game, and any good general knows how to use the sun to his advantage. Later in chapter 27, he advises a player to “make sure” his opponent “is as tired and stressed as possible.” And try to choose a chess set that he is unfamiliar with. It is difficult to know how much of what López writes is original,



Foreword xvii

because we do not know how many chess manuscripts, in Arabic and other languages, are lost. This is a problem when reading, in chapter 27, that a rook increases in significance “when the game begins to clear out.” This observation is an insight about the power of the rook as the endgame nears that even many modern masters do not fully appreciate. Did it originate with López? Or was he tweaking what had been known before 1475—because the rook’s ability to move had not changed under the modern rules? The last half of López’s book (books 2, 3, and 4) is what we call opening analysis. López begins with the long forgotten 1.e4 e5 2.c3 and concludes that White has the better chances after 2…Nf6 3.Qc2 Bc5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Bb5 d6 6.d4. Trying to follow this long notation and all the analytic chapters that follow, the reader will appreciate the economy of chess notation. We can express these moves in two lines of type, compared with the wordy passages of López. Under the earlier rules of chess, a player normally spent the first ten moves or so developing his pieces into a tabia, a kind of battle array. Pieces and pawns did not typically cross into enemy territory—past the fourth rank—until all of a player’s forces were ready. A player did not have to pay much attention to what his opponent was doing on the other side of the board. But under the modern rules, checkmate could occur in just a few moves. Thus the era of Damiano and López is when modern opening theory begins. López points out some useful opening traps that have become familiar to beginning players. For example, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 is known as the Petrov Defense and is named after Alexander Petrov—although his chief contribution was to analyze it nearly three centuries after López. López points out that the natural 3.Nxe5, the reply 3…Nxe4 is a mistake that can be punished by 4.Qe2. López also introduces the word “gambito” (gambit) in book 3, chapter 7. He explains its Italian origin and says it is a way of beginning “a game of traps and impediments.” He then demolishes some Damiano analysis with comments such as “Contrary to Damiano, who does not know how to play . . . .”

xviii

Foreword

But where is the opening that carries the name López? In chapter 8 he examines Damiano’s recommendation of 2…Nc6 following 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3. Damiano is wrong, he writes, because “he does not understand the problems and disadvantages that could present themselves” if White plays differently than Damiano’s analysis. What he means is that Damiano recommended 3.Bc4, rather than what López considered the strongest move, 3.Bb5. This is the move that makes it a “Ruy López.”



Foreword xix

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank, first and foremost, Trevor Lipscombe, director of the Catholic University of America Press, for his encouragement, support, and faith in my work. I am particularly grateful to Andrew Soltis, who kindly accepted my invitation to write the foreword. I also express my deep appreciation to Jorge Amador, whose thoughtful and insightful suggestions greatly improved the quality of the translation, and whose knowledge of chess and its history illuminated my understanding of Ruy López’s strategies. Many thanks are owed to the outside readers, whose astute comments and recommendations I appreciate very much. My most sincere and heartfelt gratitude to Anne Needham for her many insightful and valuable editorial suggestions.



xxi

The Art of The Game of Chess

INTRODUCTION

Introduction Chess is a powerful reducing agent. It can reduce a whole battlefield or city or planet down to sixty-four squares. And yet, within that simplistic frame, chess retains its active quality; like a snow globe, it shrinks things down, but retains its dynamic essence.1

When the Moors invaded the Iberian Peninsula in 711, the popularity of the game of chess, which the Muslims had adopted after the Islamic conquest of Persia in the seventh century, spread quickly throughout southern Europe. According to the oldest myth that explains the invention of chess, King Hashrān of India asked his sage Qaflān to invent a game that would illustrate a human being’s dependence on destiny and fate. Qaflān conceived of nard, a board game between two players whose roll of the dice determined how their respective pieces move. When King Balhait, who succeeded King Hashrān, learned that the fatalist traits of nard were not in concert with his religious beliefs, he encouraged his subjects to adopt a new game of skill that appealed to the value he placed on free will and intelligence. King Balhait soon discovered, however, other uses for the board and pieces of this game he often played against the wise men in his court: He also made of this game a kind of allegory of the heavenly bodies (eleven planets and the twelve zodiacal signs), and dedicated each piece to a star. The game of chess became a school of government and defense; it was consulted in time of war, when military tactics were about to be employed, to study the more or less rapid movements of troops.2

An iteration of the game that originated in India emerged in Persia during the fifth century. Chatrang was an adaptation of the Sanskrit 1. Shenk, The Immortal Game, 56. 2. Ibid., 25



1

word chaturanga. Both words, according to chess historian H. J. R. Murray, are “in their respective languages the ordinary names for the game of chess.”3 In the twelfth century, Abraham ibn Ezrah (1092–1167), a Jewish scholar of religion, astronomy, mathematics, and astrology, who was born in Navarre (Spain), wrote a poem titled “The Song of Chess”: I will sing a song of battle Planned in days long passed and over. Men of skill and science set it On a plain of eight divisions, And designed in squares all chequered. Two camps face each one the other. And the Kings stand by for battle, And ’twixt these two is the fighting. Bent on war the face of each is, Ever moving or encamping. Yet no swords are drawn in warfare, For a war of thoughts their war is.4

The most influential proponent of the game of chess in the Middle Ages, however, was Alfonso X el Sabio (Alfonso X the Learned), who was the king of Castile from 1252 to 1284. He commissioned a book about a variety of games, including chess, titled Libros de acedrex, dados e tablas (1283; also known as Libro de los juegos or Book of Games). The book consists of seven parts and one hundred fifty miniatures that illustrate the text. The first part of the book is about the game of chess, and it consists of sixty-four miniatures. The popularity of chess in Europe during the Middle Ages was especially due to the game’s allegorical moral instruction. One of the oldest chess moralities is Quaedam moralitas de scaccario (1250), whose authorship is attributed to the Franciscan theologian John of Wales (1220– 1290).5 Unlike other chess moralities, however, Quaedam moralitas de scaccario depicts a world of depravity, whose inhabitants, as represented 3. Murray, A History of Chess, 31. 4. Shenk, The Immortal Game, 165. 5. The English translations of Quaedam moralitas de scaccario include Innocent Morality or All the World’s a Chess-Board. For more information on the different translations, see Juel, “Defeating the Devil at Chess,” 87n1.

2

Introduction

by the pieces, are, with the exception of the king and the rook, bereft of virtue.6 All of the earliest chess moralities, including Quaedam moralitas de scaccario, portray the game as a window into the soul of the players, as Jenny Adams observes: “Although used initially as a representation of social order, chess by this point has become a test of an individual’s virtue. If any person−the text has now conflated the player and the reader−falls into sin, he will lose both the game and his soul.”7 Jacobus de Cessolis (1250–1322), who was a Dominican monk from Italy, allegorizes the chess board as a city in his morality book Liber de moribus hominum et officiis nobilium super ludo scacchorum (1330).8 Adams notes the impact of Jacobus de Cessolis’s Liber on the body politic in the late Middle Ages: Upon the game’s arrival in Europe in the late tenth century, medieval cultures deliberately turned it into a representation of their own social milieu(s). By the late thirteenth century chess had become so popular and so well known that Jacobus de Cessolis had little difficulty harnessing its allegorical power, and he drew on the game’s mimetic qualities in order to model the workings of a contractually based political order. In doing so he provided a way for people to think about their identities as individuals and as citizens. If the Liber’s allegory allowed a player the fantasy of ultimate power over the game, its exempla reminded individuals of their responsibility to the political community.9

Ruy López, however, eschews Cessolis’s allegory that the chess board is a city and chooses instead to address the game as if it were a military campaign: “We have always refuted that opinion and teaching, demonstrating here that the board represents not a city but a battlefield with two kings, whose warriors are prepared to do battle.”10 Murray notes that 6. “In this game the Devil says, ‘Check!’ while cursing or striking anyone with the barb of sin, [and] unless he more quickly says, ‘Clear,’ by passing to the penance of a sorrowful heart, the Devil says, ‘Mate!’ leading his soul off to the lower levels of hell where it will not be freed” (Adams, Power Play, 44). 7. Ibid., 45. 8. “And first we ought to speke of the forme and of the facion of the chequer, after that hit representeth and was made after. For hit was made after the forme of the cyté of Babyloyne, in the whiche this same playe was founden, as hit is sayd afore.” Thus, William Caxton, who published an English translation of Jacobus de Cessolis’s book in 1474; the quote is from a modern edition: Caxton, The Game and the Playe of Chesse, 150. 9. Adams, Power Play, 157. 10. The Art of the Game of Chess, book 1, chapter 24



Introduction 3

chess resembles a war because war is the “most effective school for teaching the value of administration, decision, prudence, caution, arrangement, strategy, circumspection, vigour, courage, force, endurance, and bravery.”11 Author David Shenk extends the metaphor of war, writing: “Chess was, in a sense, medieval presentation software—the PowerPoint of the Middle Ages. It was a customizable platform for poets, philosophers, and other intellectuals to explore and to present a wide array of complex ideas in a visual and compelling way.”12 During the second half of the fifteenth century, chess moralities, for the most part, do not provide the explicit moral instruction of earlier treatises, because the advent of the rules of modern chess (c. 1475) inspired their authors to focus more on how to play the game: “Eventually, the game would take on a pan-European character. But for the first few centuries, citizens of the Middle Ages seemed to be more enamored of the game’s social carriage than its intellectual ferocity.”13 Two of the earliest treatises on modern chess are the Göttingen manuscript, a Latin text that begins with a description of twelve openings and concludes with thirty problems, each of which is followed by a diagram and a solution,14 and Repetición de amores y arte de ajedrez con 150 juegos de partido (1497; Repetition of love and the art of playing chess), by the Spaniard Luis Ramírez de Lucena (1465–1530), who dedicated his book to Prince 11. Murray, A History of Chess, 255. Murray and Shenk discuss several myths and legends that describe the invention of the game of chess in their respective books. Murray notes that there are at least four legends that analogize chess and war (ibid., 257). 12. Shenk, The Immortal Game, 26. 13. Shenk, The Immortal Game, 58. The allegorical associations with the game of chess did not disappear. A late fifteenth-century poem titled Le jeu des esches de la dame, moralisé (The lady’s game of chess, moralized) is an explicit religious allegory. In Miguel de Cervantes’s masterpiece Don Quixote (Part 1: 1605; Part 2: 1615), Sancho Panza describes chess as an allegory of death: “like the business of the game of chess−while it’s being played, each piece has its particular function, but when the game is over, they’re all mixed up and jumbled together, and they’re put into a bag, which is like finishing one’s life in the grave” (Cervantes, Don Quixote, 492). 14. The twelve openings are the Damiano Defense, Philidor Defense, Giuoco Piano (also called the Italian Opening), Petrov Defense, Bishop’s Opening, Ruy López, Ponziani Opening, Philidor Defense (favors Black), Queen’s Gambit Accepted, London System, Bird’s Opening, and English Opening. A position in chess endgame theory is named after Lucena, although it does not appear in his book. The possible moves of the Lucena position require one player to have a rook and a pawn and the other player to have a rook.

4

Introduction

John of Asturias (1478–1497), the only son of Queen Isabella I of Castile and King Ferdinand II of Aragon. The authorship and date of composition of the Göttingen manuscript are the subject of dispute among chess historians. Murray postulates that Lucena is the author of the Göttingen manuscript. Furthermore, Murray believes that Lucena wrote it after Repetición de amores y arte de ajedrez, perhaps as late as 1505, because of the manuscript’s more thoughtful explanations and descriptions: The analysis in the Göttingen MS. shows a greater command of, and familiarity with, the new game than Lucena exhibits in his book. Both works have a certain amount of material in common, but this does not necessarily mean that either writer had access to the other’s work, for both may have been using older material. It is, however, singular that a later MS. of the 16th c. . . . repeats the Openings of the Göttingen MS. in a slightly modernized form as the work of Lucena. If this ascription is correct, we are compelled to the conclusion that the Göttingen MS. is Lucena’s later, because more mature, work on chess.15

Murray further explains: Lucena’s analysis consists of eleven Openings, of which the first seven (II–VIII) are devoted to the attack, and the remaining four (IX–XII) to the defence. It is less systematic than two Openings of minor importance, 1 Pe3 (X) and 1 Pb3 (XII). In the Openings beginning 1 Pe4, he just notices the French Defence (VII) and the Centre Counter Gambit (VI). He devotes two games to the King’s Bishop’s Opening (XI begins 2 Bc4, Pc6; VIII, 2 Bc4, Pd6). The other Openings included are the Damiano Gambit (II), the Philidor (IV), the Petroff (V), the Giuoco Piano (III), and the Ruy Lopez [IX, defended 3.., Kt (g1) e2].16

Fritz C. Gorschen, however, hypothesizes that the author of the Göttingen manuscript was a Spaniard or a Portuguese who composed it at the court of Alfonso V of Portugal between the years 1471 and 1475. More recently, chess historian Richard Eales affirms the manuscript’s Iberian origin, a theory he bases on its similarities to Lucena’s book: “An Iberian origin for the Göttingen work is all the more plausible because its contents are very directly related to those of Lucena’s book.”17 The earliest account of a game of chess between two players who move 15. Murray, A History of Chess, 998. 16. Ibid., 1002, brackets in the original. 17. Eales, Chess: The History of a Game, 74.



Introduction 5

the king and the queen according to the rules of modern chess is in the late fifteenth-century Catalan poem “Scachs d’amor” (“The chess game of love”). This poem, which consists of sixty-four stanzas, describes how Francí de Castellví i de Vic (d. 1506), a nobleman and poet from Valencia, Spain, who not only is one of the poem’s three authors but also represents the character Mars in the game, checkmates Narcís Vinyoles (c. 1445– 1517), a poet and politician from Valencia, who plays the game as Venus. Bernat Fenollar (1438–1516), who was a poet, an abbot, and a professor of mathematics at the University of Valencia, is the character Mercury, who establishes the rules of the game and provides commentary. The following stanzas describe each player’s first move: Castellví (King’s pawn to the fourth house) The fields assigned and all the men at ready, The great warrior, with his red standard, Decided to move as soon as required Taking Love as the name for the battle; He moved towards the field of the beautiful The most valiant pawn in conquest: He moved two paces towards her. By this move the King discovers Reason And opens the road of Will. Vinyoles (Queen’s pawn to the fourth house) The gentle Lady, not lacking in spirit, Carrying the green banner of Hope And shouting: “Glory, glory covers My people with all blessings!” Her pawn, courteous, well-tempered Moves up, because Beauty opens, In the game of love, the first step. With a humble gesture for defense, Her heart was pierced with the thrust of love.

After each player moves a piece, Fenollar addresses the context of the game at that moment:

6

Introduction

Fenollar (He says that a piece touched must be played) The first rule you must abide by Is, in this game, that a piece once touched Firmly, admitting neither debate nor confront, By any player, true, must be played. It falls to reason: for a lover’s thoughts Having chosen, cannot freedom afford Or doubt, but take full submission. Thus the saying: “Courage and folly In every move, as once done, done it is!”18

Fenollar’s narration also provides the reader with a comprehensive account of the rules of chess in Aragon: “He tells us, for example, that the pawn can be taken in passing; that the King when moved for the first time can leap to a third square, provided he does not cross a square commanded by an opponent, but that he cannot leap out of check or take when leaping, . . . that one Queen cannot take another, and that to lose the Queen is to lose the game.”19 Feminist author and historian Marilyn Yalom notes that the queen’s transformation into the most powerful piece on the board coincided with the rule of Isabella as queen of Castile and León, and then as queen of Spain in 1492: It was during this period that “new chess” featuring the formidable queen came into being. A militant queen more powerful than her husband had arisen in Castile; why not on the chessboard as well? This may have been the thinking of those players from Valencia who endowed the chess queen with her extended range of motion. Perhaps they even hoped to win favor from the queen by promoting the chess queen. Yet it is just as likely that those Valencian players unconsciously redesigned the queen on the model of the all-powerful Isabella.20

Yalom also cites Isabella’s proclamation ceremony as queen of Castile and León in Segovia as an example of the “Warrior Queen’s” demeanor.21 The 18. Sobrer, “The English Translation of Scachs d’amor.” 19. Murray, A History of Chess, 996–97. 20. Yalom, Birth of the Chess Queen, 244. 21. “The proclamation ceremony that took place in Segovia was a majestic triumph, orchestrated by the young queen herself. Magnificently dressed and bejeweled, she stood on a platform in the portal of the church of San Miguel, where she was hailed as queen



Introduction 7

popularity of chess throughout Europe, especially in Spain and Italy, continued to grow throughout Ruy López’s lifetime. Rodrigo “Ruy” López was born in 1530 in Zafra, a small town in southwestern Spain, where his parents, who were successful merchants, raised him.22 López studied for the priesthood in Salamanca, and after ordination he returned to Zafra, where he served as pastor at the Church of Santa María de la Candelaria. His next assignment was in Madrid as the confessor and royal advisor to King Philip II. As a connoisseur of chess, King Philip II promoted the game in his court, and it did not take long for López to become known as one of Europe’s greatest chess players and the best chess player in Spain.23 During López’s lifetime, two of the most accomplished chess players were the Italians Giovanni Leonardo da Cutri (1542–1597) and Paolo Boi (1528–1598). When López traveled to Italy on ecclesiastical business in 1560, Pope Pius IV, who was a chess enthusiast, also extended a speof Castile and León. . . . The procession from the church offered a splendid spectacle to the townspeople. Isabella rode on horseback, while the nobles and dignitaries surrounded her and marched behind. At the very head of the procession rode a horseman carrying a naked sword with the point downward, resembling a cross. Isabella chose to revive this ancient symbol of militant faith and justice, although the traditional monarch’s symbol in Castile was a scepter. The sword recalled not only the royal conquerors who had wrested Spain from the Moors, but also the feats of the warrior maid Joan of Arc, earlier in the century. As one of Isabella’s recent biographers astutely observed, the sword represented power on many levels and made clear to everyone ‘that the queen and not her consort . . . was the heir-proper of those Castilian heroes of the reconquest’” (ibid., 233–34). 22. Zafra is forty-five miles southwest of Badajoz (Extremadura). 23. López earned the favor of Philip II, who rewarded him handsomely. One honor the king never bestowed on López, however, was the bishopric mistakenly attributed to him to this day. Murray notes that “López was presented by the king with a golden chain for his neck, from which was suspended a rook, and obtained preferment to a rich benefice” (A History of Chess, 1040), adding in a footnote: “But not the bishopric to which some writers of the 19th c., e.g. George Walker . . . , have raised him” (ibid., 1190n8). In “Ruy Lopez, the Chess-Bishop: A Legend of Spain,” Walker writes that during a game of chess between the king and López, Philip II anxiously awaited confirmation that his order to execute a traitor, a grandee of Spain, had been carried out. When Spain’s chief executioner informed Philip that the traitor, citing royal privilege, demanded a confessor who was not below the rank of a bishop, the king, after being told that none of the local bishops were available, declared: “If the King of Spain can beget a prince, he can surely create a bishop. Stand forth, Ruy Lopez, Bishop of Segovia! Stand forth, priest, I command, and assume thy rank in the church! . . . Peace, lord-bishop, and obey thy sovreign’s word! The formalities of thy installment remain for a future day. Our subjects cannot fail to respect the will of the king in this matter” (Walker, Chess & Chess-Players, 189–90).

8

Introduction

cial invitation to López to visit him in Rome. While there, López played and defeated Leonardo and Boi. López returned to Italy in 1573 and, once again, defeated Italy’s best players, including Leonardo, whom he defeated two times, and Boi. López’s reign as Europe’s unofficial chess champion would end in 1575, however, the year that King Philip II organized the first International Grandmaster Chess Tournament at El Escorial. The only participants were the Spaniards Ruy López and Alfonso de Cerón and the Italians Leonardo Cutri and Paolo Boi. Leonardo defeated Boi to win the tournament, and López finished in third place. Leonardo’s winnings included one thousand ducats, an ermine cape, and, at his request, two gifts to his hometown of Cutro: it did not have to pay taxes for a period of twenty years, and henceforth it would be known as the “City of Chess.” King Philip II also rewarded Boi handsomely, bestowing on him official appointments in Italy that paid very well and a letter in which the monarch recommended Boi to Philip’s half-brother, Don John of Austria (1547–1578). During his first sojourn in Italy, in 1560, López read Libro da imparare giocare a scachi (Book of how to learn to play chess; 1512), the first Italian chess treatise, whose author, Pedro Damião (1480–1544; his Italianized name was Pedro Damiano), was a Portuguese chess player. López wrote Libro de la invención liberal y arte del juego del axedrez shortly after he returned to Spain, no doubt inspired by his disgust with Damiano’s treatise: In addition to what has been said about ways to play and to arrange the games, I try to illustrate the specifics of Damiano’s errors, as well as the mistakes of others who are unable to teach effectively how to play the game of chess. The chapters that follow consist of detailed explanations. I will begin by showing the offenses and defenses that are common to games that begin equally. Then, I will discuss Damiano’s offenses and defenses, including his errors, and propose ways to improve the offense and the defense. Last, I will illustrate the many ways a player who has an advantage can arrange his game. In addition, I will explain Damiano’s errors and propose corrections.24

24. Book 1, chapter 27.



Introduction 9

Furthermore, López does not conceal his disrespect for Damiano’s book: “There are other blunders in this game about which I write. It seems that Damiano designed it asleep.”25 In spite of its perceived shortcomings, there were eight editions of Damiano’s book in the sixteenth century alone and two more in the seventeenth century. In addition, there were translations into French, German, and English. Lopez’s book, on the other hand, appeared into Italian in the second half of the sixteenth century, and variants of this free translation later appeared in French and German. While the openings that López suggests in books 2, 3, and 4 are well known as the “Ruy López,” the relatively small number of editions and translations may be attributed to the presence of material from other sources, as Murray notes: “The first book treats of the origin and utility of chess, with many quotations from Cessolis, Reyna’s Spanish translation of which had appeared as recently as 1549. . . . The second book contains a miscellaneous collection of Openings, and was probably in MS. before the visit to Italy.”26 In addition, Murray observes that López wrote his book with “dangerous rapidity−dangerous because it resulted in a list 8 pages long of misprints and other errors−and his book was published not long after his return to Spain in the spring of 1561 (the privilege is dated the last day of February, 1561).”27 Murray also calls into question the originality of López’s advice to players in book 1: “The advice to players in the first book is divided into 36 paragraphs. There is very little that is really new in the first 18 of these: in the main they are taken (without acknowledgement) from Damiano. The advice to place your opponent with the sun in his eyes if you play by day, and with the candle at his right hand if you play by night, is in Lucena, and was probably a trick well known to Spanish players.”28 Finally, Murray points out López’s dependence on Francisco 25. López, Libro de la invención liberal y arte del juego del axedrez, book 4, chapter 8. In 1563, López published a Latin grammar book titled Grammaticae Institutiones (Grammatical Institutes) in which the vitriol with which he critiques the grammatical philosophy of the humanist Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas (1523–1600), who was known as “El Brocense,” is reminiscent of his feelings about Damiano’s treatise. 26. Murray, A History of Chess, 1037. 27. Ibid., 1036. 28. Ibid., 1037.

10

Introduction

Bernardino Caldogno’s poem “De ludo scachorum” (“On the game of chess”): “The advice not to sacrifice Knight or Bishop for two pawns, unless you can see a certain victory as a result, is in Caldogno’s poem.”29 Nonetheless, the popularity of chess all over the world is due in no small part to Ruy López’s book. In addition to its impact on European chess, Lopez’s book shaped how chess was played in the New World, where it reached new heights in post-colonial America. Cuban world chess champion José Raúl Capablanca (1888–1942) was a disciple of Ruy López. Chess historian Isaak Linder notes that Capablanca’s preparation for important matches and major tournaments centered on the Spaniard’s openings: “But already during his preparations for his match with Lasker and for some of the major international tournaments of the 1920s and 1930s, he carefully studied opening theory and, particularly, the theory of the openings he employed most frequently, the Queen’s Gambit and the Ruy Lopez.”30 In Argentina, author Jorge Luis Borges (1899–1986) includes “A translation with prologue and notes of the Libro de la invención liberal y arte del juego del axedrez by Ruy López de Segura (Paris, 1907)” on Menard’s list of “visible” lifework in the short story “Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote.”31 Hispanist Sergio Gabriel Waisman astutely equates Menard’s translation of Ruy López’s book to Miguel de Cervantes’s creation of his masterpiece Don Quixote: “Also, since Ruy López de Segura founded the modern system of chess around 1560, translating/rewriting his text is, in a way, analogous to rewriting/ translating Cervantes’s text if we think of Cervantes as the founder of the modern system of the novel.”32 29. Ibid. 30. Linder, José Raúl Capablanca, 262. 31. Borges, “Chess,” trans. Alastair Reid. A common literary device in Borges’s literature is the metaphor of the chess game. In part 2 of the poem “The Game of Chess,” Borges writes: “Tenuous king, slant bishop, bitter queen, / straightforward castle and the crafty pawn— / over the checkered black and white terrain / they seek out and enjoin their armed campaign. / They do not realize the dominant / hand of the player rules their destiny. / They do not know an adamantine fate / governs their choices and controls their journey. / The player, too, is captive of caprice / (the sentence is Omar’s) on another ground / crisscrossed with black nights and white days. / God moves the player, he, in turn, the piece. / But what god beyond God begins the round / of dust and time and dream and agonies?” (Borges, “Chess,” 75–76). 32. Waisman, Borges and Translation, 98.



Introduction 11

In part 2, chapter 62 of his masterpiece Don Quixote (1615), Cervantes offers this opinion on translations: But despite all this, it seems to me that translating from one language into another, unless it is from Greek and Latin, the queens of all languages, is like looking at Flemish tapestries from the wrong side out, for although the figures are visible, they are covered by threads that obscure them, and cannot be seen with the smoothness and color of the right side.33

The quixotic challenge of undertaking a translation of any genre of literature is daunting. For the reader, the translator becomes in many ways the author of the text. Consequently, I endeavored to recreate as faithfully as possible, syntactically and grammatically, the experience of reading Ruy López’s treatise in Spanish. While I remained as faithful as possible to the original text, it was necessary at times to alter it in order to improve its readability. My translation is based entirely on the first edition of López’s text (from 1561).34 The main dictionary I consulted was the Diccionario de autoridades (1726–1739), which is the first dictionary published by Spain’s Royal Spanish Academy. The highly specialized nature of chess vocabulary and the number of changes the game has undergone since López published his book presented unique challenges, which I will address more specifically in the footnotes. The Art of the Game of Chess is the first English translation of López’s entire book. Giovanni Domenico Tarsia published the Italian translation in 1584. French editions are from 1609, 1615, 1636, 1665, and 1674.35 Au33. Cervantes, Don Quixote, 873. These words inspired me to research the numerous English translations of Don Quixote. I wondered how well a translator could recreate the literary, cultural, and linguistic elements of a novel from seventeenth-century Spain. The result of my research was an article based on a comparison of eight English translations of the novel (1949–2005): “Tilting at Windmills: Don Quijote in English,” Bulletin of the Cervantes Society of America 26 (2006): 7–39. Subsequently, I conducted research for two more articles: “Looking at Flemish Tapestries from the Front: A ‘Perfect’ English Translation of Don Quijote,” in “Aquí se imprimen libros”: Cervantine Studies in Honor of Tom Lathrop, ed. Mark Groundland (Oxford: University of Mississippi Press, 2008), 99–105; and “Modern Translations of Don Quijote,” in The Cervantean Heritage: Influence and Reception of Cervantes in Britain, ed. John Ardila (London: Legenda, 2009), 76–83. 34. Ruy López de Segura, Libro de la invencion liberal y arte del juego del axedrez (Alcalá de Henares: Andrés de Angulo, 1561), https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_n3s8AAAAcAAJ. 35. Murray, A History of Chess, 1061.

12

Introduction

gustus, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneberg, published the German translation Das Schach- oder König-Spiel under the pseudonym Gustavus Selenus in 1616.36 Stéphane Laborde published an abbreviated French translation in 2015.37 Fewer than ten copies of the original 1561 edition exist today. Ruy López dedicates his treatise to García de Toledo Osorio—who was the tutor and steward of Prince Charles, King Philip II’s eldest son— in part, to ensure that the prince, whom López notes is a chess enthusiast, will read it. Since this time, the name Ruy López has been synonymous with one of the more popular ways to begin a chess match. Only chess historians who knew either Spanish or one of the few European languages (French, German, Italian) in which López’s book was available in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, however, were able to appreciate the significance of his contributions. I do not consider my translation a scholarly research monograph on early modern Spanish chess. It is intended for an eclectic audience that consists of academics and non-academics alike, including chess historians, chess enthusiasts, historians of Europe (especially Spain), linguists, sociologists, and Hispanists.

36. Ibid., 1072. 37. López, Livre de l’ invention liberale et art du jeu d’echecs, ed. and trans. Laborde.



Introduction 13

THE KING BOOK OF THE LIBERAL INVENTION AND ART OF THE GAME OF CHESS, very useful and beneficial as much for those who want to learn how to play as for those who know how to play. Composed recently by Ruy López de Segura, resident priest of the town of Zafra. Dedicated to the very illustrious gentleman García de Toledo, tutor and lord steward of the Most Serene Prince Charles, our lord.1 In Alcalá, at the printing house of Andrés de Angulo, 1561.2 With Privilege.

Each sheet is worth five blancas.3 1. García de Toledo Osorio (1514–77) was a Spanish general and politician to whom King Philip II (1556–98) awarded two titles of nobility, Duke of Fernandina and Prince of Montalbán, in 1569 for his military exploits; Prince Charles (1545–68) was the eldest son of Philip II. López states in the epistle nuncupatory (below) that Prince Charles’s enthusiasm for the game of chess inspired him to write his book. 2. Alcalá de Henares is twenty-two miles northeast of Madrid. This city of nearly two hundred thousand people is the birthplace of Miguel de Cervantes (1547–1616); Andrés de Angulo, who had four printing presses, was the most successful printer in Alcalá de Henares. In 1572, Angulo commented on why books printed in Spain have mistakes: “it is almost unheard of for an author to give the printer a properly prepared manuscript in which the spelling is accurate and the punctuation correct. This is because there are very few writers, however learned they may be, who are competent in those skills” (Griffin, Journeymen Printers, Heresy, and the Inquisition, 159). 3. The Council of Castile determined that the maximum retail price allowed for the



15

The King We were informed by you, Ruy López, resident priest of the town of Zafra, that you had written a book titled Liberal Invention of Chess, which had cost you much hard work. You requested that we grant to you license and permission for the time we generously allow, and that no other person may print or sell, under serious penalties, or possess a printed copy from another territory, except you, the aforementioned Ruy López, or the person who represents you, or whatever we generously allow, the matter having been reviewed by the members of our Council.4 Since the book satisfied the requirements of our regulations on this matter, it was agreed that we should grant our approbation for the reasons stated above, and we are in agreement.5 For these reasons, I grant to you and to the person who represents you license and permission to print and to sell the aforementioned book for a period of ten consecutive years, which shall begin and be counted from the date of this, our authorization.6 And I order and prohibit that no other person shall print or sell this book during the aforementioned period of time under penalty of forfeiting all of the printed copies of the book and a fine of ten thousand maravedís, to be paid to our Chamber, provided that each printed page of the aforementioned printing has sold or sells for five blancas, and no more.7 sale of López’s book, or its tasa, was five blancas per printed sheet that came off of the press. A printed sheet does not correspond to the actual number of pages in a book, because a single sheet, folded and cut, could produce as few as two pages or as many as sixty-four pages, depending on the size of the book. 4. The king at the time of publication was Philip II (1556–1598). The hierarchy of Spain’s government at this time consisted of Royal Councils, which served the king; their representatives were primarily lawyers, known as letrados, and bishops. The Council with the most authority, after the king, became known as the Council of Castile during the reign of Charles I of Spain (1516–1556). 5. The licensing laws under Philip II were as strict as at any other time in Spain’s history. Sanctions included the public burning of illicit books, the confiscation of property from booksellers and printers, and even the death penalty. A royal scribe examined each page of a manuscript closely, notarized it, and made the necessary corrections. The printer returned the notarized manuscript as well as two copies of the book to the censors, who had to approve of the printed version (Folger, Writing as Poaching, 69). 6. February 28, 1561. 7. The Royal Chamber was a tribunal whose representatives included the president and ministers of the Council of Castile.

16

THE KING

Epistle Nuncupatory

And, furthermore, I order the members of my Council, presiding judges of the courts, magistrates, bailiffs of my household, court, and chanceries, and all of the justices whomsoever they shall be, from all of the cities, towns, and villages of our kingdom and our lands, and to each and every one of them, those who are in place now as well as those who will follow, that they keep and comply with, and ensure that others keep and comply with as well, this, my authorization and favor that we grant. And may no one disobey it in any way under penalty of losing our favor and a fine of twenty thousand maravedís, to be paid to my Chamber.8 Issued in Aranjuez the final day of the month of February of 1561.9 I, the King. By order of His Majesty: Juan Vázquez.10

Ruy López of Segur a’s Epistle Nuncupatory Dedicated to the very illustrious gentleman García de Toledo, tutor and lord steward of the Most Serene Prince Charles, our lord. Since it was not favorable to some people, very Illustrious Lord, that I should write something much time before now about the game of Chess so that they could benefit by learning to play this quite ingenious game, I did not write about it, nor did I feel inclined to do so, until this present time, when I felt particularly inspired for several reasons. One, the obstinate petition of friends, who must not be refused many things, and especially if what is requested is fair and virtuous. Another reason, it seemed to me to be a more apt time to do it than before, after seeing that many men and important people indulged in this type of pleasure. A third reason, which is the most important, was seeing that the Most Serene Prince Charles, whose life may it please God, our Lord, prospers happily for a 8. 20,000 maravedís would be about $33,000 today. 9. The city of Aranjuez is twenty-six miles south of Madrid. The Royal Palace of Aranjuez, built in 1561, when Philip II moved the capital from Toledo to Madrid, was one of the four seats of government, along with Rascafría, El Escorial, and Madrid. 10. Juan Vázquez de Molina (1510–70) was Philip II’s secretary of state. Vázquez de Molina was born and died in Úbeda (Andalucía), where there is a palace and a plaza named for him.



epistle nuncupatory 17

long time, seemed to enjoy learning about it and watching it played. Consequently, what I had not wanted to do before unless begged of me, now I am motivated to do by the aforementioned reasons. I endeavored to compose this work so that those who know nothing can benefit by becoming more skilled. Because, as Tullius says in book 2 of the Tusculanae disputationes: “Ut ager quamvis fertilis sine cultura fructuosus esse non potest, sic sine doctrina animus.”11 As a field, it says, however fertile, is not able to bear fruit without cultivation, so is the mind without education. Tullius in the Oratio in L. Catilinam prima says: “Neque enim ignore, et quae bona sint, fieri meliora posse doctrina.”12 Do not ignore, it says, things that are good, for they can be done better with teaching. Isidore says in the second of his Soliloquies, chapter 41: “Excellentior fit natura doctrina.”13 Nature, he says, is made better and more excellent with teaching. If some people were to say that it is not reasonable to teach someone to play this game because of the variety of possible moves, and that it would be more beneficial to show only a few moves, let it be known that the other player does not play the same moves but different ones. To this assertion, I say that whoever wants to learn this art must practice the different ways to play, ways about which one writes and teaches, for the contrary moves may be confusing if they are not studied the way they appear in the game. If it seemed that I did not say all that could be said in this book, it should not come as a surprise, and neither should I be blamed, unless I make a significant mistake. And even if there is one, do not give up on me. A person cannot be as meticulous in large endeavors as in small ones. As the Code of Law, titled De veteri jure enucleando.L.2, says: “possit unius forsitan et deterioris sententia et multos et maiores in aliqua parte superare.”14 The judgment of one, it says, although inferior, can surpass 11. Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 b.c.) was a Roman politician, a lawyer, a renowned orator, and a prolific author of treatises on rhetoric, philosophy, and politics. The Tusculan Disputations (c. 45 b.c.) are a series of five books on Stoic philosophy: On the Contempt of Death, On Bearing Pain, On Grief, On the Passions, and Is Virtue Sufficient for Happiness? 12. The First Oration of Cicero against Lucius Catiline is the first of five speeches Cicero delivered to the Roman Senate in 63 b.c. 13. The Soliloquies, also known as Synonyms or Lamentation of the Soul, is a treatise on sin and repentance. 14. The Codex of Justinian, 270–71 (book 1, title 17, De veteri jure enucleando [Concerning taking the kernels from the ancient law], constitution 1, paragraph 6). The quote López

18

epistle nuncupatory

in some respects the judgment of many, even if superior. Consequently, one must not be considered wise for finding any defect in their works, nor should the others be condemned. As Horace says in the Ars poetica: “Quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus. Verum opere longo fas est obrepere somnum.”15 I, too, am indignant when the good Homer sleeps; yet, truthfully, sleeping is permitted to overcome the writer of a long work, because, as Tullius says in Oratio in L. Catilinam prima: “Neque est omnino ars ulla, in qua omnia, quae illa arte effici possunt, a doctore tradantur.” It says there is not any art in which the teacher can show all of the things that can be done in that art. As Priscian says in the Prohemio: “Nihil enim ex omni parte perfectum in humanis inventionibus esse posse credo.”16 Nothing, it says, I believe to be entirely perfect in human-made inventions. Cassiodorus, in book 2 of his epistles, chapter 2: “unus satiare non valet omnium vota.”17 It is said, one cannot satisfy everyone. The Code of Law says in the title De veteri jure enucleando.L.2: “Omnium habere memoriam, et penitus in nullo peccare, divinitatis magis quam humanitatis est.” Having knowledge of everything, it says, and erring in nothing, is more divine than human. cites here begins as follows: “Sed neque ex multitudine auctorum quod melius et aequius est iudicatote.” (Do not judge by the number of authors what is better and most equitable in the multitude of authors.) The Codex Justinianus (Codex of Justinian), published in 529 by order of the eastern emperor Justinian I (483–565 a.d.), was the first of the four books of the Corpus juris civilis (Body of Civil Law ). The other three books are the Digesta (The Digest of Justinian) and Institutiones (Institutes), both published in 533, and the Novellae constitutiones post codicem (Novella—literally, “new constitutions”), which consisted of the laws that appear in the revised codex (534 a.d.). 15. The entire quotation is, “Indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus; Verum opere longo fas est obrepere somnum” (Horace, Satires, Epistles and Ars poetica, 420; lines 359–60). Quintus Horatius Flaccus, or Horace (65–8 b.c.), was a Roman poet who wrote extensively about love, friendship, and philosophy. The Ars poetica (c. 19 b.c.), or The Art of Poetry, is a book of literary theory that addresses several genres of literature, including poetry, drama, and tragedy. It consists of 476 lines, which include maxims for the benefit of young poets. Homer is the Greek author of two well-known epic poems, the Iliad and the Odyssey. 16. Priscianus Caesariensis was a fifth-century Latin grammarian who wrote Institutiones Grammaticae (Institutes of grammar), which is a series of twenty books on Latin grammar. The Prohemio refers to these books. 17. Flavius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator (c. 490–c. 583 a.d.) was a Roman politician, an author, and a monk, who founded a monastery, Vivarium. The Varia epistolae (537 a.d.; The Letters of Cassiodorus) is a collection of more than 450 edicts and letters that Cassiodurus wrote as a politician (he served from 507 to 540 a.d.). Following his retirement as a politician, he became a monk.



epistle nuncupatory 19

No one can flee from the people who are jealous, as Valerius Maximus says in book 4 of Amore et dilectione: “Nulla tam modesta felicitas est, quae malignitatis dentes vitare possit.”18 There is no happiness so modest, it says, that it can flee from the teeth of evil. Quintilian says in the Declamationes, declamatione 12: “Quo non penetras, improbe livor? Quidve scabrae malignitati clausum est?”19 Where, wicked envy, do you fail to reach? Or what thing can be impervious to your harsh evil? As Matheus Vindocinensis says in the Ars Versificatoria, the second and final part, chapter 4: “Fascinat invidie spiritus omne bonum.”20 It says the spirit of jealousy makes everything good. Authors who compose literature usually dedicate it to men whose authority vindicates them from jealous detractors. If some authors do what I say for this reason, others may do it for another reason. I, very Illustrious Lord, in accord with your most deserved title, should address you for many reasons. One, because of the kindness I received from your most Illustrious Lordship. Another, because of your abiding mentorship. Another reason, a main one, is because your Lordship is honored by such a great lineage and is such a generous person, who possesses many and unique virtues, as everyone knows, and who makes others wiser. I am certain that I will be safe under your protection, more than others, against the malevolent and envious gods, because the protection of your Lordship will be for these poisonous snakes an elixir from their designs, and for me a respite from their evil ways. And, for this reason, I plead that your Illustrious Lordship receive me soon, as if I were a former servant, remembering that great and consequential efforts, as Xerxes Longimano used to say, mean not focusing on how insignificant what is offered might be, but rather on the spirit with which it is offered.21 18. Valerius Maximus was a Latin author who was also a renowned rhetorician. 19. Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (35–96 a.d.), who was born in Spain, was a Latin rhetorician and educational theorist, and the author of Instituto oratoria (c. 95 a.d.; Institutes of Oratory), a twelve volume treatise on education. The Declamationes Maiores and Minores (Major and Minor Declamations), attributed to Quintilian, are lecture notes disseminated by one of his students. 20. Matheus Vindocinensis was a twelfth-century French author who wrote Ars Versificatoria (art of poetry), a theoretical treatise on Latin versification. 21. Artaxerxes Longimano, the son of Xerxes I, was king of Persia from 465 b.c. until his death in 424 b.c.

20

epistle nuncupatory

BOOK I

Chapter 1

In which the game of chess as a game of science and mathematical invention is addressed The game of chess, since it is a game of science and mathematical invention, consists of many parts. First, it is beneficial to know that chess is founded on two liberal arts, geometry and arithmetic. It is well known that it is designed to be played on a square, flat surface, and perfected like the number eight, which is a complete number according to those people who know something. The number eight multiplied by itself equals sixty-four. So, imagine a flat, squared surface that has eight equal lines in longitude and latitude, and on each of these lines is eight points, like houses, equal in all respects, that form a flat, squared surface with sixtyfour houses.1 It is obvious that it has its foundation on these two numbers, four and eight, whose meaning Macrobius expounds on in the first book of Somnium Scipionis.2 Second, because it is a game of science, without any element of luck, all that takes place during the game is visible. According to Aristotle in the first book of Magnorum moralium, chapter 27: “Scientia est eorum, quae sunt cum demonstratione.”3 It says science is one of those things that is demonstrable. All is positioned for demonstra-

files.

1. The horizontal lines on the board are called ranks, and the vertical lines are called

2. Macrobius Ambrosius Theodosius (390–430 a.d.) was a philosopher and a Latin grammarian. Somnium Scipionis (The Dream of Scipio) is Macrobius’s commentary on Cicero’s book of the same name, which was from De re publica (54–51 b.c.; On the Commonwealth). Scipionis Aemilianus was a Roman general who commanded the Roman armies in the Third Punic War (149–146 b.c.) and Numantine War (143–133 b.c.). The numbers four and eight belong to Pythagorean numerology, which reveals certain concepts about human life (e.g., destiny number, personality number). According to this numerology, the number eight is closely associated with heavenly harmony and balance. The number four represents the four seasons and the four elements (earth, air, fire, and water). For more information about Somnium Scipionis and Pythagorean numerology, see Bächtold in the bibliography. 3. Aristotle (384–322 b.c.) was an ancient Greek philosopher who, in addition to serving as Alexander the Great’s tutor, was a prolific author of treatises on the sciences, literature, music, linguistics, and philosophy. Magnorum moralium (Great ethics) is one of Aristotle’s several books on ethics. Aristotle’s words should read: “Scientiae vero eorum quae sunt cum demonstratione” (598a21).



23

tion, as Macrobius says in the first book of Somnium Scipionis: “Facilior ad intelligendum per oculos via est, quam per sermonem.” It says it is easier to understand what is demonstrable than that which can be explained only in words. Third, to understand the game of chess well and perfectly requires all things encompassed in the other liberal arts. Even more helpful, it is beneficial to possess ingenuity, memory, an active imagination, a willingness to practice, and fondness for the game. Since many people who play this game do not agree to these things, or, at least, do not concur at the time of learning them, these people cannot truthfully call themselves experts in this art. It would be similar to other arts in which there are many more people who are considered learned in name only and not in accomplishments. Without ingenuity or memory, one can be wise in a deleterious way. The active imagination, which one does not see, is necessary to create many inventions, and ingenuity makes them a reality and perfect. The truly learned chess players possess a greater number of these skills than the pseudo-learned chess player. As Hugo of Saint Victor says in book 3, chapter 4: “Principium a magistro, sed perfectio ab ingenio, et exercitatione esse debet.”4 It says familiarity starts with the teacher, but perfection is obtained with ingenuity and practice. Sallust says: “Ubi intenderis ingenium, valet.”5 It says when you apply ingenuity, it prevails. Memory is necessary in this game, so that, as I said, all that we learn with the active imagination, memory will retain it, and ingenuity will refine and perfect it. In addition, since this game is played without knowing what will happen, memory here is very necessary. As Tullius says in the second book of De naturum deorum: “Nihil est difficilius quam a consuetudine oculorum aciem mentis abducere.”6 4. Hugh of Saint Victor (1096–1141) was a philosopher and scholastic theologian who wrote on mystic theology. This sentence, which is from Hugh of Saint Victor’s Didascalicon de studio legendi (Didascalicon: A Medieval Guide to the Arts), should read: “Etenim principium a magistro, perfectio autem debet esse ab ingenio et studio.” 5. Sallust, De coniuratione Catilinae, chapter 51. Gaius Sallustius Crispus (86–35 b.c.) was a Roman politician and historian who gives, in De coniuratione Catilinae (35–40 b.c.; The Conspiracy of Catiline), his account of Catiline’s attempt to overthrow the Roman Senate in 63 b.c., and, in Bellum iugurthinum (40 b.c.; The Jugurthine War), his account of the Roman conquest of Numidia, a kingdom on the North African coast, which began in 112 b.c. and ended in 106 b.c. 6. Cicero, De naturum deorum (45 b.c.; On the Nature of the Gods), 2.17.

24

Book I

It says there is nothing as difficult as separating the astuteness of understanding from everyday sight, because as the same author says in book 3, chapter 4 of Rhetorica ad Herennium: “Memoria est firma animi rerum et verborum dispositionis perceptio.”7 It says memory is a firm perception of the spirit’s disposition to things and words. Practice is necessary in all arts, and I believe there are few people who would not agree. As Vegetius says in book 2, chapter 23 of De re militari: “Antiqua est prudensque sentential, omnes artes in meditatione consistere.”8 It says ancient and prudent judgment affirms that all of the arts require practice. Tullius says in book 3, chapter 12 of Rhetorica ad Herennium: “Exercitiis disciplina comparatur.”9 Discipline is the fruit of practice. In chapter 13, he says: “In omni disciplina infirma est artis praeceptio sine summa adsiduitate exercitationis.” It says in all disciplines, it does little good to know the art without practicing it. It is for this reason that Quintilian first said: “Plus confert exercitatio citra artem quam ars citra exercitationem.”10 Practice without art is more productive than art without practice. Boethius, in the first book of De disciplina scholarium says: “Sine usu scientia parum poterit: usus autem sine scientia multum.”11 Without practice, science is capable of little; without science, practice can achieve a lot. In order for it to be more beneficial and perfect, it should consist of erudite imitation: in other words, practice should take place with the most learned men of the respective art. 7. Cicero, Rhetoric: For Herrenius (c. 87 b.c.). The identity of Gaius Herrenius is unknown. 8. Book 2, chapter 24. Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus (d. fifth century) was a military expert and the author of De re militari (Concerning military matters), a treatise on Roman warfare and strategies. The source of all quotations attributed to Vegetius is De re militari (http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/vegetius.html). 9. This phrase concludes a sentence that reads: “Nihil est enim quod aut natura extremum invenerit aut doctrina primum; sed rerum principia ab ingenio profecta sunt, exitus disciplina conparantur.” (For in invention nature is never last, education never first; rather the beginnings of things arise from natural talent, and the ends are reached by discipline.) Cicero, Rhetorica ad Herranium, trans. Caplan, 220–21. 10. Quintilian, Instituto oratoria (c. 95 a.d.; Institutes of Oratory), Book 12. 11. Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius (c. 475–c. 525 a.d.) was a Roman statesman, philosopher, and theologian who died as a Christian martyr. De disciplina scholarium (On the discipline of scholars) was falsely attributed to Boëthius. This sentence should read: “Scientia sine usu prodest parum, usus autem sine scientia prodest multum.”



Book I 25

As Gaufridus de Vinosalvo says in chapter 98 of his poetry: “Rem tria perficiunt: ars, cujus lege regaris; Usus, quem serves; meliores, quos imiteris. Ars certos, usus promptos, imitatio reddit Artifices apto; tria concurrentia summos.”12 It says there are three things that make anything perfect: art, whose rules you follow; practice, which ensures it; and the learned men, whom you imitate. The art imbues it with authority, practice brings it to life, and imitation transforms artifice into aptitude. The three together elevate science to its apex. I could list many more fruits that are the result of science, but there are so many that it would be inexcusable to name all of them. Fondness is very necessary to obtain anything, and especially difficult things, because a person invests care in what he enjoys, thus making it easier, and diligent care overcomes any challenge. As Seneca says in book 7, chapter 1 of the Epistulae morales ad Lucillium: “Nihil est quod non expugnet pertinax opera et intenta ac diligens cura.”13 There is nothing out of the reach of persistent work, effort, and diligent care. Terence in his play Heauton timorumenos (The Self-Tormentor) says: “Nulla est tam facilis res, quin difficilis siet, quam invitus facias.”14 It says there is nothing so easy that it is not made difficult if performed against one’s will. It is for this reason that Seneca says in book 7, chapter 8 of the Epistulae morales ad Lucillium: “da operam ne quid umquam invitus facias.” It says, work at nothing that is contrary to will. As Seneca says in De tranquillitate animi: “Male respondent coacta ingenia.”15 It says ingenuity that is forced to do something it does not enjoy will not respond well. Furthermore, it is for this reason that Boethius says in De consolatione, book 4, chapter 3: 12. Gaufridus de Vinosalvo is the author of Poetria nova (c. 1202), a two-thousand-line poem in hexameters that represented the new poetics of the Middle Ages. 13. Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 b.c.–65 a.d.), who was born in Spain but raised in Rome, was a Roman Stoic philosopher, a playwright, an orator, and a politician. He was Nero’s tutor and later his advisor. When Seneca was implicated in a plot to assassinate Nero, he committed suicide. Epistulae morales ad Lucillium (c. 65 a.d.; Moral Letters to Lucilius) is a collection of 124 letters on moral issues that Seneca wrote to Lucilius, who was the procurator of Sicily. 14. Publius Terentius Afer (c. 195–c. 159 b.c.) was a playwright who wrote six plays that exist today. This line is from act 4, scene 6. 15. De tranquillitate animi (c. 49–62 a.d.; On the Tranquility of the Mind) is a dialogue Seneca wrote to cure a friend’s fragile state of mind.

26

Book I

“Duo sunt quibus omnis humanorum actuum constat effectus, voluntas sciliet ac potestas, quorum si alterutrum desit, nihil est quod explicari queat.”16 It says there are two things that influence human acts, and they are beneficial to know: will and power. If one were lacking, there is nothing that can be explained. That being said, these attributes are necessary to obtain this art. It is proven that this game is science and liberal invention. There are many other things that I could present to prove it if the list were not so long. Noting only one more thing, and it is that calculare in Latin means to compute and to reason, or to do it. And calculus means pebble, which accountants used for this endeavor. Metaphorically speaking, therefore, the Latins described chess as a game of counting, and they called the pieces pebbles, as Ovid says: “Sive latrocini sub imagine calculus ibit, fac pereat vitreo miles ab hoste tuus.”17 And as Martial says in book 2 of the Epigrams: “calculus hic gemino discolor hoste perit.”18 Chapter 2

In which the game of chess and laudable pastime, which is not just an indulgence but is necessary for the conservation of human life, is addressed The praiseworthy games not only were, but must be, permitted because they are necessary for the conservation of human life. As Aristotle says in book 10, chapter 5 of Ethicas: “Omnia habentia corpora no possunt continue operari.” It says all things that have a body cannot work con16. De consolatione philosophiae (c. 524 a.d.; The Consolation of Philosophy) is a dialogue between Boëthius and Philosophy, which he personifies as a woman. He wrote this dialogue while in prison, awaiting execution for his Christian faith. 17. “When in the Soldier-game your marbles go, / See your man falls before his glassy foe” (Wilkinson, Ovid Recalled, 129). In Book 2 of Ars amatoria (The Art of Love), Ovid instructs the man how to keep a woman. In addition to allowing her to win any competition, he recommends that the man approve her words and deny whatever she denies. 18. The entire quotation, which López repeats at the end of chapter 8, is: “Hic mihi bis seno numerator tessera puncto: calculus hic gemino discolor hoste perit” (Martial, 14.17); “On this side of me dice are counted by double sixes: on this other the piece of hostile colour is taken by twin foeman” (Martial, The Complete Works, 3350).



Book I 27

tinuously. He also says in chapter 9: “Videtur requies et ludus in vita esse necessarium.” It says it is evident that rest and games are necessary in life. Aristotle says in book 8, chapter 1 of the Politica: “Laborans indigent requiei. Ludus gratia requiei est.”19 He who works, it says, has a need for rest, and games provide rest. Seneca, De tranquillitate animi: “Danda est remissio animis, meliores, acrioresque requieti surgent; nascitur ex assiduitate laborum animorum hebetatio quaedam et languor.” It says it is advantageous to give the mind a break; the rested begin the day better and stronger, because continuous work breeds sickness and dulls ingenuity and energy. Cassiodorus in book 5, chapter 10: “incerta est vita eorum, qui nimia fatigatione lassantur.”20 It says the life of those who work too much is uncertain. Consequently, Ovid says in book 1 of Ponto: “Otia corpus alunt: animus quoque pascitur illis: inmodicus contra carpit utrumque labor.”21 It says free time and pastimes nurture and sustain the body, and they also satisfy and delight the soul. By contrast, too much work consumes both the soul and the body. Honest and praiseworthy games have many benefits, and many more that I could discuss. They are important to the conservation of human life because they allow the body to alleviate itself from continuous work and, consequently, the mind experiences delight. In this way gratified, a person begins the day better, stronger, and sharper. Among many games, chess in particular is more effective than any other in many ways. First, because it is a game of science and seems not to be a dishonest pastime. As Facetus says: “Ocia nullus amet nisi sint coniuncta labori.”22 It says there is no one who loves pastimes if not en19. Politica (335–323 b.c.; Politics) is a treatise that consists of eight books in which Aristotle expounds on political theory, noting, particularly, the symbiotic relationship between politics and a community’s citizenry. Politics, for example, engenders virtue in citizens. 20. Varia epistolae (537 a.d.; The Letters of Cassiodorus). 21. Epistulae ex Ponto (Letters from the Black Sea) consists of four books of poetry that Ovid addressed to friends and enemies during his exile from Rome. Emperor Augustus exiled Ovid to Tomis (modern day Constantia, Romania) in 8 a.d., perhaps as punishment for the scandalous content of Ars amatoria (c. 2 a.d.; The Art of Love). 22. Facetus is the name of an imaginary writer who is credited as the author of twelfth-century books of poetry on morality. This tradition of courtesy literature began with the poem titled “Facetus de moribus et vita” (A fine man in habits and life).

28

Book I

gaged in work because too much rest torments a person. The second, because, as the author of the book De formula honestae vitae, chapter 2, says, it is necessary to combine honest and calm games with work, and may they not be a detriment to a person’s dignity.23 What can be more honest and proper to the dignity of any noble person because its invention is art and efficiency, and has much grace, ability, and charm? The third, because chess is a game permitted by law and approved as excellent. Those games that are not permitted by law and approved as excellent should not be called games, and rightly so, as the law of digests in the proem says: “Quis ludos appellat eos, ex quibus crimina dicuntur?”24 It says, who believes games also consist of those activities that are considered criminal? In the title ad.I.Aquili.I: “Nam ludus noxius in culpa est.” The pernicious game is guilty. The fourth, because it has provided us, the learned men, great philosophers, and others, an excellent life and much joy in playing it. Seneca says: Latrunculis ludimus, we play chess. Valerius Maximus considers Scaevola an excellent man and great jurist: “Calculis interdum vacasse dicitur, cum bene ac diu iura civium et caerimonias deorum ordinasset.”25 Valerius says about Scaevola that he would play at dice and games, when he had first dispatched the business of the commonwealth prosperously and the affairs of religion wisely. What I have said, and other things I could say, can be proven to be praiseworthy and honest among games that are permitted and necessary, but this game of chess is the best and most decent of them all. It is for this reason that my spirit inspired me to compose this treatise about chess, that is, about this liberal invention. I did not begin by calling it a game because this term, ludus, which means game, is common in the liberal arts. We call the study of literature ludus literarius, and each science, like ludus grammaticus, the same. Without further delay, to those people who 23. The author of De formulae honestae vitae (c. 570 a.d.; Rules for an Honest Life) is St. Martin of Braga (520–79 a.d.). 24. The Digesta seu Pandectae (533 a.d.; The Digest of Justinian; also known as Pandects) is a compendium of fifty books on Roman law published in 529 by order of the eastern emperor Justinian I (483–565 a.d.). It is the second of the four books of the Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of Civil Law). The quotation should read as follows: “Quis enim ludos appellet eos, ex quibus criminal oriuntur” (Dahlberg, Spacing Law and Politics, 140). 25. Quintus Mucius Scaevola was a Roman politician in the second century b.c.



Book I 29

would like to know what they are about, I refer them to Latin literature, which deals with Cornucopia, Calepino, and other authors.26 Chapter 3

In which the identity of the inventor of this game is addressed The identity of the person who discovered this ingenious invention of a game is a source of debate among authors, who have diverse opinions about the subject. Some say the Moors were the inventors, because they played the game often and still do today. And it is said that they play by memory, all the while walking, but there is no solid testimony to prove it, because it is false. The game was played long before the Moors played it. Others say that two Greek brothers named Lydus and Tyrrhenus invented it, who, bothered by a great hunger, devised the game in order to pass the time.27 Damiano, in his book, however, discounts this opinion as either a fable or a dream.28 It appears that their father Atys was forced to divide his town because of the sterility and hunger from which it suffered. Leaving it to chance to determine which of these two sons would remain in the town and which would go somewhere else, Lydus remained as the successor of the kingdom and Tyrrhenus departed, taking with him the majority of the people. He traveled to Italy and populated the territory that became known as Tyrrhenia, and later, Tuscany.29 Other men of greater authority affirm that the Greek Palamedes, who was an industrious man who invented many things, invented the game of chess during the siege of Troy.30 Servius, a commentator of Virgil, says 26. Cornucopia is the title of Nicholas Perotti’s book (1478) about Martial that consists of commentary and a dictionary. Ambrogio Calepino (1435–1511) incorporated Perotti’s book into his Latin dictionary (1502). 27. In Greek mythology, Lydus and Tyrrhenus were the sons of Atys, who was the king of Lydia (modern day Turkey). Lydus succeeded Atys as king. 28. Pedro Damiano (1470–1544) is the author of the first modern chess book, Questo libro e da imparare giocare a scachi et de li partiti (1512; This book is to learn how to play chess). Ruy López corrects in his treatise what he believes to be the many problems with Damiano’s way to play chess. 29. Tuscany’s coastline is on the Tyrrhenian Sea. 30. In Greek mythology, Palamedes participated in the Greeks’ siege of Troy. His

30

Book I

that he [Servius] invented tabula lusoria, which by another name is called latruncularia.31 This name is based on latrunculos, the name the Romans used to describe the pieces, which we will address later. Chess was played on this tabula lusoria, and with respect to the boards we discuss, one game on each part, similar to what is seen and used today in Castile and Portugal.32 Francesco Filelfo, a learned man of our time, shares the same opinion.33 Calepino, author of the Cornucopia, and many other authors concur that this tabla lusoria and latruncularia are one and the same. The poet Martial, who played board games, including chess, calls the board tabula lusoria in book 2 of his epigrams. Later, he describes what it was used for, saying: “Hic mihi bis seno numerator tessera puncto: calculus hic gemino discolor hoste perit.” It says on this board one can play board games, including chess. This belief does not appear to be far from the truth, because according to it the game is a military invention, which we will discuss later. The author of the chronicle of the ages, Jacobus de Cessolis, and many other authors assert that the inventor of the game was an oriental philosopher, named Xerxes by the Chaldeans and Philometor by the Greeks, who says: “Mensurae vel iustitiae amator.”34 A lover of moderation or of justice, about which we will speak later when it pertains to the reason for the invention of this game. Now, let us speak about when and where chess was invented. ability to command the Greeks in battle was a source of envy to Odysseus and Diomedes, the other leaders of the Greeks. 31. Maurus Servius Honoratus was an early fifth-century grammarian who is the author of commentaries on Virgil titled In tria Virgilii opera expositio. 32. The tabula lusoria was a rectangular board made of wood or marble. Dice and chess were two of the board games Romans played, especially soldiers when they were not engaged in battle. 33. Francesco Filelfo (1398–1481) was an Italian humanist who was well known throughout Italy for his acute intellect. He is the author of letters, speeches, satires, and Latin translations from the Greek. 34. The chronicle of the ages is a reference to St. Isidore of Seville’s Chronica maiora (c. 615). St. Isidore of Seville (560–636), who was the archbishop of Seville for nearly thirty-seven years, is also the author of treatises on theology, history, natural science, and cosmology. Pope Clement VIII, who was the vicar of Christ from 1592 to 1605, canonized St. Isidore in 1598. Chaldeans were inhabitants of Chaldea, a nation that existed between the tenth century and the sixth century b.c. Philometor, which means “mother-loving,” was a common royal epithet among Hellenistic kings. Jacobus de Cessolis refers to Xerxes as Philometor, Xerxes’s Greek name, throughout his Liber de moribus hominum et officiis nobilium super ludo scacchorum (1330, Book of the customs of men and the duties of nobles, or the book of chess).



Book I 31

Chapter 4

In which when and where this game was invented is explained If we follow the belief that the inventor of chess was Palamedes, it is well known that he invented it in the time of the Trojan War, during the siege of Troy, so that soldiers during peace times did not occupy themselves with immoral activities; but instead focused on military matters to keep the mind sharp; and trained in the subtleties of defeating their enemies. If we accept the other belief that the inventor was the philosopher Xerxes, it is of interest to know that chess was invented in the city of Babylon during the reign of Amel-Marduk, the son of Nebuchadnezzar II, who was known as Evil-Merodach; 3,400 years after the creation of the world; 560 years before the coming of Christ, our Savior of the world; 600 years after the destruction of Troy; and 192 years after the establishment of Rome, when Servius Tullius was ruling, sixth king of Rome, in the twentieth year of his reign, which lasted 34 years; in the fifty-fourth Olympics; 235 years before Alexander the Great; 27 years after the capture of the Hebrews during the time of Jeconiah Neri Hebrew, father of Salathiel.35 The preceding is in accordance with the true and correct chronography of the ancient and most verifiable authors.

35. Amel-Marduk (581–560 b.c.) succeeded his father Nebuchadnezzer II as king of Babylon and reigned from 562–560 b.c. Nebuchadnezzer II (634–562 b.c.) was the king of Babylon from 605–562 b.c. Servius Tullius was the king of Rome from 575–535 b.c. According to Spanish historian Enrique Flórez, the fifty-fourth Olympiad would have been in the year 563 b.c., shortly before the reign of Amel-Marduk began. Jeconiah was the king of Judah until the king of Babylon dethroned him in the sixth century b.c. and imprisoned him for thirty-seven years. Shealtiel was born during Jeconiah’s time in exile (Flórez, España sagrada, 2:229).

32

Book I

Chapter 5

In which the reason that the game was invented is explained If we continue to believe that Xerxes was the inventor of chess, then we also believe that the game was invented for three reasons. The first and main reason was a desire for this game to correct Amel Evil-Merodach of his cruelties and bad lifestyle, and to satisfy the people of Babylon what he had promised them to the peril of his life. A further reason was to avoid the king’s reprimand; for the king might order Xerxes’s death, as he had done to so many others who had wanted to correct him. In this way, Xerxes reduced everything to the mind and invented this game in the shape of a war, as we will discuss later. Once invented, he began to tell others about it and to play with many gentlemen, captains, and important men. Since the game was pleasing to everyone who had played it, the king, surprised at the beauty of the game and the novelty of that unusual recreation, wanted to learn how to play it. The philosopher told the king that he could not learn how to play chess if he did not first commit himself to be a disciple of it.36 The king, pleased to want to learn how to play, became a disciple. Then, the philosopher, having the time the king needed, taught him the board’s shape and meaning, and, with respect to the pieces, showed him the properties of each one. Beginning with the king, Xerxes taught him the moves and all of the virtues a good king should possess, about which we will speak later in the chapter when we address the king. He also showed him the properties and moves of the queen, about which we will speak more when it is time. In a similar way, he spoke about the rest of the pieces and the pawns, reprimanding the king’s bad life as if he were reprimanding a third person. It is said that the king, who until this moment had put to death many wise men who had the temerity to reprove him, understood the philosopher’s corrections and said to him, under penalty of losing his life, that he tell him why this game had been invented and who persuaded him to do it. The philos36. Philosopher is a reference to Xerxes.



Book I 33

opher responded: “Oh, my king and lord, I desire to see your glorious life, which I cannot see if you were not in love with your people and endowed with all of the good virtues that you first possessed so that quickly and affably you could teach others to exercise them. It is unfair for someone who cannot command, or knows not how, to rule others, because there are reasons why violent empires do not last. It is for this purpose that my concern has been your education. The people ask me to correct you, and I promised that I would, although I feared death after I saw how you put to death other wise men who had dared to rebuke you. I looked for any way I could to find a friendly way to correct you, to preserve my life, and to satisfy the people. With this great concern, I invented this game so that discreetly I could do what I said and improve your life as if I were correcting a third person. I showed this game to everyone so that it would grab your attention and you would wish to learn how to play it. In this way, I could educate you discreetly.” In this way, the philosopher fulfilled his wish with this delicate invention, which is certainly worthy of such a result. The second reason for the invention of this game was to flee from pernicious leisure, which results in serious evils because it is the cause of many vices. Ovid says: “Otia si tollas, periere Cupidinis arcus.”37 It means if you flee from idleness, love’s bows will perish. Quintilian says: “Ad omne votum fluente fortuna lascivit otium,” which means idleness disgraces anything it wants.38 And for this reason, Seneca says: “Otium sine literis mors est et hominis vivi sepultura.”39 It means that idleness without letters is death and the burial of the living man. The third reason for the invention of this game was that everyone naturally wants to know and to hear new things. Seneca says in book 4 of Civilium causarum in prophetiae: “ad nova homines concurrunt, ad nova conveniunt.”40 Men, it says, participate in new things, and they gath37. Remedia Amoris (The Cures for Love), v. 139. 38. Declamationes Maiores (Major Declamations), 3.12. 39. Epistulae morales ad Lucillium 82.3. 40. The quotation that López cites here is from book 4.1 of Seneca’s Controversiae, a collection of ten books of declamations that prepared students for legal oratory. The correct quotation reads as follows: “ad nova homines concurrunt, ad nota non veniunt” (men flock to the new, avoid the old; Seneca, Controversiae, trans. Winterbottom, 423).

34

Book I

er around new things, as if to say, men go to new things quickly. Pliny in book 12, chapter 3 of Naturalis Historia says: “Est natura hominum novitatis avida.”41 It means the nature of man is covetous of new things. Consequently, Xerxes decided to act and invented this game for many admirable reasons. He obtained fame and glory among mortals for the characteristics of war that it has and for an abundance of reasons. Note. The game was designed as a war so that the king could demonstrate how to protect his subjects and citizens. The king believed, however, there was little need for subjects and citizens in times of peace, until he learned that they would be readily available and obedient whenever necessary if he treated them justly and with love. As Macrobius says in book 2, chapter 18: “Necesse est multos timeat quem multi timent.”42 It says it is necessary that he who is feared by many, fear many. As Isidore says in Sinonima Soliloquies, book 2, chapter 45: “Subiecti plus te revereantur quam metuant: plus tibi officio dilectionis, quam conditionis necessitate adhaereant.”43 It says, may the subjects respect you more than they fear you, and they will support you more with love as their purpose than out of necessity because of their subjugation. Later he says: “Talem te redde subditis ut magis ameris quam timearis.”44 Show yourself in this way to your subjects, and you will be more loved than feared, including in war, because, as Vegetius says in book 3, chapter 10 of De re militari: “Quis autem dubitet artem bellicam rebus omnibus esse potiorem, per quam libertas retinetur et dignitas, propagantur provinciae conseruator imperium.” Whoever doubted, it says, that the art of war was better than all other things. For by it, freedom is maintained, the dignity of the province increases, and the empire is preserved. It does not behoove the king (if he wants to save himself and his kingdom) to be cruel. As Seneca says: 41. Pliny the Elder (23–79 a.d.) was a Roman author, military commander, and philosopher, whose Naturalis Historia (77–79 a.d.; Natural History) is an encyclopedic portrait of the world; it consists of thirty-seven books about topics that range from the arts to the sciences. 42. Saturnaliorum Libri Septem (the seven books of Saturnalia), named for the ancient Roman festival that is the setting for Macrobius’s exposition of Roman culture, consists of dialogues between learned men who discuss an encyclopedic variety of topics. 43. The Soliloquies, also known as Synonyms or Lamentation of the Soul. 44. Soliloquies 2.76.



Book I 35

“Nemo potest terribilis esse secure.”45 It says: No terrible man can be safe. As it says in Ecclesiasticus, chapter 8: “Noli esse sicut leo in domo tua evertens domesticos tuos et opprimens subiectos tibi.”46 You do not want to be in your house like the lion, who destroys your household and oppresses your subjects. I leave out many other examples in order to abbreviate. Chapter 6

In which the reasons there were sixty-four squares, a square board, and elevated sides for the game of chess are explained Jacobus de Cessolis says that there were sixty-four squares and a square board because the philosopher inventor of this game wanted the shape of the board to represent the city of Babylon, and the pieces to represent the king, the nobility, and the non-nobility. This city was very wide and squared, and there were four parts, each of which measured sixteen thousand steps in length and width, divided into sixty-four squares.47 Cessolis continues in this way: Babylon had four squares, sixty-four thousand steps in length and width. This information, he says, was approved by the authority of St. John; I cannot find where it says St. John of Babylon, but the one of Jerusalem says that each square had no more than twelve thousand steps.48 I believe the philosopher, who alluded to the number sixteen 45. Epistulae morales ad Lucillium 46. Ecclesiasticus 4:35–36. Latin Vulgate Bible. López cites the reference incorrectly, a mistake he will repeat. 47. Murray states that the sixty-four squares of the chessboard “agree with the traditional shape of the city, which was four-square and 16 miles each way” (A History of Chess, 615). Caxton asserts a similar equivalency: “And in one of the corners of this cyte [city] was made a toure treangle [triangular tower] as a shelde [shield] whereof the heyght [height] extended unto the lengthe of .vii. thousand paas [steps]/ whiche is .vii. myle [miles] English” (The Game and the Playe of Chesse, 159). 48. Cessolis cites only the description of St. Jerome: “Jerome says that Babylon was a large, quartered city—each quarter measuring 16,000 paces in length and width. A thousand paces constitute one mile. Thus, since four times sixteen makes sixty-four, the total perimeter of each city quarter measured sixty-four Lombard miles. The clever philosopher Xerxes, who invented the game, put as many squares on the board as there were miles around the city quarters.” Jacobus de Cessolis, The Book of Chess, trans. and ed. H. L. Williams (New York: Italica Press, 2008).

36

Book I

on which he founded this invention, as we expressed in chapter 1, and not to the city of Babylon, because this number, deduced from its multiplication of eight times eight, amounts to and constitutes this number of sixty-four, and this number constitutes a perfect square, as we express above on authority of Macrobius.49 In addition, this board represents a field where two kings come to do battle, instead of a city. It seems he alluded to the square military formation, which is very useful, as Vegetius shows us in book 1 of De re militari, title 26: “Tertio pracipiendum, ut quadratam aciem repente constituant.” Third precept, he says, is the soldiers are formed and organized with the army in a square. The elevated sides represent, according to the same Jacobus de Cessolis, the walls of the aforementioned city, which were very high for the decorum and beauty of it, and for the safety of its inhabitants. It seems to me, however, to represent more the trenches and battlements of the two kings than the walls. In this way, the two camps are safer because of the trenches. With those high edges, we are able to contain better the pieces so that they do not fall off of the board. The edges represent in all parts a closed and fortified battlefield, and where the soldiers enter the skirmish remains open from wherever they enter the battle. Chapter 7

In which the meaning of the board’s thirty-two squares is explained The thirty-two squares on the board, says the same Jacobus de Cessolis, are empty because whoever takes as his charge to rule and to govern people not only populates the city and republic in which they live, but also occupies enough lands and possessions for the people to inhabit and to cultivate, where they can sustain their life and serve their king. The kingdoms and lands without places where the people can nourish themselves and where they can spread out are more appropriately called bandits’ dens 49. López distances his interpretation of chess from the allegorical imaginings of Cessolis and expresses it in terms of liberal arts, such as, in this case, mathematics.



Book I 37

than kingdoms. Consequently, the squares, or the unoccupied parts on this board, represent the boundaries and width of this city. I do not look at it in the same way as I do the rest, because as I have said, the board does not represent a city but a battlefield with two armies. The one part consists of the people of both parts, and the other is empty, where one can enter the skirmish.50 There were some other squares that remained empty for two reasons. One, if there were more, or less, there could not be a square. The other reason, because one part like the other has an equal number of pawns that can be used to occupy the squares. In order for them not to take away the space of the rest of the pieces, it was necessary for the pawns to navigate three squares from the first move so that the pieces could move there later. Furthermore, the pawns are like the cavalry because, in addition to attacking, they hide the movements of their own army from the foe, as Vegetius shows us in book 3 of De re militari, title 14, saying: “Singuli autem armati in directum ternos pedes inter se occupare consueuerunt, hoc est, in mille passibus mille sescenti sexaginta sex pedites ordinantur in longum, ut nec acies interluceat et spatium sit arma tractandi; inter ordinem autem et ordinem a tergo in latum sex pedes distare uoluerunt, ut haberent pugnantes spatium accedendi atque recedendi; uehementius enim cum saltu cursuque tela mittuntur.”51 It says each one of the warriors in the fight occupies, as a custom, a space three feet from each other, and it is good to know, in 1,000 steps, there are 1,666 soldiers.52 Those soldiers who situate themselves on foot in their places are in a position to be able to move to help one another and to obstruct the enemy’s view of the soldiers behind them. With respect to weapons, the soldiers wanted there to be a distance of six feet between the front order and the order in the back, so that those who fought had space to attack and to withdraw, because the weapons with the greatest force are launched high and quickly.

50. The “empty part” refers to the four middle ranks. 51. The pawn moves similarly today, but unlike the phraseology of the Middle Ages, which counted a piece’s beginning square in its move count, the pawn may move two squares according to modern chess rules. 52. Each step is five feet; 5000 ÷ 3 = 1666.

38

Book I

Chapter 8

In which the names of chess and the pieces are explained Chess is called the board formed by eight lines, which we said above, and sixty-four squares. Among the Spanish people, it is called Axedrez because, according to some people, the philosopher Xerxes was its inventor, and by modifying and corrupting the name, moving letters, and replacing “s” for “d,” according to how some people write it, xerses, and according to others, xerxes, in which case the “x” replaces the “d.” In order to say that there was a name axerses, xerses would have to be written physically, explaining that it was modified and deduced from this name xerses. The Italians call it Scacherio, from its name in Latin, because scacherio means nothing more than a repository of items that is situated and prepared for battle. I believe it is from the Latin calculus, because, as Calepino says, what the Latins call calculus, the Italians call scachus. Because, as we will discuss later, it is said that calculus comes from the verb calculo, which means to count. Some people say seacho is an appropriate Venetian verb, which means a stone for counting, because it is an imitation of what accountants used to count in the past. Among the Venetians, scisar is to count according to the calculation of chess, which can be seen in modern arithmetic. According to the Latins, the board is called tabula latruncularia and the game ludus latruncularia or latronum ludus, and the pieces are called latrones, latrunculus in their diminutive form. Since this game was a military invention, the pieces were called by these names, which mean bandits or thieves, because they advance like armed bandits in an ambush where they overtake their enemies. Also, because the purpose of men of war is to ambush in order to rob their enemies, according to Virgil, who tells us: “Convectare juvat praedas, et vivere rapto.”53 It means that raids and living off of theft bring pleasure to people of war. It’s better to call 53. Publius Vergilius Maro (70–19 b.c.) was a Roman poet whose three most wellknown poems are Eclogae (Eclogues or Bucolics), Georgica (Georgics), and Aeneis (Aeneid). These words can be found in the Aeneid, book 7, line 749.



Book I 39

them calculos, which means in Spanish trebejos [pieces], because it comes from calculo, the verb calculas. As I have already said, people counted with those little rocks in the past, coupling them with reason and mindfulness of the count so as not to forget and make a mistake. As a result, the pieces show that it is a game of counting, as we said above. It should be noted that it is called in this way, as we have said. Martial in book 2 of the epigrams: “Insidiosorum si ludis bella latronum, gemmeus iste tibi miles et hostis.”54 It says if you play this game, that it is like a war of bandits who set up an ambush; this instrument of glass or something else that shines may serve you as a soldier or as an enemy. Ovid: “Sive latrocini sub imagine calculus ibit, fac pereat vitreo miles ab hoste tuus.”55 Martial: “Hic mihi bis seno numerator tessera puncto: calculus hic gemino discolor hoste perit.” I do not put here the names of the other provenances, because neither is it my intention nor was it a thing to do, because it would never end. Chapter 9

In which the name, shape, and position of each of the pieces are explained There are eight pieces, and the main one is called the king, in whose fortune or misfortune consists winning or losing the game. The second piece is called the queen or lady or donna in Italian. The pieces that are closest to these pieces are called bishops; one bishop for the king and another bishop for the queen, or lady. After these pieces are others, one on one side and another on the other side, and they are called knights. The one that is next to the king is called the king’s knight, and the one that is next to the queen is called the queen’s knight. Behind these pieces are another 54. “If your game is the warfare of insidious robbers, you have here in precious stones both your soldiers and your enemy” (Martial, The Epigrams, 607).The second half of the epigram does not appear in the original text, but I include it here because it complements the first half. 55. “When in the Soldier-game your marbles go, / See your man falls before his glassy foe” (Wilkinson, Ovid Recalled, 129). In book 2 of Ars amatoria (The Art of Love), Ovid instructs the man how to keep a woman. In addition to allowing her to win any competition, he recommends that the man approve her words and deny whatever she denies.

40

Book I

two, one on the side of the king in the last square called the king’s rook, and another in the last square on the side of the queen called the queen’s rook. In the second rank in front of these pieces are another eight pieces called the pawns, and each one is called a pawn for the piece behind it. Finished with the name and position of each piece, because what we say about one side is understood for the other side, there is no difference except in color to distinguish which pieces belong to one side and which pieces belong to the other side. With respect to the shape, it is useful to know that there is no specific and common shape now, because in some locations they are made one way and in other places another way. Although the pieces are unique because of their different shapes, with respect to the pawns, almost all of them are as one. In every location, pawns are made the same way, one pawn is no different than the other, I say. With respect to the other pieces, there are differences according to how each person wishes to make them. Regardless of how one wishes to make them, it is better to make all of them in their own shape, according to their role, which is how it was done in the past. Since it is no longer the case (because everyone makes them economically), I will no longer linger on this topic, but I will move on to declaring how they were made in the past, dedicating a separate chapter to a description of each one. I will only say here what Jacobus de Cessolis says, that Xerxes, the inventor of this game, made each piece from gold and silver, imitating human shape.56 It is very credible because it would have been easier with that shape to capture the attention of the king to their purpose. The Romans made them with glass or from another shiny material, as Ovid shows in saying: “Sive latrocinii sub imagine calculus ibit, fac pereat vitreo miles ab hoste tuus.”57 Martial said: “Vitreo latrone.”58 And again: “Insidiosorum si ludis bella latronum, gemmeus iste tibi miles et hostis.”59 56. Liber de moribus hominum et officiis nobilium super ludo scacchorum (1330; Book of the customs of men and the duties of nobles, or the book of chess). 57. Book 2 of Ars amatoria. “When in the Soldier-game your marbles go, / See your man falls before his glassy foe” (Wilkinson, Ovid Recalled, 129). 58. Epigrams 7.72. “Glass thief.” Martial refers to a glass gaming piece. 59. Epigrams 14.18. “If your game is the warfare of insidious robbers, you have here in precious stones both your soldiers and your enemy” (Martial, The Epigrams, 607).



Book I 41

Chapter 10

In which the shape, position, and movement of the king are explained Since the king is the most important piece, as we have said already, it is appropriate to begin with him because he is the lord of victory or of the contrary. Its shape was this way: in human form, placed on a royal chair, dressed in purple, which was a royal wardrobe, with a crown on his head, and in his right hand a scepter and in his left hand a round ball. The crown on his head represented dignity, which he has over all others because royal dignity is the glory of the people. The king’s life is such, that the eyes of everyone are focused on him in order to follow his movements and obey his commands. As the Ecclesiasticus says in chapter 10: “Qualis est rector civitatis, tales et inhabitantes in ea.”60 As is the rector of the city, so are its inhabitants. The purple shows that the king must shine over all with grace and virtue. As elegant clothing embellishes the body, in the same way virtue beautifies the intellect and the soul. As Philon says in the Book of Wisdom, chapter 6: “Rex sapiens populi stabilimentum est.”61 As Seneca says in chapter 3 of the tragedy of Thyestes: “Ubi non est pudor, nec cura iuris, sanctitas, pietas, fides; instabile regnum est.”62 As Cassiodorus says in book 3, chapter 12 of his epistles: “Facilius est quippe, si dicere fas est, errare, naturam quam dissimilem sui princeps possit formare rem publicam.”63 The scepter in the right hand symbolizes the scepter of justice and rigor that must be applied equally to everyone. As it says in the Ecclesias-

60. Ecclesiasticus 10:2. 61. Philon refers to Philo of Alexandria. Sapientiae (Book of Wisdom) 6:26: “and a wise king is the upholding of the people.” 62. “Where there is no shame, no care for right, no honour, righteousness, faith—there sovereignty is unstable” (Schiesaro, Passions in Play, 160). Thyestes (62 a.d.) is a Roman revenge tragedy about a Greek mythological character, Thyestes, whose rivalry with his twin brother, Atreus, to be king of Mycenae culminates in a banquet at which Atreus murders his nephews and serves their heads to their father. 63. “It is easier, if one may say so, for Nature herself to make a mistake than it is for a Sovereign to make a State unlike to himself ” (Cassiodorus, The Letters, 167).

42

Book I

ticus, chapter 19: “Qui potestatem sibi assumit iniuste odietur.”64 Gregory in Pastora, chapter 18: “Sit rector bene agentibus per humilitatem socius, contra dilenquentium vitia per zeleum iustitiae erectus.”65 Sallust in Cata: “Labore atque iustitia res publica crevit vit.”66 And Cassiodorus in book 4, epistle 12: “Semper auget principes obseruata iustitia.”67 It is beneficial to know that as mercy and truth protect the king, in the same way clemency affirms his throne. Solomon in Proverbs, chapter 20: “Misericordia et veritas custodiunt regem et roboratur clementia thronus eius.”68 Tullius in the second chapter of the Philippics: “Charitate et benevolentia civium saeptum oportet esse, non armis.”69 The ball in the left hand symbolizes that the king must oversee the entire kingdom’s administration, and he and his officials should ensure that it is administered well and with justice. Many things could be said about this subject, but, in the interest of brevity, I will not continue. The preceding information is about the king’s image and form. With respect to its position, it is useful to know that the king is given the fourth square [e1], which is the middle, meaning that it is appropriate for the king to be in the middle of the others, administering justice and 64. “Whoever pretend to authority is hated” (Ecclesiasticus 20:8). The source of all biblical translations in English is the Catholic Study Bible. 65. “The ruler should be, through humility, a companion of good livers, and, through the zeal of righteousness, rigid against the vices of evil-doers” (Gregory, Pastoral Rule, 30). Pope St. Gregory the Great is the author of Regula Pastoralis (c. 590 a.d.; Pastoral Care), a treatise on the clergy’s responsibilities to the people they serve, especially their spiritual formation. 66. De coniuratione Catilinae X.1. “When our country had grown great through toil” (Sallust, 17). 67. In this letter, King Theodoric, who was king of the Ostrogoths from 475 to 526 and the Visigoths from 511 to 526, speaks to his nephew Theodahad about the latter’s avarice: “If all are bound to seek justice and to avoid ignoble gains, most especially are they thus bound who pride themselves on their close relationship to us” (Cassiodorus, Letters, 272). 68. “Steadfast loyalty guards the king, and he upholds his throne by justice.” King Solomon (c. 1010–c. 931 b.c.), who succeeded his father David as king of Israel, is believed to be the author of three Old Testament books: Book of Proverbs (A vast majority of the eight hundred proverbs are attributed to King Solomon), Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. 69. “A man must be defended by the affection and good will of his fellow-citizens, not by arms” (Cicero, Philippics, 112). A philippic is a speech in which the orator condemns a politician. Demosthenes (384–322 b.c.) delivered the first philippics against Phillip II of Macedon. In the original text, López, perhaps influenced by his discussion of the king’s scepter, writes sceptrum instead of saeptum,



Book I 43

equality and practicing mercy and truth equally to all. As Solomon says in Proverbs, chapter 16: “Non decet principem labium mendax.”70 It is necessary to treat all the same way he would want the princes to treat him if he were a subject. As Ioannes Solobriensis Anglus [Johannes Saresberiensis, or John of Salisbury] says in Policraticus, book 5: “Traianus optimus Imperator arguentibus eum amicis quod in omnes et vltra quam Imperatorem deceat communis esset, respondit se talem velle Imperatorem esse privatis, quales imperatores sibi esse privato optasser.”71 In chapter 32 of the Ecclesiasticus: “Rectorem te posuerunt? Noli extolli, esto in illis, quasi unus ex ipsis.”72 The king, like the other pieces, is able to move freely on the first move as long as there is not any threat to him. I call the threat check because the king can only move from square to square when in check. If the king moves freely when not in check, the first time it can leap three squares whenever it finds a clear path. Furthermore, it can do so over another piece or a pawn from his side or the other, as long as the objective is not to take anything from the opponent, because the king is not permitted to capture when it leaps.73 Though it cannot capture when it leaps, all of the rest of the pieces can for several reasons, which can be provided here; 70. The phrase that López quotes here is a variation of Proverbs 17:7. “Non decent stultum verba conposita nec principem labium mentiens.” (Fine words ill fit a fool; how much more lying lips, a noble.) 71. The original version by John of Salisbury reads as follows: “Legitur imperator Trajanus arguentibus eum quod nimis esset comis, tale dédisse responsum; Talem velle se imperatorem esse privatis, quales imperatores sibi esse privatus optasset” (Wallerand, Les œuvres de Siger de Courtrai, 34); “Trajan, the best among the gentile emperors, responded eminently to the argument of his friends that he was too intimate with everyone and went beyond what was decent for emperors. For he wished to be an emperor to private persons of such a kind as he had wanted the emperors to be when he was a private person” (John of Salisbury, Policratus, trans. Nederman, 50). John of Salisbury (1115–1180) was a philosopher and the author of Policraticus (1159), a book about moral and political philosophy, and of Metalogicon (1159), a defense of the trivium, the three stages of learning that correspond to cognitive development and consist of grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric. 72. ”If you are chosen to preside at a dinner, do not be puffed up, but with the guests be one of them.” 73. According to Alfonso X the Learned, the king moved only one square at a time. Lucena notes, however, the same movements for the king as Ruy López does here. Murray concludes: “If we compare the rules of the Spanish chess of 1490–1500 as given by Lucena with those of 1283 as given in Alf., we see that the game must have undergone a continuous process of development of move during the mediaeval period” (History of Chess, 526).

44

Book I

the best reason is that there is no other move that pleased the inventor of the game. Although he found some reason for this rule, it is, I believe, hidden. As Cassiodorus says in chapter 9 of De anima: “Melius est enim in tam occultis causis confiteri ignorantiam quam periculosam assumere fortassis audaciam.”74 As the The Digest of Justinian states: “Non omnium, quae a maioribus constituta sunt, ratio reddi potest.”75 “Multa iure civili contra rationem disputandi pro utilitate communi recepta esse.”76 The king has the freedom to move three spaces the first time, however he chooses. It may move to either of its sides in its rank or forward like a pawn, knight, rook, bishop, or queen. The king may move like a knight through either of the other two ranks after his own, or it can move diagonally like the queen, above a piece or a pawn, either his or his opponent’s, or however he wishes. All this freedom, which is not granted to any other piece, comes from being the king. It should be known that in some parts of Italy, the king can leap his entire rank the first time, from his square to the last one before the rook, placing the rook next to him in one movement.77 In other parts of Italy, the king can leap no more than three squares, from his square to the knight’s square; and with respect to the queen, it may leap from his square to the queen’s square. This maneuver takes place between the king and either of the rooks in one leap. Elsewhere in Italy, in addition to these moves, the king can move any of the pawns in the second rank and occupy the square where the pawn was. All of these uses are not good, nor do they conform to reason, because if it makes sense for the king to leap three squares, as we will discuss, it would not with these other abuses. This chapter is organized, therefore, according to ways in which not to play. 74. “In such mysterious matters it is better to confess ignorance than to assume a boldness” (Cassiodorus: Institutions, trans. Halporn and Vessey, 261). De anima (540 a.d.; On the Soul) is a treatise on the nature of the soul and life after death. 75. “It is not possible for all men to determine the reason for all that their ancestors established” (Justinian, Digest, trans. Watson, 13; book 1, title 3, section 20). 76. “Indeed, it can be proved with reference to innumerable cases that the civil law has accepted things for the general good that do not accord with pure logic” (Justinian, Civil Law, trans. Scott, 103; book 9, title 2, section 51). 77. This move is called castling. During the fifty years between the publication of Damiano’s and Lopez’s treatises, chess evolved differently in different countries, especially Spain, Italy, and France, which meant that players had to learn several different sets of rules.



Book I 45

It would be advantageous to know, nevertheless, that the first time the king moves, when it is not in check and on its square the first time, it can use all of the other pieces to make nine leaps. The king can make one leap to his knight’s square [g1] and the other leap to the queen’s bishop’s square [c1], both in his rank. In the second rank, he has another two leaps: one to the king’s knight’s pawn’s square, which is called the knight’s second [g2], and the other leap to the queen’s bishop’s square, which is called the bishop’s second [c2]. In the third rank, there may be five leaps: one to the king’s knight’s third square [g3]; another to the king’s bishop’s third square [f3]; another to his own third square [e3]; another to his queen’s third square [d3]; and another to the queen’s bishop’s third square [c3]. It is understood that these squares are empty; they are not occupied by another piece or a pawn. It is also understood that these moves transpire when the king leaps, but when it cannot, it can attack only five places from his square: to his queen’s square, to his bishop’s square, to his queen’s second square, to his own second square, and to his bishop’s second square. When the king finds himself in the middle of the board, as if he were to find himself in his own fourth square [e4], he can attack his own third square [e3], the opposing king’s fourth square [e5], his own bishop’s third square [f3], his own bishop’s fourth square [f4], the opposing bishop’s fourth square [f5], his own queen’s third square [d3], his own queen’s fourth square [d4] and the opposing queen’s fourth square [d5]. In this way, the king goes from square to square wherever he finds himself: straight, across, or diagonally. This information is sufficient about the king’s travel and movement, noting only one thing, and that is to know that the first move consists of three leaps and no more. The king leaps only three squares, and no more, to show that the moves that the other pieces make are inherent in the king. It is also noteworthy that the king possesses perfection more so than the other pieces, id est, the other pieces’ perfect traits are one in him. As Aristotle says in book 1, chapter 8 of the Politicorum: “Principem quidem perfectam habere oportet moralem virtutem.”78 I use the ternary 78. “Hence the ruler ought to have moral virtue in perfection” (Poetics 51; 1260a). Politicorum (350 b.c.; Politics) is Aristotle’s treatise on political theory. This quotation appears in chapter 13 of book 1.

46

Book I

number because all others are religious and sacred, as it is demonstrated in all of antiquity that it consists of one, two, and three, which together make a senary, which is the first perfect number.79 It denotes here a name of six people who compose a perfect kingdom: king, queen, knights, vicars, bishops and people. And that is enough for this chapter. Chapter 11

In which the shape, position, and movement of the queen are explained The shape of the queen, which we call Lady because of how it was first known, represents a pleasant woman who is seated on a royal chair with a crown on her head, her dress embroidered with brocade, and a coat of shiny stones. The crown and the royal chair signify that she is equal to the king in dignity and in the reverence with which she should be honored; the man’s glory, honor, and crown denote a good woman who is obedient to reason. St. Paul in the first Epistola 1 ad Corinthios, chapter 11: “Mulier gloria viri est.”80 In Ecclesiasticus, chapter 25: “Beatus qui habitat cum muliere sensata.”81 In chapter 26: “Mulieris bonae beatus vir: numerus enim annorum illiorum duplex. Gratia super gratiam mulier sancta et pudorata.”82 And in Proverbs, chapter 12: “Mulier diligens corona est viro suo.”83 In chapter 14: “Sapiens mulier aedificavit domum suam; insipiens instructam quoque destruet manibus.”84 Plato in Meno circa principi: “Decet mulierem domum bene dispensare, salva facientem que intrinsecus et obsequentem esse viro.”85 The crown and the chair represent the dignity that 79. Six is a perfect number because it is equal to the sum of its factors (1 + 2 + 3 = 6). 80. “Woman is the glory of man.” 1 Corinthians 11:7. 81. “Happy the man who lives with a sensible woman.” Ecclesiasticus 25:8. 82. “Happy the husband of a good wife; the number of his days will be doubled. . . . A modest wife is a supreme blessing.” Ecclesiasticus 26:1 and 26:14, respectively. 83. “A woman of worth is the crown of her husband.” Proverbs 12:4. 84. “Wisdom builds her house, but Folly tears hers down with her own hands.” Proverbs 14:1. 85. Meno tells Socrates that a woman’s virtue consists of “ordering the house well, looking after the property indoors, and obeying her husband” (Plato, trans. Lamb, 80). Plato (427–347 b.c.) was a Greek philosopher who is the founder of the Academy in Athens, which is considered to be first institution of higher learning. Meno (380 b.c.) is a Socratic dialogue between Socrates and the fictional character Meno; it centers on human virtue.



Book I 47

the queen holds over other women. The gold dress and the coat of shiny stones represent her corporal and spiritual beauty, and the other good and radiant virtues with which she has been endowed, so that the king, and her husband, abstains from other illicit embraces, because this faithfulness is her principal honor. Aristotle in Oeconomicorum: “Maximus autem est honor honestae mulieri, si respicit virum suum castum esse in eam et de nulla alia muliere curare, sed praeter omnes alias propriam et amicam et fidelem putet eam . . . si cognoverit fideliter atque iuste ad se virum amabilem esse, et ipsa circa virum iuste fidelis erit . . . nihil ergo est propius nec maius uxori pretiosa communicatone et fideli ad virum.”86 The queen whose color is white is on the white square and to the king’s left. Since the white square denotes chastity and honesty, her presence there means that the other virtues she must possess are evident. As the Lex Authentica, article Quomodo episcopi, presbyteri et diaconi says: “Pudicitia quam maxime mulieres ornat.”87 It is significant for two reasons that the queen is on the king’s left. First is the marital embraces according to the Cantares: “Leva ejus sub capite meo et dextera illius amplexabitur me.”88 The other, which has as its advocate the king, because what is to the right is our protector and our refuge. According to what Antonio de Nebrija (1441–1522) declares very well in his third Quinquagena about the Psalm: “Dixit dominus domino meo, sede a dextris meis.”89 86. “Now a virtuous wife is best honored when she sees that her husband is faithful to her, and has no preference for another woman; but before all others loves and trusts her and holds her as his own. . . . If she perceives that her husband’s affection for her is faithful and righteous, she too will be faithful and righteous towards him. . . . Now to a wife nothing is of more value, nothing more rightfully her own, than honored and faithful partnership with her husband” (Economics, trans. Armstrong; book 3, section 2). 87. “Modesty, which is the greatest ornament of the sex” (Kant 37; the article in which this quotation appears in the Lex Authentica addresses the comportment of deaconesses). The Lex Authentica (Authentic Law) comprises Justinian’s Codex Justinianus (Code of Law; 529 a.d.), Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of Civil Law), Digesta (The Digest of Justinian; 533 a.d.), Institutiones (Institutes; 533 a.d.), and Novellae Constitutiones (New Constitutions; 534 a.d.). Justinian appointed teams of lawyers to revise all of the laws in the Body of Civil Law and to publish the ones they deemed to be authentic in the Lex Authentica. 88. “His left hand is under my head, and his right arm embraces me.” Song of Solomon 8:3. The Song of Solomon is one of the last five scrolls that make up the Writings, which is the last section of the Old Testament. The other scrolls are Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. 89. “The Lord says to my lord: Sit at my right hand.” The Quinquagena (1507) is a series

48

Book I

The queen whose color is black is on a black square and to the right of the king so that the squares correspond to their position according to the organization of the board. Later in the chapter, we will talk about the reason why the players have the white squares to their right. The queen positions herself next to her husband, and in the middle, as equal holder of the common goods that belong to both, for it could not be less, so that the man possesses the property that belongs to him, and that of the woman belongs to the woman. The rest does not lack meaning, because being in the black square and together with her husband means that the woman dazzles with her husband’s rays, as the Lex Authentica titled De consulibus relates: “Alia vero non decorabitur. . . . Uxores coruscant radiis maritorum.”90 Her presence on the right side means that she is more honored than any other person in the kingdom. We place the person we want to honor to the right, in accordance with the Psalm: “Astitit regina a dextris tuis in vestito deaurato circumdata varietate.”91 The two queens are placed and established in the middle of all of the other people. This practice reflected the custom of the Persians, who believed the middle location of seats and assemblies was the most highly regarded, according to the testimony of Xenophon in the life of Cyrus, king of the Persians. The same was true for the Numidians, according to the testimony of Sallust. It is what Virgil explained at the end of the first book of the Aeneid, where he discusses the most glorious place occupied by the queen and says: “Mediamque locavit.”92 After the shape and the positioning of the queen, what remains is an explanation of her movement, and it is such that the queen, or lady, may move straight and transversely all over the board like a rook, as long as there is a clear path, capturing all that is in its way or it wishes. It also moves diagonally, capturing like a bishop and a pawn, and finally, it has the same ability to move and to capture as all of the pieces and pawns, of short essays in which Antonio de Nebrija challenges the legitimacy of fifty words in Holy Scripture. 90. “Hence no other [woman than the wife] will be honored. . . . [she] shall be distinguished in this honor” (Justinian, The Civil Law, 17 ); De consulibus (On consuls), Title 5. 91. “The Queen stands at your right hand, arrayed in gold.” Psalm 45:10. 92. “Placed herself in the middle.” Middle is another way of saying the place of honor.



Book I 49

except the knight. The reason the queen cannot move like the knight is to differentiate it from the king, who can move anywhere, as we said.93 It is acknowledged that the queen is an imitation of the Amazons, whose queen went to Troy, where Palamedes might have invented the game, and fought bravely against the Greeks, according to what Virgil says in book 1: “Penthesilea furens, mediisque in milibus ardet . . . bellatrix, audetque viris concurrere virgo.”94 If we concede that Xerxes was the inventor of chess, we will discuss the placement of the queen in this game, noting the ancient custom of the kings of Persia, whose king, when he went to war, took with him his wife and concubines—as one can read about Darius, king of those parts, and many others.95 The women obeyed to please the king and to demonstrate their love for him. Since the kingdom cared greatly for the king’s successor, they wanted the king to have the queen with him not only in the city, but also when he traveled. When the game was first invented, therefore, the queen did not move except from square to square.96 In times of war, the queen was the weakest piece. It is said today that the queen’s role is to be on the lookout for Moors, with the understanding that it is not respectable for an honorable woman to be traveling frequently, and even less so to remote places where she can lose her honor easily, which is what happened to Dinah, Jacob’s daughter, and many other women.97 In order not to continue this topic, I will leave it there. When the players saw the queen on the battlefield, as I said, they wanted her to be the main piece on the board after the king. It would be necessary to pay attention to her, therefore, so as not to lose her, be93. López alludes here to the king’s ability to leap. 94. Aeneid, book 1, vv. 695 and 697. “She [Penthesilea] flashes through her thousands . . . soldier-virgin and queen, daring to war with men” (Virgil, Aeneid, trans. Mandelbaum, 18). 95. Darius I (550–486 b.c.) ruled Persia from 522–486 b.c. 96. López seems to imply that the queen moved only from square to square as a symbol of her loyalty to the king. 97. Even though the nearly eight-hundred year war between the Christians and the Moors for control of the Iberian Peninsula ended in 1492, there were many tropes that hearkened back to this period in Spain’s history. López incorporates one of them here to describe the queen’s feebleness.

50

Book I

cause the game is rarely won if she is captured, and often the queen is able to restore a lost game—many pieces cannot do so. They placed as many pieces and pawns on the queen’s side as on the king’s side; furthermore, they wanted the pieces and pawns on the queen’s side to be known as her pieces to distinguish them from the king’s pieces. It is beneficial to know that the queen has, on her side, as many people as the king has on his, but her pieces are closer to the opposing king’s attack than are her own king’s pieces, and, therefore, it makes it easier to defeat the enemies of the king’s people. Now, we close this chapter about the queen. Chapter 12

In which the shape, position, and movement of the bishops are explained According to what Jacobus de Cessolis writes, the shape of the bishops resembled advisory judges, seated at a desk and with a book opened before their eyes. Since some cases are criminal and others are disputes over temporal property, it was fitting that there were two judges in the kingdom. One bishop in a black square, which represents the judge of criminal cases; another bishop in a white square, which represents the judge for property disputes. The function of these judges is to advise the king, and to establish and to codify the laws that are necessary, by order of the king, to govern the kingdom. As Solomon says in Proverbs, chapter 2: “Ubi non est gubernator, populus corruet salus autem ubi multa consilia.”98 In Ecclesiasticus, chapter 37: “Ante omnem actum consilium stabile praecedat te.”99 In chapter 32: “Sine consilio nihil facias, et post factum non poenitebis.”100 In Tobias, chapter 4: “Consilium a sapiente semper perquirere.”101 It is a requirement to choose for these duties wise and God-fearing 98. “For lack guidance a people falls; security lies in many counselors.” Proverbs 11:14. 99. “Before all acts allow steady counsel to precede you.” Ecclesiasticus 37:20. 100. “Do nothing without deliberation; then once you have acted, have no regrets” (Ecclesiasticus 32:24). 101. “Seek counsel from every wise person” (Tobit 4:19). The Book of Tobit, also known as the Book of Tobias, is one of Roman Catholicism’s deuterocanonical books.



Book I 51

people so that they are devoid of favoritism and emotion in order that they treat everyone equally. As Sallust says: “Omnes homines qui de rebus dubiis consultant, ab odio, amicitia, ira atque misericordia vacuos esse decet. Haud facile animus verum providet, ubi illa officiunt.”102 As Tullius says in book 1, chapter 19 of De Officiis: “Qui autem parti civium consulunt, partem negligunt, rem perniciosissam in civitatem inducunt, seditionem atque discordiam.”103 Cassiodorus, for this reason, says in book 1, chapter 22 of his epistles: “Decet regalis apicis curiam generalitatis custodire concordiam.”104 As The Digest of Justinian, title Postliminium reversis, says: “Si quis ingenua per civiles dissentiones semper respublica laeditur.”105 It is appropriate that people, therefore, are delegated for this function, as Isidore says: “Sine fuco exhibeat bonitatem.”106 In order to abbreviate, I will not expound on many other things. One bishop places itself next to the king and another next to the queen to show that it is always appropriate for princes to have good advisors, so that the princes do not do anything that is not correct or inappropriate. Ecclesiasticus: “Sine consilio nihil facias, et post factum non poenitebis.”107 In Proverbs, chapter 13: “Qui autem agunt cuncta consilio reguntur sapienta.”108 As Tullius says in book 1 of De inventione, chapter 25: “Consilium est aliquid faciendi vel non faciendi, vere excogitara ratio.”109 Since counsel is very necessary in a war, and this game represents a war and not a kingdom, as we said earlier, we will dedicate a chapter to 102. De coniuratione Catilinae 51. “It becomes all men who deliberate on dubious matters, to be influenced neither by hatred, affection, anger, nor pity. The mind, when such feelings obstruct its view, cannot see what is right” (Battles, Calvin’s Commentary on Seneca’s De Clementia, 367). 103. De Officiis 1.25. “Those who care for the interests of a part of the citizens and neglect the other part, bring into the city the most pernicious element: sedition and discord” (Mulgan, Good and Bad Power, 60). 104. Epistles, 1.23. “The concord and harmony of subjects redound to the praise of their prince” (Cassiodorus, Letters, 157). 105. “The State is always harmed by political disagreements” (translation mine). 106. Book 2, chapter 55. “Let him show goodness without pretense” (translation mine). 107. “Do not do anything without counsel, and later there will be no regrets.” Ecclesiasticus 32:24. 108. “They who do all things with counsel are guided by wisdom.” Proverbs 13:10. 109. “By counsel, we mean a carefully considered resolution to do or not to do something.” De inventione 1.25. De inventione (On Invention) is a handbook for orators that Cicero wrote as a young man.

52

Book I

the function and meaning of every piece. It will be different from what we have said until now, which is consistent with Jacobus de Cessolis’s teaching. Since we expand his ideas and corroborate with proof what he does not offer, perhaps by chance I will please some people with the meanings he assigns to the pieces and pawns. With respect to the movement of these bishops, it is diagonally, and each bishop stays away from the other’s squares: the bishops on white squares, advance on white squares, and the bishops on black squares, advance on black squares. The reason for this movement is, according to Jacobus de Cessolis, so that each judge understands the charge assigned to him and does not sow discord by involving himself in another judge’s duty. With respect to what Jacobus de Cessolis says here, however, we will illustrate his errors in the chapter in which we discuss what each piece on this board represents, id est, posed on a battlefield, waiting for his enemy. These bishops, whenever they have an unobstructed path, can move diagonally across all of the squares they can reach, capturing or not capturing another piece or a pawn. In order for the bishop to know well how to attack, it considers its square. If it is the king’s bishop that is white, it can attack in two directions and through two files. In addition, it is beneficial to know that it can move to the second square in its knight’s file [g2] and to the third square in its rook’s file [h3]. If the bishop were to move to its left, it may do so a maximum of six squares, counting from its square, and six ranks; it is beneficial to know its own rank [f1], the king’s second rank [e2], the queen’s third rank [d3], and the fourth rank of the queen’s bishop [c4]. All of these moves can take place from its side to the end of the board. On the other side of the board, it can move to the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [b5] and to the third square of the opposing queen’s rook [a6]. If it were to find itself in the middle of the board, such as the king’s fourth rank [e4], it can attack in four directions: two toward the enemy’s side and two toward its own camp. When the bishop moves in the direction of its opponent, it attacks to the right on the bishop’s fourth square [f5], the knight’s third square [g6], and the opposing rook’s second square [h7]. To the left, it attacks the queen’s fourth square [d5], the



Book I 53

bishop’s third square [c6], the knight’s second square [b7], and the queen’s rook’s square [a8]. When it returns to its own camp, it attacks to the left: its queen’s third square [d3], its bishop’s second square [c2], and the square of its queen’s knight [b1]. To the right, it attacks via its own third square [f3], the knight’s second square [g2], and the rook’s square [h1]. These movements apply to all of the bishops, since in the past, according to what is said, they moved only three squares and jumped over a piece or a pawn if it wanted to do so—but only diagonally.110 This information is about the old game that was played formerly in Spain, as the saying goes, “Don’t consider the bishop vile, because it can capture on the third square.” The Moors played this way, and since their game was despicable and not adapted to its original meaning, as we will discuss, the good players abandoned it. Some people ask, which piece is the best one, the bishop or the knight. It is important to know that, in general, both are considered equal, but according to the disposition of the game, sometimes the bishop is better, and other times, the knight is better. There are many people who play better with the bishop, and there are others who play better with the knight. Generally, however, the best players play better with the bishop. In my opinion, it is the best piece for several reasons. The first reason: if one has two bishops or a bishop and a knight, it is possible to place the opponent in check, which two knights cannot do. The second reason: the bishop attacks the enemy from afar. The third reason: the bishop protects its own king better from any check. In addition, as it protects the king, it can attack the piece that places the king in check, and the knight cannot because it is not as powerful when it protects the king, and, therefore, it cannot attack the enemy as effectively. The fourth reason: the bishop can conceal any of the opponent’s pieces or pawns, which the knight cannot do. The fifth reason: the bishop protects its pawns, and it is easier to protect the bishop from pawns. The sixth reason: the bishop can attack with more efficacy and authority. The seventh reason: the bishop can advance its pawns to attack the enemy and to make them queens with much more 110. In the Middle Ages, the bishop, known then as the alfil, was able to jump over intermediary pieces. The bishop’s current iteration dates to the beginning of the sixteenth century.

54

Book I

success than the knight.111 The eighth reason: the bishop and a rook can win the battle against another rook, which the knight cannot do. The ninth reason: the opposing king cannot pursue the bishop by himself nor prohibit it from fleeing, as though on a horse. For example, if the bishop were placed on any of the rooks’ four squares [a1, h1, a8, or h8], and the king were to position himself on any of the third squares of the rooks’ bishops [c3, f3, c6, or f6] in whose square the knight was positioned, the king would not be able to escape the bishop. The tenth reason: the king can move effectively against a pawn that becomes a knight, but not a bishop, from the ranks of the queen’s rook. The eleventh reason: a bishop with a pawn can close a rook’s path. For example, if the bishop finds itself in the opposing knight’s second square [g7], and the rook’s pawn, which protects the bishop, has advanced to the opposing rook’s third square [h6], and the opposing rook finds itself in its second square [h7], the path is closed and the rook cannot move, unless it captures the bishop, which the knight cannot do. The bishop has other advantages that are known to the good players. The knight also has some advantages that the bishop does not have, about which we will speak in the next chapter. Chapter 13

In which the shape, position, and movement of the knights are explained What we call in this game knight consisted of a knight in a habit on a horse and completely armed, denoting the duty he had as a knight: to be a guardian of his village and his kingdom at all times, especially in time of war, so that nothing harmful occurred to the homeland or the kingdom. There were two knights, one for the king and one for the queen, to show that it is appropriate for the knights to be not only in the king’s 111. This move is known as pawn promotion. When the pawn reaches the opponent’s eighth rank, the player can choose to “promote” it to a knight, a bishop, a rook, or a queen by exchanging the pawn for one of these captured pieces. Underpromotion occurs when the player decides to promote the pawn not to a queen, but, instead, to a knight, a bishop, or a rook, for strategic reasons.



Book I 55

service, but also in the queen’s service. Since the queen was a part of the marriage, she deserved the same treatment as the king. In this way, the knights are on the right and on the left, clinging to the king and to the queen like a crown. After the knights are the bishops, who, as we said, are the kingdom’s judges and legislators, which means they must be vigilant and, therefore, work mightily to ensure that fair laws are protected with diligence. It is not enough for the king to be decorated with weapons, but he should also be adorned with laws, as Aristotle says in chapter 6 of book 1 of the Ars rhetorica: “In legibus salus civitatis posita est.”112 It means that the well-being of a city is in its laws. The movement of this knight is three squares on three ranks, not straight or diagonally, but from white to black and black to white, counting three from its location. The reason it can move only three squares is because it is more beneficial to the knight than any other piece to imitate the king as much as possible. In addition, the first time, the king can move only three squares. Consequently, the knight does not move more squares than the king; it endeavors to partake in his lord and prince’s perfection, which is denoted by the number three. As we mentioned in the chapter about the king, the knight can leave his square [g1] and enter the battle by one of three ways: his king’s second square [e2], the bishop’s third square [f3], or his rook’s third square [h3]. The knight may not move to these squares, however, if one of its pawns or pieces already occupies them. It can also move to the second square of the knight’s queen [d2], the bishop’s third square [c3], or his rook’s third square [a3]. If these squares are occupied by the opponent’s pieces, the knight can still advance by capturing them. In this way, the knight can travel the entire board, as if on the battlefield, helping his own soldiers and attacking the enemy. It should be noted that this piece’s moves are difficult to remember for those players who want to play by memory. In addition to what we have said (that the knight can attack three ways and along three ranks [f3]) if it finds itself on any of the rook’s squares [e.g., h1], it can attack 112. Ars Rhetorica (The Art of Rhetoric) is a fourth-century treatise on persuasion.

56

Book I

only in two ranks and in two squares, namely in its own rank, the third square [g3], and the bishop’s rank, in the second square [f2], where it can do the less harm. In other places, it can do harm in four squares and two ranks, as well as four files. Other times, four squares on four ranks; and on other ranks, six squares and eight squares. It vanquishes as many squares as it can, but where it is most successful is on eight squares and four ranks; where it has the least control, however, is on two squares and two ranks. We will note that it never vanquishes or does harm in ranks or on squares that are not an even number, unless it is the number three. The reason is that the knight’s movements were formulated with that number. Furthermore, since it will be known to all players who want to know well all of the knight’s jumps, I will not dwell on it any more. We will note that the knight has some distinctive features that other pieces do not have. One, its check cannot be covered, because its movement is different from that of the other pieces.113 The king, therefore, should move himself to escape the knight’s check if, by chance, he cannot capture the knight with any other piece or a pawn. The second feature is that, since the game is cluttered with other pieces, the knight is the most apt piece to enter and exit from among its enemies, because of its jumps. The third is that a rook cannot win the game against a knight when there remains no other piece or pawns [except the king]; and against a bishop, the knight wins often but with much effort—except according to Italian rules, according to which the knight cannot win against a bishop, as we will discuss in the section on the game’s general rules. The fourth feature is if there is an equal number of pawns at the end, and there is only a knight on one side and a bishop on the other side, the player with the advantage is the one with the knight whose pawns are on squares where the bishop cannot do harm. In these types of matches, the knight is generally another piece that is capable of more harm than a bishop. The knight also has other advantages that any player would know how to use in his favor, but, in general, I consider the bishop more effective than I have said, except in the case I cited. 113. A piece “covers” when the player moves it into a position where it can protect another piece from capture.



Book I 57

Chapter 14

In which the shape, position, and movement of the rooks are explained The rooks are the last pieces on the edges, one on the side of the king and one on the side of the queen, or lady, according to Jacobus de Cessolis, whose doctrine we have addressed until now and will continue to address until all of the pieces have been discussed. We will dedicate a chapter to explaining what they mean and represent in this army. Returning to the matter at hand, according to what the aforementioned Jacobus wrote, the earliest rooks, Xerxes’s invention, were in the shape of knights seated on their horses without weapons, but with clothing, or a scarlet cape made out of the fur of martens, a lance held upright, and a helmet in the shape of a bonnet on his head. The rooks represented the king’s vicars, because, as Cassiodorus says in book 10, chapter 6 of his epistles: “Necessarium probatur esse rei publicae personas dignitatibus aptas eligere.”114 Since the king could not be in all places at once, the rooks could govern and rule by authority of the king. Placing aside much of what I could offer, for the sake of brevity, I will move on to the rook’s location on the board, which is farthest from the king. It suits the curates and legates well to be in these locations, where the king cannot be, and to carry the same royal power. It is important for the king’s subjects to obey the curates and legates, because if they do not, it is the same as not obeying the king. The evangelist St. Luke, chapter 10: “Qui autem me spernit, spernit eum qui me misit.”115 In the Gospel of John, chapter 13: “Qui accipit, si quem misero, me accipit, qui autem me accipit, accipit eum, qui me misit.”116 It is advantageous to the king to choose curates who are loyal and wise, so that they can govern loyally 114. In this letter, King Theodahad, who was king of the Ostrogoths from 534 to 536, addresses Patricius, whom the king names quaestor: “In conferring upon you the office of Quaestor we look first to character, and we find in you that love of justice which is all important in a representative of the Prince” (Cassiodorus, Letters, 422). 115. “And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” Luke 10:16. 116. “Whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.” John 13:20.

58

Book I

and wisely. Solomon in Proverbs, chapter 13: “Legatus fidelis sanitas.”117 Quintilian in Declamatione 10: “Legatus a praecepto non recedat.”118 Cassiodorus in book 2 of his epistles, epistle 6: “Omnis legatio virum sapientem requirat.”119 The rook’s movement is straight ahead, either one square or many, provided that the squares are not occupied by any of its own pieces. If any of its opponent’s pieces are in its path, the rook will capture them. It can move throughout the file from its square, in front of it or across. Since it can advance via two directions, straight or across, its movement will always be straight, without moving diagonally. After the queen, it is the most important piece, because of its movements; in addition, the rook and the king are the only pieces that can produce checkmate, which no other piece can do by itself, except the queen. The rooks are the last pieces to leave the king’s rank, meaning that they are, according to Jacobus, the curates or the legates. Their authority is not virtuous until they exercise it. Consequently, it is reasonable that they are residents of the royal palace when they do not practice their legation. If a path is opened to the rooks through the nobility, which is the pieces, or the commoners, which are the pawns, the rooks can exercise the authority they have well. This information is sufficient with respect to the pieces. Now, let’s address the pawns. Chapter 15

In which the shape, position, and movement of the pawns are explained All of the pawns on this board, id est, kingdom, according to Jacobus de Cessolis, represent the commoners and the artifices without which the kingdom could not be constituted. As Aristotle says in book 2, chapter 5 of the Politica: “Omnis civitas indigent artificibus.”120 As commoners, 117. “A trustworthy envoy is a healing remedy.” Proverbs 13:17. 118. “The ambassador does not depart from the precept” (translation mine). 119. “Every embassy requires a prudent man” (Cassiodorus, Letters, 174). 120. “All cities need craftsmen.”



Book I 59

all of them have the same movement, although some are more powerful and better for certain things than others, as we will discuss later. So, as I was saying, one of the movements of the pawns is straight ahead one or two squares from the square where it begins the game. After the pawns move one time, however, they can move only from square to square, until they arrive at their opponent’s last one. Once there, they obtain the power and identity of the queens, id est, as it were, they deserve to be Major Generals in the army. Until a pawn becomes a queen, however, it cannot move backward, but rather only forward in its own file. When a pawn captures another pawn or a piece, it enters a different file. When pawns capture another pawn or a piece, they leave their own files and enter others, because they capture diagonally, one square from where they find themselves. Sometimes, the pawns place the king in check this way, and most times in checkmate. The pawn, with another piece, can place the king in check, because there is not a square between the king and the pawn in which a pawn or another piece can be placed. The pawn possesses the ability to injure or to kill not only other pawns, but also all of the main pieces, including the king. As the author of the book titled Facetus de moribus et vita says: “Quemque decet patriam defendere tempore belli.”121 Each one can defend itself justly, in accordance with The Digest of Justinian, book 1.3: “Hoc evenit, ut quod quisque ob tutelam corporis sui fecerit, iure fecisse existimetur.”122 Et titu ad.1.Acqui, book 9: “Adversus periculum naturalis ratio permittit se defendere.”123 Et titu De bonis eorum qui ante sententiam, book 48.21: “Ignoscendum censuerunt ei, qui sanguinem suum qualiter redemptum voluit.”124 Et titu ad leg Cor de sic: “Si quis percussorem . . . defensor propriae salutis in nullo pecasse vide121. “Anyone can defend the country in time of war.” 122. “This result is that whatever a person does for his bodily safety, he can be held to have done rightly.” The title of the section where this sentence appears is De iustitia et iure (Concerning justice and law). The Digest of Justinian 1.1.3. 123. “Natural reason allows for the defense of oneself against danger.” The Digest of Justinian 9.2.4. 124. The entire title is De bonis eorum, qui ante sententiam vel mortem sibi consciverunt vel accusatorem corruperunt (Concerning the property of those who have either killed themselves or corrupted their accusers before judgment has been rendered). “They who desire to save the life of a blood relative regardless of the ransom should be forgiven.” The Digest of Justinian 48.21.1.

60

Book I

tur.”125 Et titu ad legem Aquiliam.l.faciam.penul. “Vim enim vi defendere omnes leges omniaque iura permittunt.”126 The pawns attack in the following ways: The rook’s pawn [h2] attacks the knight’s third square [g3]; the knight’s pawn [g2] attacks the same rook’s third square [h3] and the bishop’s third square [f3]; the bishop’s pawn [f2] attacks the knight’s third square [g3] and the king’s third square [e3]; the king’s pawn [e2] attacks the bishop’s third square [f3] and the queen’s third square [d3]; the queen’s pawn [d2] attacks the king’s third square [e3] and the bishop’s third square [c3]; the bishop’s pawn [c2] attacks the queen’s third square [d3] and the knight’s third square [b3]; the knight’s pawn [b2] attacks the bishop’s third square [c3] and the rook’s third square [a3]; and the rook’s pawn [a2] attacks the knight’s third square [b3] and nothing else. Consequently, people called the rooks’ pawns half-pawns because of their inability to attack like the other pawns. They were mistaken, however, because the rooks’ pawns are able to attack like any of the other pawns when they move outside of their file. Although, it can be said that the rooks’ pawns possess less virtue than the other pawns, in the same way that some men have more power than others. Those who possess less power do not stop being men completely, because it is necessary that men are not all equal. We will address why some pawns are better than others in this army in the chapter about the qualities and advantages of each pawn. Before we move ahead, it should be noted that in Italy the pawn can avoid capture by virtue of its first move. In addition to shielding the king or any other piece that is susceptible to check, the pawn places itself in front of the piece in check. This move is permissible, however, only if the opponent agrees, because it is not fair, and it is foolish, to say that a pawn can move freely in the area that the enemy captured without risk and danger, but only if the enemy were to allow it to move freely. If the enemy

125. The entire title is Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (The Cornelian law of assassins and poisoners). “If anyone defends himself against a murderer, it is not considered a moral offense.” Lucius Cornelius Sulla (138–78 b.c.) implemented the law in 81 b.c. 126. “All laws and all rights allow you to defend yourself from violence with violence.” The Digest of Justinian 9.2.45.



Book I 61

wants to capture it in passing, it may.127 In this way, the enemy watches out for its own good more so than the opponent’s welfare. Consequently, the enemy can allow the pawn to pass his pawn if he deems it beneficial; otherwise, he can capture it one square back, which is where the pawn would normally be. The strategy described as passing freely would reflect the army’s operating procedure in Castile and Portugal, but not in Italy, because passing freely in the area that the enemy controls is contrary to the purpose of war.128 In the booklet that Damiano wrote about chess, he says: “Una pedona non puo passare battaglia de altra pedona quando se da scacco al’re per coprire con essa. Altro modo puo passare se vole el contrario. Et se no puo pigliar la in la via, anchora che meglio faria non potere passare battaglia.”129 These are Damiano’s words, worthy, by the way, of such a teacher, because as soon as he says the pawn can avoid capture with the permission of the enemy, all is well. I do not see a reason to say that this move is not allowable in order to protect the king from check, because it is the enemy’s prerogative to capture the pawn in its path, one square back, and to place the king in check as well. If the enemy does not want to capture the pawn, it does itself no harm, because we are able to overcome the paths that our enemy obstructs in two ways: with his permission or, as it were, by chance and exposing ourselves to whatever may 127. This move, known as en passant (in passing), permits one pawn to capture another pawn when they are adjacent. The pawn that is white, for example, is on its fifth rank (e5), and the pawn that is black begins on its second rank (d7), as if it were the beginning of the game. When the pawn that is black moves its permissible two squares forward (d5), it will find itself on the same rank as the pawn that is white. The pawn that is white captures the opposing pawn (e5 x d5), leaving its file (e) and entering a different file (d). Any pawn that moves two squares, instead of one, past the square where it could have been captured, can be captured en passant. The en passant capture is valid only after a pawn moves two squares from its starting square, and only on the opposing player’s very next move, not later in the game. 128. Spain and France fought several wars for control of Spain’s territories in Italy. These conflicts on Italian soil did not end until the signing of the Peace of Cateau-Cambrésis in 1559, two years before López published his book on chess. 129. “One player cannot pass battle with his pawn to cover a check [to move a piece between the opponent’s piece that gives check and his king] to his king by an opposing pawn. It can move to another square, though, which may still be effective even if not better than passing battle” (translation mine). With respect to Italy’s non passar battaglia, Murray writes that “a Pawn could not be played past the attack of a Pawn on the opponent’s fifth rank to cover a check” (A History of Chess, 833).

62

Book I

happen. The pawn that avoids capture takes its chances, because it passes by the area that its enemy occupies. Regardless of the reasons that the pawn moves one way or another, the enemy may capture it and prevent it from advancing. The pawn can, if it wants, move in a way that places itself in danger, exposing itself to whatever may happen, or if commanded by its king, the pawn can move and risk its life as it performs its duty, which is what happens when it protects the king. Damiano’s rule with respect to this move is not found anywhere else, as far as I know, nor do I know where I would have seen it practiced or what reason there would have been for such a rule. The pawns, which Xerxes called commoners, were placed in front of other pieces, as if we were to say in front of nobility. First, it is not fair that the nobility be in the same place as the commoners, but rather that the commoners be in front of the nobility, prepared to attend to the ministries and purposes by which they can serve the nobility. As Tullius says in Timaeus: “Non est rectum minori parere maiorem.”130 Second, it is beneficial to be separated from the royal council, like those who are inexperienced in things of war and who are far from understanding them, and like those who have dedicated their lives to them, and who leave the counsel to their elders. They are prepared to do whatever is commanded of them. Third, the commoners are positioned to defend the main pieces. Even if many of the pawns were taken, they would not be missed as much as a noble would be if it were taken. If a noble is missing from this militia, it is difficult to achieve victory. War is also composed of commoners, who, as we have said, benefit from defending the country in times of strife. A commoner is very apt to fight if taught and tolerates the job very well. As Vegetius says in book 1, chapter 3 of De re militari: “numquam credo potuisse dubitari aptiorem armis rusticam plebem, quae sub diuo et in labore nutritur, solis patiens, umbrae neglegens, balnearum nescia, deliciarum ignara, simplicis animi, paruo contenta, duratis ad omnem laborum tolerantiam membris, cui gestare ferrum, fossam ducere, onus

130. “It would not be right for the greater to obey the lesser.” Timaeus is one of Plato’s dialogues that Cicero translated into Latin, c. 360 b.c.



Book I 63

ferre consuetudo de rure est.”131 In chapter 7: “Fabros ferrarios carpentarios, macellarios et ceruorum, aprorumque uenatores conuenit sociare militiae.”132 We conclude this chapter now, but we will say something more about this information later. Now, we will address the quality and advantage of each pawn. Chapter 16

In which the quality and advantage of each pawn, as well as which pawns are good for one thing and which pawns are good for another, are explained The pawns are generally judged to be of equal virtue, power, and use because they move and capture similarly. After they become queens, however, nothing differentiates them, because all of the pawns exercise the queen’s functions. The pawns, although seemingly equal to one another, are deceptive because some are better for one thing and others for something else. The king’s pawn and the queen’s pawn are better than the others, for example, to provoke the enemy and to present a stronger defense so that the opposing pawns do not have easy access to the king’s and queen’s own pawns. The pawns that are freer to move do so in order to stop the enemy. They are more effective and can be the most appreciated of all of the pawns, because they are able to maneuver the main areas of the battlefield. It is for this reason that the other pawns in their way are not as threatening nor have an advantage to become a queen. Consequently, the king’s and queen’s pawns must be protected or, at least, replaced by other pawns. 131. “No one, I believe, can doubt that the peasants are the most qualified to carry arms, for they have been raised in all kinds of weather and have been brought up to the hardest labor from their infancy. They are able to endure the greatest heat of the sun, are unacquainted with the use of baths, and are strangers to the other luxuries of life. They are unskilled, simple-minded, content with little, accustomed to all kinds of fatigue, and prepared in some measure for a military life by their continual employment in their country-work, in handling the spade, digging ditches, and carrying burdens.” 132. “Blacksmiths, carpenters, butchers, and deer hunters agreed to join the military.”

64

Book I

The bishops’ pawns are better than the other pawns for two reasons. One, they can penetrate the enemy’s formation and move freely toward the opposing pieces. As a result of breaking up the enemy’s line, they manipulate the opposing pieces to render them unable to fight on the battlefield or to help their own. The pawn that is most apt for this penetration is the bishop’s pawn because it creates an advantage for the king’s pawn. The good players generally capitalize on this advantage, which will be addressed in the section on how to arrange the games. So, as I was saying, the bishop’s pawn is more apt and propitious to unnerving the opposition because it is closest to the king against whom the war is waged, and its location makes it less vulnerable. The bishop’s pawn that is closest to the queen [c2 and c7] is able to withstand an attack more when the first move is with the queen’s pawn, which is common. It is not unwise to pursue this tactic, as the discussion about ways to move pieces will illustrate. In addition to what has been said about the bishop’s pawn, it possesses another advantage. Since the bishop’s pawn is the guardian of the king’s and queen’s pawns, it is the most propitious when it does not attack and defend, because it can protect the king effectively and defend the bishop’s attack against the transposed king.133 It is for these reasons, therefore, as well as others that any good player will know, the bishop’s pawn is the most effective of all of the pawns. Consequently, when a pawn has an advantage, it is generally the bishop’s pawn, but when it is removed, the king is in grave danger of being attacked and confounded by its opponents. The bishop’s pawn, therefore, demonstrates that it is the main one for defense and offense, as well as penetration of the enemy’s line. Furthermore, the king does not have more than one defense against the queen’s check and that of the other pieces that help the queen. In other words, it does not have more protection than the knight’s pawn. On the queen’s side, however, even if the queen’s bishop’s pawn were not there, the queen would still be protected by the bishop, the knight’s pawn, and her own pawn. 133. Transposition is a sequence of moves that produces the same result as a different sequence of moves. The king may be transposed, for example, during castling, which occurs when the king moves two squares in the direction of a rook and the rook occupies the square on the other side of the king.



Book I 65

Even if the queen’s bishop’s pawn were not there, the knight’s, the bishop’s, and the queen’s pawns would defend the king. Consequently, a player should always have these four pawns positioned in front and as a squad, and they are able to provide a strong defense because they represent half of the participants. Vegetius shows us how they are suitable for the organization in a war in chapter 17 of book 3 of De re militari: “Si bellatorum tibi copia non abundat, melius est aciem habere breviorem dummodo in subsidiis conloces plurimos. Nam circa medias partes campi ex peditibus bene armatis debes habere lectissimos, de quibus cuneum facias et statim aciem hostium rumpas.” It says: If you do not have many warriors, it is better to have a skilled army as long as you can place many warriors where it is necessary to help. The best warriors should be placed closest to the well-armed pawns’ half of the battlefield, where they can form a squad and then break up the enemy’s line. The king’s knight’s pawn and the rook’s pawn can defend the king in his transposition better than any other pawn. You must be warned that those pawns, where the king is transposed, now belong to the king’s side, or the queen’s side, if the king is transposed to a place where he should not move unless necessary (e.g., to give the king a home if he finds himself in a predicament, and sometimes to capture an opposing piece, especially one that annoys the player). Toward this end, the rook’s pawn is usually more advantageous than the knight’s pawn, nevertheless the knight’s pawn often is effective as well, according to the arrangement of the pieces on the board. These pawns can be advantageous according to the progress of the game. With respect to this move, I do not prescribe a rule by force, but rather as an option according to how the player believes the game is progressing. If the king were already transposed, however, I advise him not to move for an unimportant reason. Since the pawns are moved, the enemy is able to position itself more easily, especially if the king is not transposed toward that part of the board. In this way, however, it is not advantageous to move the pawns to the side where the king is transposed, because it is not advisable for the pawns to be on the same side as the opponent’s transposed king. Instead, the king engages in combat with the enemy and breaks up its line, but

66

Book I

only with caution and discretion. The king should be accompanied by its men in a way that the game determines: the quality of the move and the progress in the game. We conclude with this explanation the special features of the pawns and the differences between them with respect to how to gain an advantage. Now, before we move forward, I want to address the shape that each one of the eight pawns had previously. As is the case with the other pieces, what is said about the pawns on one side is understood to apply to the pawns on the other side. The explanation will be based on the same alignment of the pieces. It is profitable to know what Jacobus de Cessolis says about the king’s pawn. Some may be pleased to learn what he says about the king’s pawn. It does not pertain to our purpose, however, because its explanation and application are different from our own, as we noted several times and will point out again later on. Chapter 17

In which the previous shape of the king’s pawn is described The discussion about the shape that the pawns had in the past will follow the same order of pieces, beginning with the king’s pawn, which, according to Jacobus de Cessolis, resembled the shape of the common man. The pawn had a scale and a weight in the right hand, a measuring rod in the left hand, and a bag full of money on the belt. Together, these items represent three professions. The money changers and the barterers use the scale for the different purposes for which it is used today in the cities, where people come from all different places and with a variety of different coins. With the measuring rod, the merchants measured cloth and everything else that is measured. The bag of money on the belt represents the keepers of money and other such things, who had audiences with the king, which suggests that they oversaw the king’s treasures in the past so that they could pay soldiers and representatives of the republic their due salaries. All of them should avoid avarice, keep their promises, pay what they owe, and provide full restitution of the deposits.



Book I 67

Chapter 18

In which the previous shape of the queen’s pawn is described The pawn that is in front of the queen, or lady, was described in this way: a man seated in a chair or a magisterial pulpit, with a book in his right hand and a pot filled with aromatic essences in the left hand; the belt is replete with tools to treat wounds and injuries–it is understood that the queen’s pawn represents a doctor. Furthermore, it is understood that the open book is appropriate for a studious doctor, who is proficient in all of the parts and arts that are necessary to achieve perfection in his profession. The pulpit represents his obligation to teach them to anyone who wishes to practice that profession. In order for the doctor to be perfect, he must know grammar so that he can understand well the authors. In addition, he must know rhetoric, for example, in order to know how to offer, arrange, treat, and make understood what he purports to show, and how to appeal to the will of those with whom he deals; logic, in order to know how to propose, to discern, and to argue scientific things; philosophy, for the knowledge of their causes; geometry, in order to know the circumstances; arithmetic, in order to know the hours and critical days; music, in order to know how to understand the harmony and the composition of the human body; astrology, in order to know how to distinguish the times when to give medicine, keeping in mind the diverse effects that different times cause, in accordance with the signs and planets that reign, and that most important is what the moon does in its rising, growth, and decreasing. All of these arts make up the perfect doctor. The pot represents the apothecaries, who are joined together with the doctors. With respect to the surgeons’ instruments on the belt, one pawn is placed in the name of three because they belong to all of them.134 The pawn is placed in front of the queen, or lady, to imply that because of their professions, they have to interact with all types of people, and 134. In other words, the queen’s pawn should represent doctor, apothecary, and surgeon, all three.

68

Book I

it behooves them to have good habits: a refined manner with words in order to converse pleasurably and reasonably; corporal chastity; ability to restore the sick to good health; frequent visits to the sick; deep concern; and knowledge of cures, causes, and the signs of illnesses; and many other things that I omit for the sake of brevity. Since chastity is the virtue that best serves them, they are placed in front of the queen. It is necessary to be chaste because they have to cure women’s illnesses and see the members and hidden parts of their bodies. Furthermore, they should model chastity to others, following the example of their teacher Hippocrates, whom Valerius Maximus describes as being of marvelous continence. In Athens, the main city of Greece, where the good arts are taught, there was a noble and very beautiful prostitute to whom the disciples promised a talent, which according to our calculation was worth six hundred ducats, if she could convert the teacher’s inclinations to incontinence.135 She, confident in her great beauty, came to him at night and laid down next to him, but she was unable to disturb his abstinence. Another day, the disciples made fun of her because neither her beauty nor her charm had been capable of corrupting the spirit of that famous doctor. When they asked the price of the bet, she responded that she had bet them that she could attract a man, and not a statue, with her beauty, indicating that the philosopher and doctor was a statue because of his unmovable abstinence. I could provide other examples, but I will omit them for the sake of brevity. Chapter 19

In which the previous shape of the king’s bishop’s pawn is described Another pawn is placed before the king’s bishop, shaped in the following way: a man with a pair of scissors in his right hand; a large and wide knife in his left hand; writing utensils on his belt; and, on his right ear, a quill 135. Hippocrates (c. 460–c. 375 b.c.) was an ancient Greek physician who is often referred to as the “Father of Medicine.”



Book I 69

to write. The writing utensils and quill indicate that he represents the notaries and scribes. It is for this reason that he is situated in front of the bishop, who is like a judge, as we mentioned in another place. The large scissors indicate that he represents those whom we call tailors, menders, shearers, weavers, barbers, and other people of this kind. The knife represents the leather tanners and butchers. It is the duty of the judge, with the scribe’s testimony, to ensure that these functions are performed without fault. It is beneficial for the scribes and the notaries to inform the judges of what is done in service of the people. Chapter 20

In which the previous shape of the queen’s bishop’s pawn is described The pawn that is in front of the queen’s bishop had this shape: a man with his right hand extended, like someone who invites another to stay at his home; in his left hand there is a glass of wine next to a piece of bread; and there is a handful of keys on his belt. The queen’s bishop’s pawn represents taverners, pub owners, and innkeepers. They place themselves before the queen’s bishop, as if before a judge, so that they will be punished corporally if they do not fulfill their duty. Consequently, they are placed before a judge, whose profession is the punishment of delinquents. Their role is to prepare good food for those who require their services, and they must be affectionate with them and trustworthy in protecting whatever the guests bring. The left hand with the bread and wine represents the delicacies of the first [taverners]. Second, the extended right hand represents the affection and diligence with which they [pub owners] please their guests. Third, the keys on the belt represent the third profession [innkeepers].

70

Book I

Chapter 21

In which the previous shapes of the king’s knight’s pawn and the queen’s knight’s pawn are described Another pawn is placed before the king’s knight’s pawn in this way: a man with a hammer in his right hand, an adze in his left hand, and a plumb on his belt. The hammer represents the blacksmiths, artisans, silversmiths and the like. The adze represents the carpenters, engravers, and others of similar ilk. The plumb represents the bricklayers, quarry workers, and the like. These professions are placed before the knight because all of them are necessary to make weapons and to make bits, spurs, and saddles for the horses, as well as shelters and strongholds where the knights go and defend against their enemies and their kingdom. Another pawn is placed before the queen’s knight, with this shape: a man with large keys in his right hand, a baton in his left hand, an open pouch on his belt, and a sword on the other side. The keys and the sword represent the city’s guards, and the baton represents the public officials, what we call in Spain faithful executors and functionaries who are responsible for verifying weights and measures. The open pouch represents the collectors of things that are owed to the community and whom we call in Spain the municipal government’s servants. Correctly and with reason, these pawns are placed in front of the knights because the knights, mainly, are required to be the defenders of the city and the republic. Chapter 2 2

In which the previous shape of the king’s rook’s pawn is described A pawn is in front of the king’s rook, and it was shaped in this way: a man with a hoe in his right hand, a rod in his left hand, and a sickle or shears on his belt. Consequently, the farmer, to whom these three things



Book I 71

are useful, is represented. The hoe represents the farmers because they cultivate the land with a hoe, before the use of plows, and even after. The rod represents the shepherds and people who keep livestock and use what we call a goad to herd them in a direction and to bring back the older, grazing livestock. The sickle represents the reapers and those who cultivate and prune the vines, cut what is bad from the trees, and cultivate the gardens. Agriculture is defined by these three things, and the profession of farmer largely consists of these three things.136 Since the farmers provide the land and kingdom of all that is necessary to human life with respect to provisions, they are placed in front of the king’s vicar to imply that it is the duty of the king’s vicar and governor to make sure that the kingdom is well provided. All of these details are from Jacobus, except for some things that do not make sense or are ignorant, which we place in better order than he does. Since it is my intention to reprimand him not in the images that he proposes, but rather in the practice, I will not say here if he tells the truth that the profession of farmer consists of the three aforementioned things, regardless of how many other things, which would be a lengthy list, are necessary for the perfection of agriculture, according to Pliny, Columella, Varro, Cato, Virgil, Palladio, and many more, all of whom should be read in order to find out everything about this subject.137 Since I am not going to occupy myself any more, I will conclude these descriptions, saying what the pawn in front of the queen’s rook means.

136. Hoe, staff, and sickle. 137. Columella (Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella; 4–70 a.d.) was a well-known Roman soldier and farmer who authored books about agriculture, including De re rustica (Agriculture), which consists of twelve volumes. Varro (Marcus Terentius Varro; 116–27 b.c.) was a prolific author whose only complete extant book is Rerum rusticarum libri tres (Three books on agriculture). Palladio (Andrea Palladio; 1508–1580) was a Venetian architect whose numerous buildings and publications established him as one of the most influential architects of all time. His building designs included agricultural villas, which were previously farm outbuildings.

72

Book I

Chapter 23

In which the previous shape of the queen’s rook’s pawn is described The pawn that is in front of the queen’s rook was described, according to Jacobus de Cessolis, in this manner: a man with many curls; in the right hand he has some money, and in his left hand he has three dice; his belt is a rope; and he has a backpack full of cards. The money represents folly, because even were he to have a surplus of goods, matched by the number of hairs on his head, if he does not try to keep them, they are lost easily. The curly and frizzy hair on this piece represents the character’s deviation from its proper place and conformity, a conformity that would keep it from moving in the scattered and disorganized way that its hair does. As Ovid says: “Nec minor est virtus, quam quaerere, parta tueri. Casus inest illic; hoc erit artis opus.”138 It means that it is not less of a virtue to conserve than it is to acquire. In acquiring there is fortune, and in conserving, art and knowledge. It is for this reason that the popular saying is “Qui non cavet expensam, prius mendicat quam sentiat.” It means that he who does not keep track of what is spent is the first to become poor and to beg. The pawns, as a necessary good to the kingdom, are placed before the vicars and governors. It is beneficial that the pawns be given, therefore, a curator, so that they do not squander, steal, or place a hex on goods to the detriment of the republic and kingdom. The three dice represent the gamblers, meaning that those who practice this profession often do not prosper, which prevents them from doing any harm to the kingdom. The rope and backpack of cards represent wanderers, whom we call postmen in Spain. It is advantageous for them to be diligent and careful when carrying and delivering the letters, as well as what belongs to the common good, like that which belongs to individuals. The pawns place themselves before the vicars and governors because, if they do not do what they are told, much harm might follow for which they would be tried and pun138. Ars amatoria, book 2, lines 13–14.



Book I 73

ished. Jacobus de Cessolis concludes the wise philosopher’s account of the invention of the game, composed and ordered like a republic, as well as other things I will not address that are not pertinent to the game or the reason for its invention, as we will discuss. We said that chess is an invention relating to war. Chapter 24

In which the meanings of the pieces and the pawns of this game, in the order in which they appear, are explained The previous chapters have taught us the meaning, representation, and form of all of the pieces in this game, according to Jacobus de Cessolis’s teaching in a treatise that he composed. The board represents a republic or a kingdom; the pieces and pawns represent the different people, strata, and professions in the republic or kingdom, according to what we addressed in the previous chapters. We have always refuted that opinion and teaching, demonstrating here that the board represents not a city but a battlefield with two kings, whose warriors are prepared to do battle. It is for this reason that the philosopher showed Amel Evil-Merodach the need to protect his subjects in times of peace so that, when the time came, he would find them ready and diligent in their service. It is much better for princes to make armies with their own soldiers and to prepare them for war than it is to hire strangers, as Vegetius illustrates for us in title 28 of the Proemio: “Utilius enim constat suos erudire armis quam alienos mercede conducere.”139 It says it is more useful to ensure that the people are more adept with weapons than it is to hire strangers. The reason for organizing this game as a war was, as we mentioned, so that the king understands, as Vegetius says in the third book, title 3 of De re militari: “Diuitiarum secura possessio est, nisi armorum defensione seruetur.” It says there is no possession of wealth that is safe unless it is guarded with weapons. Consequently, he says in the tenth title of the 139. De re militari, Proemio 28.

74

Book I

same book: “Quis autem dubitet artem bellicam rebus omnibus esse potiorem, per quam libertas retinteur et dignitas, propagantor prouinciae, conseruator imperium?” It says, who doubts that the art of war is better than all things? Liberty is maintained and the dignity of the province is extended thereby, and the empire is preserved. I believe that no one has ignored this warlike invention, and if it has been ignored, inform him of it with that saying from Martial in book 2: “Insidiosorum si ludis bella latronum, gemmeus iste tibi miles et hostis erit.”140 It means that if you play the game of war with bandits who ambush, this piece of glass, or another thing that shines, can serve either as a soldier or as the enemy. If placed on your side, it will be your soldier; if placed on the other side, it will be your enemy. And Ovid: “Sive latrocinii sub imagine calculus ibit, fac pereat vitreo miles ab hoste tuus.”141 I could cite many other examples and authorities on this subject, but I will not address them because they are not necessary on something that is so proven. Since this game is a warlike invention, it is useful to know what each piece represents. With respect to the king and the kingdom, there is no doubt, because the king represents the lord and prince of the warriors. The queen, or lady, represents the marshal of this army, in imitation of the Amazons, as we declared earlier. Consequently, after the king, she is the most important, and her virtue, power, and movement prepare her to bring aid for whatever is necessary. If anyone were to doubt this, saying that in the old game, according to what we said in the chapter on the queen, she did not advance except from square to square, which was a sign that she did not represent the marshal, I would respond, saying that the queen’s movement from square to square does not appear to be uniform in other nations as it was with the Moors. In fact, we saw it used to the contrary before that. If it were so, then the kings of those parts of Persia, where the game was invented, went to war accompanied by their wives, as we said earlier. Even though advancing one square at a time served little in the game, she still represented the queen. We grant that it is this way, 140. Epigrams 14.20. 141. “If your piece moves as if in a war, make sure that your soldier dies at the hands of the glass enemy.” Ars amatoria, book 2, lines 207–8.



Book I 75

because in all of the nations in which this game is played, it has always been celebrated with a woman’s name, after which she was given the virtue of marshal. If we acknowledge it for how the name sounds, and not for its power, we can accept her as the king’s wife. In addition, the queen is the most extravagant of all in the army, according to what the poets’ and authors’ books tell us, like Atalanta, Harpalyce, and several more I could mention, notwithstanding the ones that Ariosto, etc. describe.142 We will address this subject more in the chapter about the queen. According to Damiano, the bishops mean princes. It is said to be the reason that they are closer to the king and the queen than any other piece. Damiano is greatly mistaken, however, because he doesn’t know what this game represents. If he had known, he would not have placed so few a number of warriors with so many princes. The inventor of the game would not have made them almost equal to the knights and inferior to the rooks. Damiano’s mistake was due to the name, which in Italian is Delfino.143 These bishops do not represent satellites, as some people have said, because satellite means a salaried soldier who does not leave the emperor’s side; now we call them guard soldiers because this profession is practiced in times of both peace and war.144 If the bishop were a guard soldier, it would be best if he were in the second line, with those on foot, because he would be a soldier on foot and not on horse. But that would not be appropriate, because of the virtue and power the bishop uses in this game. Here we present a brief instruction on war: it is most advantageous if there are people delegated for the needs and governance of war. My point of view, therefore, is the bishops signify and represent what we call 142. Atalanta was a famous huntress from Greek mythology, whose courage and strength earned her much acclaim. Harpalyce was the daughter of Harpalycus, who trained his daughter to be a warrior and to succeed him as ruler of the Amynmei in Thrace (in southeastern Europe). 143. Historically, delfino, or delfín, was the word to describe the heir apparent to the throne or a successor. In European chess, the bishop was known as the Alfil, and it later became Arfil in Spanish and Delfino in Italian. 144. The word satellite derives from the Latin word satelles, which means attendant. López asserts that the “salaried soldier” is an example of an attendant because he serves the emperor.

76

Book I

tribunos militum.145 In our language, they are called infantry captains, or the words that come close, which are second lieutenant infantry. The horses represent the knights, and the rooks, vicars, which is another main profession in war.146 It is the reason, therefore, the rooks are on the last squares, one might say, the horns of the battle, which is necessary as Vegetius tells us in title 17, book 3 of De re militari: “Optima ratio est et ad uictoriam plurimum confert, ut lectissimos de peditibus et equitibus cum uicarris comitibus tribunisque uacantibus habeat dux post aciem praeparatos, alios circa cornua alios circa medium, ut, sicubi hostis uehementer insistit, ne rumpatur acies, prouolent subito et suppleant loca additaque uirtute inimicorum audaciam frangant.” It means that in order to achieve victory, it is most reasonable and advantageous that the captain choose the best foot soldiers, whom we call infantry, with the vicars who accompany them, and with the tribunes, who do not fight and are behind the army. Some foot soldiers are close to the army’s edges, and others are in the middle so that if the enemy were to advance vehemently in any place, they can come swiftly, occupy all places with virtue and force, and destroy the army’s boldness. Others said that the rooks represented the centurions, and others, magistri equitum, whom we call in our language the captain of the king’s guard. It is the case that the rooks are separated from the king, but later they join him in order to defend him. They always remain on their rank, defending it, and it is beneficial for them to leave their rank only when they help their army and attack the enemy. This situation does not please me, because this duty belongs to one man, not two, and it was not necessary that two should go. If it were to be said that one man serves as the king’s guard and another serves as the queen’s guard, I would respond, saying that this arrangement is not necessary: the queen does not have a guard, because she defends them. But if for one reason or another, a person chose one of the professions that each piece represents, may he choose 145. “Military tribunes.” 146. In chapter 14 of book 1, López states that the rooks represent the king’s vicars. The Spanish translation of this word is vicario, the meaning of which López illustrates in the following sentence from chapter 14: “Since the king could not be in all places at once, the rooks could govern and rule by authority of the king.”



Book I 77

it freely and with the understanding that he participates in a war, like a colonel or a maestre de campo.147 Everyone knows that the horses represent men who fight on horseback, like men of weapons or light riders.148 The pawns represent all of the infantry. The rooks are called by this name because once a rook is placed at the edges of its army, it is like a rock that strongly protects its own men. Chapter 25

In which the meanings of simple check, double check, checkmate, and stalemate, as well as the reason the king in check does not leap, are explained With respect to what is discussed here, we have to note that simple check is nothing more than a threat that one of the king’s enemies gives to him, which makes the king move from where he is if unable to remedy the situation. As a result of the violence that ensues, and without the power to jump, the king moves tormented from square to square. In this way, to place in check means to force the king to move from the square he occupies. Often, when it is simple check, there is a remedy, which we call cover, and other times there is not, such as when someone is unsuspecting and careless and, consequently, not able to mount a defense. There are other doubled checks, which we call double check, and it is not possible to cover the king nor find a solution against it, because it is an attack by two enemies from different directions. In this situation, it is best for the king to abandon that square and flee to another where he can be helped. These checks occur by discovery of a piece, moving another piece, or by a pawn. The pawn or whatever piece is played gives check, and the king is also in check from the piece by discovery.149 This discovery is 147. The maestre de campo was the commander of ten infantry companies; each company consisted of three hundred soldiers (Tracy, Emperor Charles V, Impresario of War, 31). 148. Men of weapons were soldiers who fought on horseback and wore a suit of armor. Light riders were soldiers who rode horses that did not wear a protective vest over their bodies. The horses were quicker and more agile than horses that did wear a protective vest. 149. Discovery, also known as a discovered attack, is a tactic by which a player moves a

78

Book I

possible with all of the pieces and the pawns, according to what the game can offer, but it is not possible to play all of the pieces by discovery. It is beneficial to know that discovery can result in a double check: the player discovers the queen with a pawn by way of capturing that pawn or a piece or the opposing pawn, giving check and leaving the file free. It is executed by discovering a bishop, a knight, or a rook. The bishop and the knight are capable of more when they discover a rook. A bishop can be discovered by a rook or a knight. The player can give check in all of these ways except with the knight, because the knight does not have to cover or discover it. Since this check has force, as if we were talking about two moves, even if the pieces that give check could be taken, it is not possible in one move. There is not a player who can play two moves before his opponent plays. It is for this reason that a double check does not have cover or protection because, as I have said, it is an attack by two enemies from different directions. Only the king can take one of the pieces that give him double check, if he were disposed to do so, and not another piece, because the king is the only piece that can find itself in double check. Only the king alone, if he were to find himself able to do it, would be able to provide a solution, taking one and defending himself against the other, as if we were to say killing one and escaping from the other. There are two other types of check: one that is called simply mate, and the other, which is called stalemate. Checkmate is when the king is given check, and as a result of this injury he is killed without defense, or, as we said, he is taken to prison and unable to escape, because his enemies have possession of the paths where he would be able to save himself. This circumstance is called mate, which is also checkmate, because the king is unable to escape. Stalemate is the result that does not take place with the violence of checkmate, because the king is placed in check first, and then checkmate. Where there is not a check, as I have said, there cannot be mate. It is for

pawn or a piece to reveal another of its own that is in a line of attack. The pawn or the piece that the player moves may also represent a threat.



Book I 79

this reason that the mate is called check and mate.150 Stalemate is nothing more than enclosing the king in a space where any other piece cannot help him so that it is suitable for the king to give up. This predicament is called in this game stalemate when the king cannot move or play with a pawn or a piece, because it is a sign that the king needs help. When the king does not have a play, then it is a stalemate. It is a good time to declare that the game has three parts, similar to three cases of war: mate, which represents death or imprisonment of the king; simplification, which is the destruction of the enemy camp; and stalemate, which is, as stated previously, the immobilization of the king from a place where he cannot move or be rescued. As a result of the death or the imprisonment of the king, the opposing king becomes lord of his lands. Consequently, the opposing king earns double the property, which was the case in Castile and Portugal, when one eliminates all the pieces, or the opposing king can return to the enemy as a free person, losing half, but not all, to show that, even though the king is free, he is at a great loss. When the king appears to be stalemated but is still alive, although in this great predicament, there is a place to reach an agreement in which no more than half is lost. Since the rules of war on which the game is modeled are most observed in Spain, the game is played better there than anywhere else. In Italy, nothing is earned with simplification or stalemate, as they do not take into consideration what has been said here.151 Chapter 26

In which the reason the white squares of the board, and not the black squares, are on the player’s right is explained Generally, all players, when they initiate the game, endeavor to make sure that the last squares, the king’s rook for the white pieces and the queen’s rook for the black pieces, are white. It is for this reason that each player’s 150. The word checkmate in Spanish inherently contains and: jaque y mate. 151. López addresses here each country’s conventions for the game of chess.

80

Book I

white square is on the right hand side. No one to this day has said—or I have not heard them say—the reason, except that it is how it is done. Since we have learned it this way and there is no other reason or explanation, we are at a standstill. Some players, who do not believe the position of the board makes a difference, sometimes play the board turned around, believing facetiously that they are innovative, saying that one side or the other does not make a difference. A closer look at the situation, however, as we stated above, reveals that the players who change how the game is intended to be played do not play well. First, the queens will not match up correctly if they change places, as illustrated in the chapter about the queen. Second, because the bishops represented judges of civil and criminal causes, the king’s bishop that is white is on a white square because he represents a judge of civil causes, according to Jacobus de Cessolis’s teaching, which we explained earlier. Since earlier we contradicted this teaching, it is not, in my opinion, a sufficient reason. A more sufficient reason is the ancientness of its use, because it has so much force that it would be difficult to change it, especially if there is not a good reason to do so. As Aristotle in book 7, chapter 11 of Ethicas writes: “Consuetudo naturae assimilatur.”152 It means, custom ought to resemble nature. Idem in the first book, chapter 20 of Rethoricorum: “Consuetudo est similis naturae.”153 It means that the custom is similar to the nature. Consequently, as the same book says in chapter 21: “Omnes enim consueta observant.”154 All follow customs. As it says in book 2, chapter 3 of the Metaphysica: “Nam consuetum notius.”155 It means that what is habit is more noteworthy and also more pleasurable than that which is not a habit. Idem Problemata, part 19: “Consuetum delectabile est magis inconsueto.”156 It seems that we are correct, because if the board were turned to its width, it would appear to be wider than 152. Nicomachean Ethics, book 7, chapter 11. 153. Aristotle, Rhetoric, book 1, chapter 20. 154. Aristotle, Rhetoric, book 1, chapter 21. 155. Aristotle, Metaphysics, book 2, chapter 3. 156. Aristotle, Problems, book 19: “That which is familiar is always more pleasant than what is unfamiliar” (translation is my own). Aristotle’s Problems is a collection of nine hundred problems that appear in question and answer form.



Book I 81

it is long with respect to the battlefield and the space it holds outside of the frame. Consequently, the board would violate the arithmetic reason and geometry on which this invention is founded. According to what we stated at the beginning, the board consists of a straight line in longitude and also in latitude, the width of which is equal to the length, divided into eight equal lines at any point. In order to understand how to play the game, the longitudinal line is imagined first, and it is ordained that the game can begin by placing the pieces within these lines, prepared to move forward. In order for this arrangement to be known more easily, although it is not the essence of the game, the boards are made longer than they are wide. If all of the sides were equal, as if it were a square invention, it would not be possible to know where the game began, for in many parts of the world, there are not boards but rather a square without distinction. In which case, we will return to what was said earlier about the board. In addition, it is worthwhile to note that the board is divided into four parts, and it is useful to know that one-half belongs to the king that is white and the other half to the king that is black. The white part of the board is divided into two parts, the king’s part and the queen’s part, and it is the same on the black part of the board. Chapter 27

In which how to move the chess pieces, how to capture them, how to play from memory, as well as aspects that must be considered, are explained Whoever wants to learn more about chess than how to arrange the board so that the last square on the right side is white, needs to know that there are eight main pieces, as well as the same number of pawns, on both sides of the board. These are the names of the pieces: king, queen or lady, king’s bishop, queen’s bishop, king’s knight, queen’s knight, king’s rook, and queen’s rook. They are arranged in the following way: The king that is white is on a black square, the fourth one on the first line, because the

82

Book I

pieces are placed here, to the right; after the king, the king’s bishop is next to the king on a white square; the queen is to the left of the king on a white square on the other half of the rank; then, the queen’s bishop on a black square. Furthermore, for the sake of knowing more, all three of the king’s pieces (bishop, knight, and rook) on his side are called the king’s pieces, and the same three pieces on the queen’s side are called the queen’s pieces. The same goes for the black pieces, except the arrangement is contrary, I mean in contrary squares and on the opposite hand. Whoever plays with the white pieces has the king and all of his pieces on the right hand side, and the queen with her pieces on the left hand side. Whoever plays with the black pieces on the other side of the board has the king and his pieces on the left hand side, and the queen has her pieces on the right hand side. The reason, as we mentioned in a previous chapter about the queen, it is appropriate that the kings face each other and the queens face each other is because the king’s target is the male and the queen’s target is the female. It is for this reason that the king that is black has to be placed in the middle of his rank first, and on a white square on the left hand side; then, his bishop stands on a black square next to him, followed by his knight, and his rook is on the last black square. On the right hand side, the queen stands on a black square, and then her bishop is on a white square, her knight is on a black square, and her rook is on a white square. All of the pawns are placed on the second rank, in front of the pieces, but there is no designated order. In addition to knowing how to arrange the pieces, it is necessary to know that each pawn takes the name of the piece directly behind it. It is also useful to know that the square that each piece occupies is named for the piece: the square that the king’s rook occupies is the king’s rook’s square; the square that the knight occupies is called the king’s knight’s square; the square that the bishop occupies is called the king’s bishop’s square; the square that the king occupies is named the king’s square; the square that the queen occupies is called the queen’s square; the square that the bishop occupies is the queen’s bishop’s square; where the knight is, the queen’s knight’s square; and where the rook is, the queen’s rook’s square. The same goes for the pawns and their squares: the



Book I 83

pawn that is in front of the king’s rook is the king’s rook’s pawn; the knight’s pawn is the king’s knight’s pawn; the bishop’s pawn is the king’s bishop’s pawn; the pawn in front of the king is the king’s pawn. On the other side, the pawn in front of the queen is the queen’s pawn; the bishop’s pawn is the queen’s bishop’s pawn; the knight’s pawn is the queen’s knight’s pawn; and the rook’s pawn is the queen’s rook’s pawn. The pawns on the opposite side of the board have the same names. It is also beneficial to know that the rook’s second square on its file is also called the rook’s second square after the rook’s pawn moves, and so on with the rest. The knight’s second square is the second square of the king’s knight; the bishop’s second square is the second square of the king’s bishop; the king’s second square is second square of the king; the queen’s second square is the second square of the queen; the bishop’s second square is the second square of the queen’s bishop; the knight’s second square is the second square of the queen’s knight; and the rook’s second square is the second square of the queen’s rook. It is advisable to continue this pattern as we move toward the middle of the chess board because the fourth square is called the fourth square of the king’s rook, and the same for the other pieces. What we say about one side of the board is applicable to the other side, too. Since many people enjoy playing this game by memory, and what we have said is conducive to it, it is useful to know the game well and to understand it. Later, we will discuss the ways to play, explaining if a specific piece can play on a certain square, as we will see. Since playing by memory requires more than what has been said, it is advantageous to explain more. Three things are required in order to play a game by memory: memory, good practice, and execution. With respect to practice, in addition to what has been said, it is useful to know how to assign a number to each of the pieces, beginning to count from the king’s rook until the middle of the board. It is also good to know by memory which squares are white and which squares are black. Let us take the white pieces as our side: the king’s rook’s square will be one and white; the knight’s square will be two and black; the bishop’s square will be three and white; the king’s square will be four and black; the queen’s square will be five and white;

84

Book I

the queen’s bishop’s square will be six and black; the queen’s knight’s square will be seven and white; and the queen’s rook’s square is eight and black.157 The second square of the king’s rook, it is nine and black; the knight’s second square is ten and white; the bishop’s second square is eleven and black; the king’s second square is twelve and white; the queen’s second square is thirteen and black; the bishop’s second square is fourteen and white; the knight’s second square is fifteen and black; the rook’s second square is sixteen and white. The third square of the rook, where we begin, is seventeen and white; the knight’s third square is eighteen and black; the third square of the king’s bishop is nineteen and white; the king’s third square is twenty and black; the queen’s third square is twenty-one and white; the bishop’s third square is twenty-two and black; the knight’s third square is twenty-three and white; the rook’s third square is twenty-four and black. The fourth square of the king’s rook, it is twenty-five and black; the knight’s fourth square is twenty-six and white; the bishop’s fourth square is twenty-seven and black; the king’s fourth square is twenty-eight and white; the queen’s fourth square is twenty-nine and black; the bishop’s fourth square is thirty and white; the knight’s fourth square is thirty-one and black; the rook’s fourth square is thirty-two and white. It is worth noting that there is a black square directly in front and to the side of a white square The squares will be differentiated from each other in the aforementioned way. Once the squares on one side are learned, the ones on the other will be known in the same order, and most easily in this manner. Once the first rank and each piece’s square on it, whether it is white or black, is known, keep in mind and memory that the third rank corresponds to the first rank, and the fourth rank to the second rank, with respect to black or white squares. Once it is learned that the first square of the king’s rook is white, it will be known that the third square will be white, via a straight or transverse line. Once it is learned that the second square is tion.



157. López counts right to left, which is the opposite way from today’s algebraic nota-

Book I 85

black, it will be known that the fourth square is black. Consequently, we will discover why the squares that belong to the white pieces are white and the squares that belong to the black pieces are black. All of the pieces and pawns are arranged in this way in order to differentiate them and to avoid confusion. In addition, this arrangement is conducive to the knight’s jump, which is transverse by three and three squares, from white to black and black to white, but neither straight nor diagonally, as the other pieces move. Some pieces move straight, like the queen and the rooks; others move diagonally, like the bishops; others move straight and diagonally, like the queens; and others move in all directions, like the kings. It is useful for each player to know all of this information, but especially the player who wants to play from memory. There is another difficulty for the player who wants to play from memory, which is—and it is beneficial to know and to keep in mind—where and in which direction all of the pieces may move, including the pawn. This information can be found above in its places and chapters about each piece and the pawns. I will not, therefore, discuss it again here. There is also another benefit to playing by memory: each square is assigned a number until there is a number for each square, concluding with the number sixty-four, which makes it easier to memorize the different ranks, beginning with the white king’s rook’s square. It is one, and the knight’s square is two; the bishop’s square is three; the king’s square is four; the queen’s square is five; the queen’s bishop’s square is six; her knight’s square is seven; and her rook’s square is eight. Returning to the second rank, the first square of the second rank is nine, and it continues in this way until a number is assigned to the queen’s rook’s square on the opposing player’s last rank. In this way, it would be simple to describe a board by its numbers and ranks in order to play very easily by memory, doing no more than keeping in mind the names of the pieces in order to differentiate them, as we explained. If the player who has the white pieces were to play the king’s pawn on the fourth rank and number twenty-eight, the player who plays with the black pieces could play the king’s pawn on rank five and number thirty-six, and so forth.

86

Book I

There are general rules that every player who wants to call himself an expert in this art must learn well in order to know how to play. Without this knowledge, it would be very easy to make mistakes and careless moves that would make it impossible to defeat the enemy. Seneca addresses this subject in book 1 of De Ira: “In ruinam prona sunt: quae sine fundamentis creuere.”158 It says those things that grow without fundamentals are set up and inclined to fall. It is for this reason that anyone who wants to learn how to play this game should keep the rules in mind. The first rule is when a game is played on a clear and sunny day, make sure the sun is in the enemy’s face so that it blinds him. If it were dark and the game were played by light from a fire, make sure that your enemy has the fire on his right hand side so that it disturbs his sight; also, make sure that the right hand side of the board is in the shade so that he does not see well where to play the pieces. Since this game is a bellic invention, as we have said, it is useful to search for as many advantages as possible. As Vegetius says in book 3, title 14 of De re militari: “Ordinaturus aciem tria debet ante prospicere, solem puluerem uentum. Nam sol ante faciem eripit uisum, uentus contrarius tua inflectit ac deprimit, hostium aduuat tela, puluis a fronte congestus oculos impelet et claudit.” It says the captain who prepares his army for the battle has to consider three things first: the sun, the dust, and the wind. The sun, when in the face, blinds; the opposing wind disconcerts and discourages your army and helps the enemy’s army; dust in the face impedes and blinds. Idem: This rule is more noteworthy if you are indifferent to the pieces with which you play. If you see that your enemy has the habit of playing with the same pieces, take them for your own use and pretend to play with them as if you always did, so that you disorient your enemy—a player does not play well with the pieces he does not generally use. I will not cite here many other examples that I could. The second rule is that the players who want to play well and to defeat their adversary should arrange their game in such a way that they defeat the enemy by force and not by error or blindly, in accord with what Vege158. De Ira (On anger) is a treatise in which Seneca offers advice on how to alleviate and to control anger.



Book I 87

tius says in Book 3, title 18 of De re militari: “Semper autem studere debes, ut prior instruas aciem, quia ex arbitrio tuo potes facere quod tibi utile iudicas, cum nullus obsistit; deinde et tuis auges confidentiam et aduersariis fiduciam minuis, quia fortiores uidentur qui prouocare non dubitant inimici autem incipiunt formidare, qui uident contra se acies ordinari. Hinc additur maximum commodum, quia tu instructus paratusque ordinantem et trepidum aduersarium praeoccupas.” It says the good captain must study first his enemy’s army so that he can do what he believes to be useful when nothing impedes him. This attention to detail increases his soldiers’ confidence and reduces the enemy’s boldness. Those who appear to be stronger do not hesitate to challenge and to provoke. The enemies begin to be fearful because they see the opposition’s organization. The result is an even greater advantage than your instruction and preparation anticipates: the fear of your enemy who is not yet organized. And you will be able to organize well if you observe the ways to organize that we will address later. He who does not know well how to compose and arrange this game generally loses his composure and the game. As the same Vegetius says in book 1, title 9: “Periculum enim ab hostibus semper grauissimum sustinet diuisus et inordinatus exercitus.” It says a divided and disorganized army always faces grave danger and harm from its enemies. The third rule is all players should be cautious and deliberate when they play so that they do not fail to capitalize on any advantages. If a player is careless, which we call crippled, and which serves only to embolden the enemy, the result is harmful to the player, who does not have any kind of advantage that would lead to victory. He who is not prepared is lost, which is why it is said well, “He who underestimates his opponent dies at his hands.” Cicero warns the overconfident player well in chapter 10 of his book about the new art of rhetoric: “Errant qui in prosperis rebus omnes impetus fortunae se putant fugisse; sapienter cogitant qui temporibus secundis casus aduersos reformidant.”159 It says those who believe that they have avoided the impetuosities of fortune because they live well are mistaken, and those who fear adversity in prosperous times think wisely. As 159. The “new art of rhetoric” is Cicero’s Rhetorica ad Herennium.

88

Book I

Vegetius says in book 3, title 9: “Pauciores numero et inferiores uiribus superuentus et insidias facientes sub bonis ducibus reportauerunt saepe uictoriam.” It says often those who have good captains, even though they are fewer in number and inferior in strength, achieve victory by preparing the ambushes and traps well. They represent the good players who fight the enemy by, as we say, falling on their swords. If the enemies do not act with discretion, but, instead, believe they can capture a pawn here or a piece there, without much thought, they will surely lose the advantage they had. The fourth rule is similar to the third rule: if a player knows less than his adversary, he should not try to match his opponent’s skill because his opponent will defeat him easily. Since there is no shortage of moves, the player will not be able to keep up with his opponent, who will play confidently and win. The player with inferior skill should not be doubtful because lack of confidence prevents the player from thinking clearly. A player whose avarice to win manifests itself in banal creativity deceives himself. What one player does not see with temerity, the opponent, even if he knows less, sees it out of necessity. As Quintus Curtius says: “ignauiam quoque necessitas acuit.”160 It says necessity is the teacher. The fifth rule is that one player does not give an advantage to the other player.161 The player who gives the advantage may believe his opponent makes mistakes, but it may not be the case. The player who receives the advantage may even play better than the one who gave him an advantage, defeating him more than that one time. The reason is he does not understand the secret: he attributes his losses to playing badly and not to his opponent’s knowledge. The sixth rule is that if an advantage is given to someone, make sure that it is only once or a maximum of twice if the advantage involves a piece. Even if there is a reason, it is not productive to give the opponent 160. The entire sentence reads as follows: “Ut opinor, ignaviam quoque necessitas acuit et saepe desperatio spei causa est.” (In my opinion, necessity motivates even cowardice, and it is often the cause of hope and despair.) Quintus Curtius Rufus was a Roman historian, whose most well-known book is Historiae Alexandri Magni (History of Alexander the Great). 161. An advantage is any concession that one player grants another before the game begins. If a player gives his opponent a material advantage, for example, he removes a pawn or a piece before the game begins so that his opponent will have more or stronger pieces.



Book I 89

more advantages, because if he plays many ways and, subsequently, loses in many ways, he will have found some way to defend himself against his enemy’s attacks. By virtue of playing many games and losing them for a reason, he will have found a way to defend himself. It is for this reason that is not useful to give him more than that single advantage. Rather, the player should consider other concessions with respect to ways to play. If the player still wants to persevere in giving an advantage, however, and sees that he is defended against where he is usually attacked, he should change his strategy to avoid predictability. As Vegetius says in book 3, title 26: “Nulla consilia meliora sunt nisi illa, quae ignorauerit aduersarius, antequam facias. Cum consilium tuum cognoueris aduersariis proditum, dispositionem mutare te conuenit.” It says there are no better plans than those you carry out before your opponent becomes aware of them. Once your plans are revealed, it is advantageous to change them, hoc est, after you know that your enemy understands how you generally play, so that you attack him another way. As Vegetius says in book 3, title 18: “Pars enim uictoriae est inimicum turbare, antequam dimices.” It says disrupting the enemy before the battle is an element of victory. The seventh rule is the player tries to make sure that his opponent is as tired and as stressed as possible. If he finds himself in this condition, the brainpower he invests in playing will tire him, and he will make mistakes. Conversely, if the player’s mind is free of distractions, he will be able to play skillfully and to demonstrate good moves. As we stated above, one factor that contributes to victory is the player’s ability to confuse the enemy. The eighth rule is that whoever wants to play well and to defeat his enemies should attack with his people organized and united. In other words, the pawns should not be scattered on one side and the pieces on the other side, nor should a player separate the pawns from one another, inasmuch as it is possible [to avoid doing so]. If the pieces and the pawns are scattered, the enemy will be able to disconcert the opponent with greater facility. As Vegetius says in book 3, title 15: “Magis enim expedit, ut conferti pugnent, quam longius separati; nam si nimium fuerit acies tenuata, cito ab aduersariis facta inpressione perrumpitur et nul-

90

Book I

lum postea potest esse remedium.” It says a player who wants to win will gain an advantage if the pieces and pawns are bunched together, because they can help each other, as opposed to being separated from each other by distance. If the squad is too far apart, they would be quickly and decisively attacked by their adversaries. They would be broken apart and scattered, and the enemies would advance, moving between them. Consequently, since the pieces and the pawns are not together, it would not be possible to provide reinforcements or to defend. As the same Vegetius says in book 3, title 26: “Qui dispersis suis inconsulte sequitur, quam ipse acceperat, aduersario uult dare uictoriam.” It says whoever pursues his adversary with his own pieces and pawns scattered about carelessly wants to surrender the victory to his adversary, who has already won. The ninth rule is a player should always endeavor to clear a path for his pieces, moving them to his advantage; he should not move without purpose or [try] to execute a surprise attack with only one piece. The exceptions to this rule are if a player can enter and exit an area safely or if there are other pieces that can help. If many pieces are together, as we just stated, they are more disposed to help each other, and more likely to attack and to defend successfully, than they would be if they are by themselves. Victory is achieved when one player exchanges some pieces for others, which is like a person who kills the enemy while he dies as well, but with an advantage. This exchange is not worthy of glory. When one kills his enemy, however, he saves himself and his friend. It is for this reason that the Romans awarded an oak crown as a symbol of his strength to any soldier who killed the enemy in a skirmish or a battle and saved a citizen. According to Pliny, it was the citizen’s crown. The tenth rule is the player should have the pawns of the king, the queen, the king’s bishop, and, if possible, the queen’s bishop always in front of the opponent’s offense. The player must arrange the pawns in this way as much as possible, but with prudence and preparation, as we will see in the chapter on ways to arrange the game. If this arrangement is not set up with deliberation, as advantageous as it might be to advance the king’s bishop’s pawn at the right moment, it would be more harmful to advance it at an inopportune moment. Such a move could send the game



Book I 91

into turmoil, because it would place the king in danger and possibly result in its capture. The other pieces may be vulnerable as well. Since it is not possible to provide a more comprehensive explanation here, I direct the players to learn about this in the chapter that addresses the ways that we try to arrange the games. There, they will be able to learn when it is advantageous to advance and when it is harmful. As Macrobius says in book 1 of Sominum Scipionis: “Facilior ad intellectum per oculos via est, id quod sermo.” It says it is easier to understand when it is shown to us, as opposed to hearing about it without a demonstration. It is for this reason that the law of the Instituta in the title of Gradibus says: “Veritas magis oculata fide, quam per aures animis hominum infigitur.”162 It says truth sits better with the temperament of men when seen through the eyes than when only heard by the ears. We could say that what we see is better and truer than what we only hear. With respect to this precept about the pawns, Damiano contradicts himself because he tells the reader to observe it, yet he does not include it in the games he illustrates or instruct those players who perhaps wanted to learn about it. In this way, the Codex of Justinian titled De non numerata pecunia is in opposition to Damiano: “Nimis enem indignum est, quod sua quisque voce dilucide protestatus est, id in eum casum infirmare, testimonioque proprio resistere.”163 It says we judge as exceedingly unworthy for anyone to dispute what he has already acknowledged. If someone were to tell me that Damiano says not to observe this precept, I would respond that it is a gross contradiction to assert that the masters forget the general rules and that they are incapable of giving examples. Not even a player who has a one-pawn advantage and insists on attacking with that pawn in response to how his opponent plays is an exception to this rule, as we will discuss in the chapter on games. The strategy to place the aforementioned pawns in front is under162. The Institutiones Justiniani is one of the four parts of Justinian’s Corpus juris civilis, also known as the Codex of Justinian. The other three are Digesta, the Codex Justinianus, and Novellae Constitutiones. Gradibus is a reference to Tractatus de gradibus cognitinum, which is a juridical tract on relationships. 163. De non numerata pecunia (Concerning money not actually paid) is title 30 in book 4 of the Codex of Justinian.

92

Book I

stood when a game is between two players of equal skill, because the novice does not realize that it behooves him to be prudent with them. Furthermore, a player’s desire to have the four middle pawns as far in front of their other pawns and pieces is consistent with what Vegetius shows in book 3, title 19: “Nam circa medias parte campi ex peditibus bene armatis debes habere lectissimos, de quibus cuneum facias et staim aciem hostium rumpas.” It says you should have the best pawns well-armed in the middle of the battle field, where they can form a squad and later break up the enemy. The eleventh rule is the player should know not to leave the pawn helpless or unaccompanied. He should make sure that the pawns are together, so that the one in front can protect the one in back. It is understood to be the preferred arrangement whenever possible, because the unaccompanied pawns are extremely vulnerable and it is difficult to protect them most of the time. If the strategy to separate the pawns is not in order to win or to arrange the game well, as we can see, or for another necessity that may occur in the game, the pawns should accompany each other whenever possible, because, as I have said, they are able to perform better in the war against their enemies if positioned together. In addition, pawns that accompany each other are more able to assist other pawns and are in a better position to prevent their enemies from trying to separate them. If the pawns are scattered and their pieces engaged in protecting them, the pawns are not in a position to help each other, as we mentioned earlier. If the army is spread out and divided, the enemy is more apt to defeat it, according to what was addressed in the eighth rule. According to what Vegetius shows us in book 1, title 26, addressing this purpose: “Et rariores atque interlucentes aditum perrumpendi hostibus praestant. Necesse est autem statim metu universa confundi, si intercisa acie ad dimicantium terga hostis accesserit.” It says the soldiers who are scattered provide their enemies with opportunities to confound them. Then, the enemies can instill fear and attack from behind. The twelfth rule is the player should avoid separating the pawns at all costs, unless it were for a reason that benefits his game, such as to



Book I 93

make a correction, to establish order in the game, to defend a piece from its enemy, or for another reason that he deems necessary to benefit his game, as we will see in the chapter about how to arrange the pieces. In other instances, the pawn can be alone, depending on the course of the game from beginning to end. The pawns that are separated, even if they overwhelm the enemy as if they were two sometimes, other times can be an impediment to their own pieces if unaccompanied. Scattered pawns are disorganized, and, consequently, they are not prepared to break up their enemy. Instead, they can be stopped by two, three, or even one of the opponent’s pawns. Vegetius illustrates this scenario in book 1, title 26: “Nihil magis prodesse constat in pugna, quam ut adsiduo exercitio milites in acie dispositos ordines seruent necubi contra quam expedit aut conglobant agmen aut laxent. Nam et constipati perdunt spatia pugnandi et sibi inuicem inpedimento sunt, et rariores atque interlucentes aditum perrumpendi hostibus praestant. Necesse est autem statim metu uniuersa confundi, si intercisa acie ad dimicantium terga hostis accesserit.” It says there is nothing more advantageous in battle than maintaining the soldiers in the order that they are placed in the battle at all times, except where it benefits several soldiers within the squad. When the soldiers are heaped together, they become an impediment to each other, because they are not arranged in a way to fight. In addition, when the soldiers are scattered, they reveal their vulnerabilities and invite the enemy to break them up. Then, with the army separated in the middle and the enemy poised to attack from behind, they are overwhelmed with fear. In title 17 of book 3, Vegetius says: “Si de loco suo ordinatum militem transferre coeperis, uniuersa turbabis.” It says if you remove the soldier from his proper place to another, you act with anxiety. The pawn that wreaks havoc in its path is emboldened, but if it changes direction, it confuses the other pawns and pieces as if it were removed from its place. The thirteenth rule is the player should position the king in a safe place, jumping or not jumping, whenever it is convenient, so that it is as far away as possible from his enemy’s attacks. The king should also be in a place, however, where its pieces can defend readily and advance on the enemy. Furthermore, the player should reinforce the area the king occu-

94

Book I

pies with his pawns and pieces, because the king’s fortune or misfortune determines the outcome of the game. It is advantageous that all of the pieces be in place, therefore, to defend the king. In addition, there should be as many pieces as possible around the king, or, at least, pieces that are prepared to help him quickly at all times. Do what Vegetius advises in title 17 of book 3: “In subsidiis conloces plurimos.” It says a player should place many pieces in a location that is conducive to providing help. With respect to the kings of Persia, where this game originated—if Xerxes was its inventor, which many people believe, as we have talked about before—they always had with them ten thousand knights to defend them. The knights were called the “immortals,” not because they did not die, but rather because when several died, there were others at the ready to take their place. In this way, the king’s protection was never lacking, according to what Quintus Curtius writes. The fourteenth rule is the player should not move the pawns from their own squares in front of the transposed king unless it were necessary to give the king a way out, to move away from a piece or a pawn that could do it harm, to make a move that the player believes will benefit his game and result in little harm, or to advance the game in other ways. These moves should occur at the most auspicious time possible, such as providing support for the pieces that the pawns exposed to danger, as explained in the previous rule. It should be known that I define the king’s transposition as that part of the board where the king is fortified either from his own side or the queen’s side. If the king’s transposition does not produce this result, however, or, in other words, if the king is able to move to a more advantageous square, I do not define this move as the king’s transposition because such a move could lead a player to move the pawns from their own squares when it is not necessary. The fifteenth rule is that before the king transposes himself by leaping to his knight’s second square or the queen’s bishop’s square, or in between those two squares, which occurs frequently in order to move as far away as possible from the opposing attacks, and before the queens are captured with or without other pieces, if the conditions of the game do not favor



Book I 95

transposition, do not transpose or search for refuge, because the king could find itself distanced from the other pieces and pawns, which would result in the loss of many chances to be able to join and to help them. Consequently, the player would often lose the game. The player should try to place the king near the pawns, where it can be more disposed to receive aid from its own pieces, as well as position itself in the safest place possible. I want the player to know that the king is one of the game’s most important pieces to favor and to help. It is advantageous to know how to move the king, as we explained in the chapter about the king, because it can move to many sides and through all of the squares, frontward and backward, more than any other piece except the queen. With respect to this advice, do what Vegetius says: “In subsidiis conloces plurimos.”164 It says the captain must always be ready and attentive to help others. The sixteenth rule is the player should never surrender a piece for two pawns, even if it appears to be a good move, and not even for three pawns unless it could not be helped or is absolutely necessary for the benefit of the game. Also, the player would be justified [in doing so were it in order] to place the enemy in a predicament where there is a certainty of winning the game or improving his game if it is not going well. Consider the predicament well, make sure the risk is not in vain; for the game could be lost if the opponent’s pieces were arranged for it. In studying all aspects well, I do not think the player should surrender two pawns, but rather one is appropriate, even to lose it for nothing if it means to weaken the enemy in order to win the game. Otherwise, generally a knight or a bishop captures two or three pawns, in part because one or the other captures them when they stop the pawns’ movement. The king wins moves because his pieces always play, and the pawns cannot always play, which the disposition of the game will show. The seventeenth rule might appear contrary to the preceding one but not if the game were contested as it is usually played in Italy, where the bare king and a stalemate result in a game that would end in a draw.165 164. De re militari, book 3, title 17. 165. A bare king (robado) is the name for the king when it is the only piece left on the board. In Italy, if either player had a bare king, the game ended in a draw. In Spain, however,

96

Book I

For example: If, with a knight and two pawns, or a bishop and two pawns, and an opponent who has the same pieces, you see that the game requires a skillful strategy, try to surrender the knight or the bishop for the opponent’s two pawns. This way, you win two pawns and possibly avoid a stalemate. If you capture only one pawn in exchange for the knight or the bishop, however, the game may end in a draw, which is better than a loss. This strategy would work well if the player were to win the game by checkmate, because, otherwise, a player would not surrender a piece for two pawns. The piece by itself, unless it is the queen or rook, cannot give checkmate. If the player were to take only one pawn, however, he could lose the game because the opponent would capture the pawns with his piece, or whichever pawn were opposite his pawn. In possession of the piece, he would impede the other pawn’s path and, in this way, the other pawn would become a queen and give checkmate. The eighteenth rule is if the player has a rook, a knight, and two pawns, and his opponent has the same pieces and number of pawns, the player should try to take the two pawns with the knight because he could win the game by giving checkmate. The game can be won in this way, but whenever the player is unable to win the game and, in addition, finds himself in need of help, the game could become tricky, because, as we will discuss, a knight and a rook cannot win the game against a rook if the player who has the rook knows how to play. What is said in these two rules is not contrary to the rules that precede them, because their strategy is necessary for the player who tries not to lose, but, instead, ventures to win. These moves should be executed at the most propitious time and depends on the position of the king, because the king could find itself enclosed in a place where these moves might not be advantageous. The nineteenth rule is all players should know that a rook and a knight alone cannot win a game against only a rook according to how the game is played in Italy, Spain, or elsewhere. I am not saying only that the game cannot be won by checkmate, but it also cannot be won by bare the player left with a bare king was declared the loser of the game. Since the game did not end in a checkmate, the winner received only half of what he would have earned if he had won the game by checkmate.



Book I 97

king or stalemate when the player who has the rook knows how to play. The player should make sure to move the king as much as possible to the middle of the board, attacking the opponent’s king with checks, and if the opponent’s king conceals itself with its knight, the player should keep the king there [in the middle of the board] in a way that the opponent cannot use either the knight or the king. When the opponent’s king emerges from its protection, the player’s king should attack with checks in any way possible. The player should utilize the king, however, with discretion and wisely, keeping in mind not to allow the king to be cornered, not to lose the rook carelessly, and not to permit the opponent to conceal his king with the rook. The game would end in a draw [if the rook were captured], because the knight cannot give checkmate by itself. If the game were played in Italy, neither player would win anything; if the game were played in Spain, the player who stalemated the other player would be entitled to half of what he would have received if he had won. Since the way in which chess is played in Italy does not permit the knight to give checkmate, the player would not have won anything, but the way in which chess is played in Spain would result in winning half of what is at stake. The twentieth rule is all players should know that in no way can a rook alone win the game against a knight, unless it involves chicanery or if the knight’s player were so ignorant that he allowed himself to be on a side of the board where the rook could capture the knight if the rook’s player were trying to win. If he knows how to play well and tries not to place his king on the last ranks, where there would be danger, he isolates the enemy’s king with checks and does not allow the knight to be far away, where he cannot be helped by the king, lest the opposing player stop the movement and win with Spain’s bare king and Italy’s checkmate with the rook. In Italy, even if the opposing king is left alone, checkmate is given. The twenty-first rule is the player should know that a rook and a bishop can defeat a rook if the game were played in Spain [i.e., bare king] and there were no more pieces on the board. If the game were played in Italy, the game would end in checkmate. Both results would be much more difficult, however, if the player who had the rook knew how to play. The

98

Book I

easiest way to avoid checkmate is by placing the opponent in a position to surrender his rook. If checkmate is not given this way, it is because the player knows how to defend against it or to play for a stalemate when he feels trapped and afflicted, to the extent that the player is not able to give checkmate with the rook from where it is captured. [In this case,] the opponent takes the rook, ending the game in a stalemate. If the player does not know how to play well, he will find himself in checkmate; if he knows how to defend, it will be difficult to give him checkmate, given these circumstances; and it has happened to me, I gave checkmate to reasonable players, who have defended well. Finally, if the rook’s player knows how to defend well, and the opponent is not a good player, the latter will not give checkmate to the former, unless the rook’s player makes a mistake with great weariness. The twenty-second rule is a rook will win a game by capturing a bishop, without anything more than Spain’s bare king, but it will not win according to Italy’s checkmate. The player whose rook defeats a bishop is astute, because he is able to avoid checkmate. If the bishop’s player wants to place the king on one of the last ranks, he should try to put it on one of the rook’s squares, where the bishop can protect the king from the knight’s square in this way: if the player has the white pieces and the king’s bishop, he should place the king on his rank in the queen’s rook’s square so that the bishop, in the knight’s square, can prevent the opponent’s rook from placing the king in check. The opponent’s king cannot defend against the king’s exit from the rook’s square, so it would be a stalemate, and nothing is gained with a stalemate. The king, remaining where it is, moves with the bishop, or it stays with the bishop, moving to the rook’s and pawn’s two squares. If the king, with the same bishop, were on the same file as the opponent’s king, the player should try to place the king on the king’s rook’s square so that the bishop can take the knight’s square. If the bishop were a black piece, place the king on his rank in the rook’s square and on the queen’s rook’s square, if on the other side, so that the bishop can cover the king on the knights’ squares. This way, all that could happen would be a stalemate. This result is useful because



Book I 99

nothing is lost if the game were played the way it is in Italy. Do the same with the black pieces, changing the squares so that whichever bishop the player has can cover the king from the knight’s square, regardless of the rank. In this way, the bishop is a part of the king, and it is not possible to divert the king without noticing the bishop. The twenty-third rule is a player who has a pawn and a king cannot promote the pawn to a queen. Furthermore, the pawn and the king cannot give checkmate if the defense of the opponent’s king is in front of it, on its third rank, where it compels the other player to execute a move he does not want to make. Always try to keep this rule: if your opponent moves the pawn around, trying to attack from behind it, place the defender in front of the pawn, on the third square. In this way, it is not possible to make a queen according to how chess is played in Italy or to give checkmate, since it will be a stalemate according to how chess is played in Spain, and only one-half would be won. This rule and the preceding one illustrate what Vegetius shows us about the military in title 26: “Amplius prodest locus saepe quam uirtus.”166 It means that location is often more advantageous in war than virtue. In this way, positioning converts the weaker into the stronger, and it is able to defend itself from the enemy, regardless of how strong the enemy is. The twenty-fourth rule is the player should notice if the opponent, according to how the game is arranged, is left with a free pawn on one of the rook’s last ranks and a bishop that cannot attack on the rook’s square, on whose file the pawn advances to become a queen. The game will be a stalemate according to how chess is played in Spain, and by Spain is also to be understood Portugal. In some places, stalemate is a cause of discrepancy among some players. According to how chess is played in Italy, neither player benefits from a stalemate, which is generally the result of shrewdness. If the opponent could take the front rank and appropriate the defense’s position and the rook’s square, where the bishop cannot attack, and plays on it, as well as on the squares of the rook’s or the knight’s pawn, without leaving those squares, it will not be possible to make the pawn a queen, and the result will be a stalemate, not a checkmate. 166. De re miliari, book 3, title 26.

100

Book I

The twenty-fifth rule is the player should keep in mind that if he has only a pawn, which he advances to the last square before it could be made a queen, and his enemy has the last queen, the game would end in a bare king according to how it is played in Spain, provided that each player’s king is not within proximity of the other’s. Otherwise, it is possible that enemy would not impede the player from acquiring a queen, and the result would be checkmate. If the pawn were two squares away from being a queen, and the enemy has his king or queen in front of the pawn so that it cannot advance, checkmate is not possible if the pawn advances in the knight’s or rook’s file, because the queen’s position obligates the pawn to move one square or two squares from the king. It is for this reason that whenever the enemy tries to direct the other player’s pawn to a square in the rook’s file, the other player moves away from it. Then, the enemy tries to position the queen to draw the other player’s pawn to the rook’s file by moving the king diagonally and not straight. This way, the enemy, if he is not careless, can force the other player to move the pawn to the rook’s file. If the pawn is on one of the other files, however, and the king or queen is in front of it, the player will move [the pawn] forcefully to wherever it can give checkmate. It must be noted that according to the way chess is played in Italy, the pawn can give checkmate, because the king cannot protect the queen from being captured by the pawn, or [because] the pawn can draw the queen closer until the king also moves nearer the pawn, where the pawn can give checkmate. Since checkmate cannot be given in the last ranks and the pawn cannot be captured, the result is a stalemate, as long as the player knows how to move the pawn to the rook’s square. The twenty-sixth rule is the player should know that some players consider a game to begin without an advantage to either player if one player is allowed to begin with his king in the rook’s square in exchange for giving his opponent the rook’s pawn and the right to move first.167 167. The Spanish word for the expression “another move” is mano (hand), and it is a reference to which player makes the first move. In order to determine which player begins the game, the younger of the two players holds a white pawn in one hand and the black pawn in the other hand. The other player, who does not know which color is in which hand, chooses the color black or white and then chooses a hand. If the color of the pawn in the



Book I 101

I inform the player of my advice: that he choose the pawn and the first move instead of the king in the corner, because, without the move and the pawn, he is not capable of much offense; furthermore, the pawn is formidable. It is always advantageous to remove the enemy’s weapons, and as they say with respect to the number of enemies, the fewest possible. The twenty-seventh rule is whoever tries to learn this game should know that players generally have a king’s pawn and two moves or the king in the corner and two moves, but the player who offers the one or the other cannot jump. A player may also be given a knight in lieu of the aforementioned to have an equal game. My advice to the player: Take first the best piece, for, if the player knows how to play and to defend against the aforementioned positioning, the piece’s side will always be prepared to achieve victory because it has the advantage and the enemy less so. The player should also know well how to defend against these positions, applying the moves that he will see, which deal with a knight against a pawn and the way to defend himself against a king in the corner. If he is not versed in the ways of positioning his pieces, regardless whether he begins the game without an advantage or with an advantage, the enemy will always confuse him with his positioning and cause him to make mistakes, which we will see later in a rule about it. The twenty-eighth rule is the player should also know that players, in general, agree that giving a piece to the other player is equivalent to a concession, in which the player who begins the game with one less piece is able to place the king in the corner with its pawn and have two successive moves. My advice to him who knows little and who is not versed in positioning: he should accept the piece that his opponent gives him, because he is apt to make more mistakes, and he can do so in a less harmful way if his opponent has one less piece. Since he who knows less does not know how to attack or to be daring, it behooves him to accept a piece from his opponent, because he will lose if he chooses to begin the game with his king in the corner. If the player is versed in those moves, however, he should know that younger player’s chosen hand matches the color the older player chooses, the older player would make the first move.

102

Book I

it is better to choose to begin the game with the king in the corner with its pawn and the two successive moves, because his adversary is prepared for any offense. The player should never underestimate the situation, no matter how advantageous it appears to be; he should not, as they say, hold anything back. If the game had two players of equal ability, I would always give the knight for the two aforementioned pieces, as long as it is a balanced game, more or less. As they say, whatever happens, happens, but the best course of action is to be relentless against the enemy. The twenty-ninth rule is the player should know that the king’s pawn, a knight, and a move are generally considered to be a fair exchange for a rook. I would always choose the rook, and I would advise other players to do the same, especially if the player knows how to prepare for the pawn’s offense, which is appreciated in a game of skilled players. The rook is a great piece. As they say, it is always in the right place at the right time, and even more so when the game begins to clear out. The thirtieth rule is, if the knight were exchanged for the king’s pawn and two moves, or the king in the corner and two moves (in either case, the second of the two moves provides the player with more offense), I advise the player to take the knight first and then the king’s pawn and the two moves, or to take the king in the corner and the two moves, before the rook. In this offense, all of the pieces are better prepared to attack the enemy more freely; the enemy’s pieces are reduced to captives. The thirty-first rule is all players should know that it is not uncommon for one player who seeks to acquire an advantage before the game begins to offer to exchange one of his knights for one of his opponent’s rooks. There are ignorant players who grant the request, thinking that it is unimportant. They believe that the knight is more valuable than the rook. I want them to know that it is not a wise calculation, however, because the player who exchanges his knight for his opponent’s rook benefits more than had he exchanged his knight for his opponent’s king’s pawn and an extra move. For some players, this latter exchange could be even less advantageous than receiving a rook, because they may not know how to utilize the king’s pawn and an extra move effectively. The thirty-second rule is a player should know that many players usu-



Book I 103

ally exchange a queen-knight, or a queen that is able to move as a knight on the board, for a knight.168 The player believes he can make this exchange as he exchanges any other piece and still maintain the advantage. He deceives himself. Since the queen is able to move more effectively than any of the other pieces, if the queen also has the knight’s jump, it is very difficult to defend, because there is no cover to the knight’s check and the queen can occupy all of the areas by its virtues. Consequently, the queen can give checkmate by herself even if the opponent is well accompanied. It is for this reason that a player must be careful not to give up the queen unless it were for a rook. Otherwise, the player may lose a piece in the exchange. The player who does not have the queen is at a disadvantage until he is able to exchange one of his pieces for the queen. The thirty-third rule is the player should endeavor throughout the game not to forfeit the bishop that attacks the opponent’s king, because the bishop always pesters the enemy. If the bishop is captured, the player should lose it at a point in the game that favors him. If the timing is not beneficial to the player, however, and necessity requires something else, it is better to be prepared for immediate harm than to wait for an advantageous time in the future that may never materialize. We will leave it until the chapter that addresses the bishop and the knight to discuss the differences, including which piece is more advantageous, between the bishop and the knight. The thirty-fourth rule is the player who has an advantage over his opponent, even a small one with which he can reasonably win the game, 168. The earliest reference to the queen-knight (dama cavallota) is Francesch Vicent’s Libre dels jochs partits dels schachs en nombre de 100 (1495; The Book of 100 Chess Problems). It is not a coincidence that the queen became one of the strongest pieces on the board shortly after the Isabella’s coronation as queen of Spain in 1492. In 1474, following the death of her brother King Henry II, she proclaimed herself queen of Castile in a ceremony in Segovia that foreshadowed the authority she would exercise as queen of Spain: “The procession from the church offered a splendid spectacle to the townspeople. Isabella rode on horseback, while the nobles and dignitaries surrounded her and marched behind. At the very head of the procession rode a horseman carrying a naked sword with the point downward, resembling a cross. Isabella chose to revive this ancient symbol of militant faith and justice, although the traditional monarch’s symbol in Castile was a scepter. The sword recalled not only the royal conquerors who had wrested Spain from the Moors, but also the feats of the warrior maid Joan of Arc, earlier in the century” (Yalom, Birth of the Chess Queen, 233–34).

104

Book I

should exchange his pieces and pawns with caution. Often, a player loses because of disorder, even if the player has an advantage. It is for this reason the player should be alert when he exchanges pieces with the opponent. If the player is distracted and, consequently, unable to think clearly, he may find himself in danger. As we declared in the third rule, the soldiers who, under the leadership of good captains, prepare ambushes and attacks against their enemies defeat the soldiers who are not as prepared. The thirty-fifth rule is a player should know not to make an error called blindness. This mistake occurs when the player makes a move but does not consider its consequences. Instead of thinking three or four moves ahead, imagining the future advantages and disadvantages, the player makes many moves, little by little. All players should heed my warning by playing in a relaxed and deliberate manner. Cassiodorus says in book 1, chapter 17: “Omnia subita probantur incauta.”169 It says all things carried out suddenly prove to be done so haphazardly. Seneca says in book 5, chapter 11: “Nihil autem ordinatum est quod praecipitatum et properat.”170 It says nothing that is hurried or precipitated is well arranged. The same Seneca says in book 7, chapter 7: “Mora omnis odio est, sed sapientem facit.”171 It says all delay is hateful, but its usefulness is that it breeds wisdom. I could relate many other examples about this subject, but, in order to abbreviate, I will not cite them, because chess is a game. It is intended for recreation and not the despair and death of the person with whom we play or those who watch, which has happened to me many times when I played with players, who, in each move they had to play, required a quarter of an hour. As a result, it is possible to play only two, or three, at the most, games. Even though it was advantageous, I could not tolerate it, and those who came to watch could not wait. It is beneficial to have a way in which the game is not so precipitate that there is no consideration given to what is being played, nor so slow that it be169. Cassiodorus, Varia epistolae, 1.17. 170. Seneca, Epistulae morales, book 4, letter 40.2. 171. This sententia, while attributed to Seneca, originated with Publilius Syrus (85–43 b.c.), who is well known for his collection of moral sayings. Seneca also cites Syrus’s sententiae in two of his Moral Letters to Lucilius (“On the Philosopher’s Seclusion” and “On the Value of Advice”).



Book I 105

comes intolerable, to the point that the pleasure of such a beautiful game becomes hateful. As Cassiodorus says book 3, chapter 40: “Nec possumus aestimare iucundum, quod ingrata fuerit dilatione suspensum.”172 It says we cannot appreciate or judge as pleasurable that which we admire with ungrateful delight. Cicero says in book 6 of the Philippics: “Exspectatio quidem quantum adferat languoris animis quis non videt?” It says, who cannot see or understand how much anxiety waiting incites? Many other examples I could bring. In order for a player to call himself genteel and polished with respect to knowing how to play, he should be liberal, but not so much that he is inconsiderate, slow, or bothersome. The player is able to be liberal when the opponent is considerate of his own moves and plays them without delay. If the players contemplate the moves that will benefit each of them, all will be well. As Tullius says in the first book, chapter 34 of De officiis: “In omnibus negotiis prius quam adgrediare, adhibenda est praeparatio diligens.”173 It says before you begin to get involved in any business, it is necessary to prepare diligently. It is evident that there is a need to know what can be harmful, which Seneca acknowledges in book 17, chapter 3: “Quodcumque laesurum est multo ante quam accidat, speculare et averte.”174 It says to take notice, to ponder, and to avoid everything that can be deleterious long before it happens. In this way, as I say, it is advantageous to consider not only how the opponent’s every move can attack, but also to scrutinize the subsequent moves in order to be prepared to correct them and to harm the enemy. This explanation is sufficient to illustrate this rule. The thirty-sixth rule is a player should be trained and proficient in all of the ways of playing that we present. This rule applies as much to a game that begins equally as to a game in which there is an advantage, and it applies because the offensive and defensive moves in one game may be profitable for the moves in the other game. In this way, the player will know how to attack and to capture the enemy unnoticed and how to de172. Cassiodorus, Variarum libri, 3.40. 173. Cicero, De officiis, 1.34.73. 174. Epistulae Morales (Book 16, Letter 98.2)

106

Book I

fend against the enemy’s attacks. If the player is not trained before he enters the battle, the result will be what Cassiodorus says in book 1, chapter 39 of his epistles: “Ars bellandi, si non praeluditur, quum fuerit necessaria non habetur.” It says when the art of fighting is not learned first as in a game, it will not be present when it is needed. It is for this reason, as the same author says in the same place: “Discat miles in otio quod perficere possit in bello.” It says the soldier should learn in his leisure time whatever he will need to do perfectly in the ambush or the fight. The same, in chapter 16: “Res praeliorum bene disponitur, quoties in pace tractatur.” It says successful preparation for the fight takes place when practiced during times of peace. Many other authorities and examples I could bring to this subject, but I will not, in order to abbreviate. In this way, I conclude these general rules and warnings. There are other rules called “laws of the game,” which the player needs to know. No player should compete if ignorant of the rules; a player will not be able to cite ignorance of a rule as the reason he lost the game. Even if the player were to plead ignorance, the other players and judges will not tolerate this defense, because each player is subject to the game’s laws and conditions and not his own whims. If not, as Horace says, do not play: “Ludere qui nescit campestribus abstinet armis, indoctusque . . . quiescit.”175 It says whoever does not know the laws of the game should not play, and he who does not know should not pretend to know. Valerius Maximus alludes to this axiom in book 7 of Sapienter dicta aut facta: “Scipio Aphricanus turpe esse aiebat in re militari dicere ‘non putaram,’ videlicet quia explorato et excusso consilio quae ferro aguntur administrari oportere arbitrabatur summa ratione: inemendabilis est enim error, qui violentiae Martis comittitur.” It says Scipio Africanus used to say that clumsy things in the military did not weigh on him, because what he judged worthy of correction and firm advice was a mishap, regardless of how large or small the error, with weapons that takes place during a war. It is advantageous for any person who wants to play this game to be instructed in its laws. Consequently, all of the laws, or all that can occur, 175. Horace, Epistles, 2.3, lines 379–80.



Book I 107

are explained here. With respect to the laws that are not addressed here, as well as the laws that are discussed, I defer to the judgment of the most excellent players, not just those who are experts in the game, but the players who are also wise and reasonable. The first rule is one player may assess a penalty to the other player if the latter is deceptive. The player who is able to assess the penalty may choose to deem the move permissible and not penalize the opponent, or the play may require the opponent to replay the move. This rule is valid only when the player who decides the penalty has not made a move yet. If the player makes a move, however, it is understood that he accepts the opponent’s move and, therefore, loses the privilege to assess a penalty. Similarly, if the player who makes the illegal move realizes that it is not permitted, he may ask to play it again even if the other player does not see it. The players should observe this rule in order to eliminate excuses and debates. The second rule is the result of a mistake or malice, depending on which one is better for the player’s game. If a player sees that the opponent is inattentive, he can remove from the board one of his own pieces or pawns in order to win a move in a game that he considers to be advantageous to his opponent; such a move would be considered, of course, to be deceptive. If the opponent notices the deception, he can ask the other player to move again; if he wants to pretend that he did not see it, he may. It is quite uncommon for a player to take his own pieces. When it does occur, the player explains that it is due to an error and not to malice. The player may inform the opponent that he did something he should not have done before the opponent’s next move. Then, the player returns the piece or pawn to its previous square and makes another move. If the irregularity were not noticed before the next move, however, it could be considered malice, but only if the player has the proper amount of time to move the piece he touched first or to move another piece. The third rule is a player is obligated to move the piece that he touches, unless contact is due to straightening or rearranging the piece for the opponent, or something similar and without delay. If time passes after the player touches the piece, the delay may be interpreted as the player’s

108

Book I

desire to play the piece and an acknowledgment of regret that it does not seem to be correct. Consequently, he plays the piece. The fourth rule is if a player captures an opponent’s piece or a pawn via an invalid move, it is important to know which player moved first. If the player who executed the illegal capture moved first, he should replay the piece. The player is obligated, however, to take the opponent’s piece however possible to remedy the earlier infraction and to promote fair play. If the player wants to take the opponent’s piece or a pawn with a piece that is not valid, the move is deemed malicious and deceptive. If the player is not able to capture the opponent’s piece, he is free to make any move he wants. The fifth rule is if a player protects the king with a piece or a pawn and then decides to move the piece or the pawn, but the move is a false calculation because it exposes the king to check, the opponent can choose to allow the piece or the pawn to move. If the opponent chooses not to allow the piece or the pawn to move, the player can move the king. Since the defect is not with the piece that exposed the king to check, but with the king, the king is obligated to accept the consequences, and these words are my opinion on the matter. The sixth rule is the player who places the opponent in check should inform the opponent of the check and name it. If the player does not inform the opponent before the player’s next move, the opponent cannot make him stop, unless the piece with which the player gives the opponent check were played again on another square and the player names the check. The opponent’s king remains on its square, which is the reason the piece was able to move. In this case, the opponent is obligated to escape check, except if he is unable to protect the king or to take the piece that gives him check. Be it known, however, the king can move as if nothing impeded him until check is given again. The seventh rule is the players should keep in mind that each time one player grants an advantage of one piece to another player, or any other advantage, the player who provides the advantage will make the game’s opening move. This rule is valid only if the opponent does not object. It is favorable to both players that all aspects of this game are transparent.



Book I 109

The eighth rule is relevant if a player grants the following advantage to his opponent: to give checkmate only with a pawn or two pawns. In order to avoid any malice, the player who offers to give checkmate is compelled to give checkmate with the pawn and prohibited from giving check with the pawn and checkmate with another piece. If the player has two pawns, he will give check with one immediately; later, he will give checkmate with the other pawn. Any other way, the player has not fulfilled his commitment. The ninth rule is if one of the players gives his opponent a transposed king, or, as they say, a king at the corner, as an advantage, the opponent is free to jump with his king unless it is in a place where it cannot jump. The purpose of the qualification is to avoid debate and to be transparent. The tenth rule is the pawn cannot avoid the battle unless the opponent gives consent. If the player wants to capture the pawn, he can take it one square back or let it pass. In this way, the pawn still participates in the battle, but its status depends on the adversary. In other words, the adversary can decide whether to capture it or not. It is believed that the game is played this way in Italy. In Spain and Portugal, where the best players blossomed and continue to blossom, the pawn can be used in this way. The chapter in which we discuss the pawns addresses their strategic importance, which includes the aforementioned rule. The eleventh rule is that two moves cannot be played at the same time, for example, if the player moves the rook and the king, which also leaps, at the same time, or if the player moves a pawn and places the king in the pawn’s square, which is done in Italy. This manner of playing must be prohibited, because it is a bad way to play. Furthermore, there is not a single good player from the past who played in this way. A player was never permitted, and never should be permitted, to make two moves at the same time before the opponent makes one move. This way of playing, it is said, is allowed only in some parts of Italy; with respect to the rest of Italy, it was never and currently is not allowed. Even Damiano, who composed the short Italian book about this game, condemned it. Bad customs should not be enforced but eliminated, because as Cassiodorus says in the third book, chapter 7 of the epistles: “Non sit novitas molesta,

110

Book I

quae proba est.” It says novelty, if it is good, is not bothersome. Montenaro Paduano in chapter 82 of De luna cleri says: “Auget non minuit, mala consuetudo reatum.”176 It means bad customs do not diminish before guilt and crime increase. As Cassiodorus says in book 8, chapter 20 of the epistles: “Bonum insolitum plus amatur.” It means that which is good is more loved because it is not common. The twelfth rule is if one player pledges to identify the square where he gives his opponent checkmate, both players should agree to this rule in order to avoid debates and disputes. If it were not said clearly, the integrity of the game may be compromised, because if a player does not inform the opponent that he gave checkmate in the middle of the board or on the king’s fourth square, the silence may be interpreted as malicious or feigned ignorance. The player who gives checkmate should identify the square from which he gives checkmate; the king will be close to the square or far from it. If the player gives checkmate in another square, the player loses because the king is either in the indicated square or he is not. This consequence is a rule and an attribute of the game.177 Many people have misunderstood how to identify the square from which the player gives checkmate until now. If the player gives checkmate to the opposing king from this square or that square, or the player will give it, as illustrated by the games that have been written about and studied, the piece that gives the king checkmate or will give him checkmate is on the square and not the king. In other words, the player informs the opponent that he gives checkmate from this square. The thirteenth rule is a player who informs the opponent that he will give check and checkmate with a pawn should capitalize on the first opportunity to do so. If the player promises to give check and checkmate with a specific pawn, saying, “I offer to give check and checkmate with this pawn,” he is obligated to give checkmate with the pawn that he specified and declared in the agreement with the other player as long as it re176. Montenaro of Padua was a thirteenth-century Italian poet. 177. Today, players are not required to inform the opponent of check or checkmate. If a player mistakenly identifies check or checkmate, the game continues without any penalty. In tournament chess, however, the arbiter may assess the player a penalty if he or she believes the player misidentified check or checkmate on purpose.



Book I 111

mains a pawn. If the player were to make the pawn a queen, however, as much as it changes the dignity, power, traits, and nature that the pawn had before, it does not satisfy the conditions of the agreement. If the player identifies the piece but does not qualify its function, saying, “I propose to give checkmate with this piece,” he will have satisfied the conditions of the promise, unless the lawyers and canonists say the contrary, if he gives checkmate with the pawn or after the pawn becomes a queen. It seems to me that this rule should be implemented and maintained, unless there is a better one, as the law of the game, in order to avoid disputes. The fourteenth rule is all players should know that when a neutral piece, so named because it escapes capture while the player moves it all over the board, is played, it is also called a crazy or free piece because it can do whatever it wants without penalty.178 In other words, the opponent is unable to capture it. The fifteenth rule is the player should know that the neutral pawn can be captured when it becomes a queen if it is not played as a pawn. When the pawn becomes a queen, and the player moves the piece as a queen moves, it is no longer possible to say that the player captures the pawn, but rather the queen. It is beneficial to inform the other player of this move to avoid accusations of deception. It is useful for the person who wants to learn how to play this game, as I have said, to know its rules. The sixteenth rule is if a player believes he cannot win a game, the game ends at fifty moves, which includes the total number of moves by each player. The player who expects to win the game may implement this rule if the outcome is a foregone conclusion. A player who has fifty moves is able to try all of the possible ways to win a game. A game is considered 178. López describes this piece as a “pieza atreguada,” which Spanish chess historian Antonio Gude defines as “a piece that could not be captured . . . the piece moved wildly all over the board . . . it was synonymous with ‘crazy’ in the sixteenth century” (una pieza que no se podia capturar . . . la pieza iba y venía por el tablero locamente . . . en el siglo XVI fue sinónimo de loco). Antonio Gude, “Pieza atreguada,” Antonio Gude [blog], September 12, 2011, https://antoniogude.com/pieza-atreguada/ (translation mine). The term “neutral” refers to the mental condition of a person whose insanity also includes moments of lucidity, as Covarrubias notes: “Neutral. The insane person who is able to find respite from the illness and return to his or her right mind.” (Atreguado. El loco que tiene treguas con su enfermedad y vuelve a tiempos en su juyzio.) Sebastián de Covarrubias Orozco, Tesoro de la lengua castellana, o española (Madrid: Melchor Sánchez, 1674), s.v. Atreguado (translation mine).

112

Book I

not winnable if one player does not win after fifty moves, if it is not evident to a good player how to win the game, or if neither player can find a way to win. The seventeenth rule is, regardless of the number of times our ancestors played in Bélmez “occupied square,” “touched piece,” and “shadowed square,” all of which are proper ways of playing, we do not feel it is fair in genteel things to degenerate from what is old and good.179 Since we do not want to develop a game based on bad habits, we worked to restore everything else that we could, in order to retain the elegance and courtesy of the game. Consequently, from this day forward, if a player touches a piece, he must play it. In addition, if a player touches a square with a piece, the piece must remain there because good players who touch the square, remain there. In other words, they do not remove their hand from the piece, which is an ugly and disrespectful gesture. With respect to this rule, it seems to me that the person who contradicts it should not be heard, but I defer everything to the judgment of wise people. I say what I believe to be correct and decent. With these words, I conclude these precepts, pleading that all of the good players make other players observe them, as well as those people who will learn to play the game from this day forward. May they learn these rules, as well as the many ways good players know how to play. Of course, now that we know the aforementioned rules, it is appropriate to describe the different ways to begin to play, to compose, and to arrange the game. Each player who studies them will learn how to play the game of chess, how to attack the enemy, and how to defend against the opponent’s attacks. While I did not include all of the information that I could have, because it would be a never-ending list, I did include the most valuable information, including the most effective strategies. I will make brief mention of strategies that are not successful. Furthermore, I invite any person to verify on his or her own my rationale. With 179. Bélmez, which is seventy-five miles to the southeast of Zafra, is a village in the province of Córdoba. “Occupied square” refers to the rule that permitted the bishop and the queen to leap over a square that a pawn or another piece already occupied; “touched piece” is a rule that requires the player to move the piece that he touches first; “shadowed square” requires the player to place the piece on the square that he touches initially.



Book I 113

respect to the strategies that are successful, they include offensive and defensive strategies. If we were to illustrate only offensive strategies, a player would not know how to defend against an attack. It seemed to me, therefore, reasonable to address the offense and then the defense in games that begin equally and games that begin with an advantage. The explanations will benefit more the players who begin a game equally than the players who compete in a game that begins with an advantage for one player. In the latter, only one of the two players will find the discussion helpful, because it is presumed that the player who gives an advantage is already knowledgeable and skillful. Consequently, a game that begins with an advantage is arranged more favorably for the player who has the advantage than the player who gives it. We will also illustrate strategies for the player who gives the advantage, including how to arrange well. We will discuss, for example, the strategy players can use in a game if they do not intend to play until the end. One reason not to play a game to the end is because it would never finish. In part 2, chapter 3 of Ars versificatoria, Matthew of Vendôme writes: “Infinitas nouerca est disciplinae et amica confusionis.”180 Infinity is the stepmother of discipline and the friend of confusion. The other reason not to play a game until the end is that a player cannot learn well from an interminable game. The same Matthew writes in part 1, chapter 8: “Prolixitas nouerca est memoriae.” Prolixity is the stepmother of memory. As Horace says in the Ars poetica: “Quicquid praecipies, esto brevis, ut cito dicta percipiant animi dociles teneantque fideles.”181 Be brief in all that is demonstrated, because the obedient faculties perceive well what they are told and retain the information faithfully until it is needed. In the first book, chapter 10 of Rethoric artis veteris, Tullius writes: “Saepe res parum est intellecta longitudine magis quam obscuritate narrationis.”182 Often, it says, prolixity, not an obscure narration, is the reason something is misunderstood. 180. Matthaeus Vindocinensis was a twelfth-century French writer who is the author of two treatises: Ars versificatoria and Ars dictaminis. 181. Lines 335–36. 182. This quotation appears in Cicero’s De inventione, book 1, chapter 29. López must have been thinking of Rhetorica ad Herennium, another book on rhetoric, once attributed to Cicero.

114

Book I

In order to promote understanding and retention, I will address as briefly as I can how to begin and how to arrange games. Instead of explaining how to play and to arrange a game until the end, I will propose how to gain an advantage with a piece or a pawn. A well-arranged game cultivates many skillful moves and favorable outcomes, because the player is able to attack the enemy with all of the pieces and the pawns. This strategy is not possible in a poorly arranged game. The importance of a well-arranged game should be not be underestimated, for, as in the case of a good captain who arranges his army well for the battle, a good arrangement is essential. As Vegetius says in the third book, chapter 14 of De re militari: “Acies dicitur exercitus instructus, frons quae aduersum hostem spectat. Haec in publica pugna si sapienter disponitur, plurimum iuuat, si inperite quamuis optimi bellatores sint, mala ordinatione franguntur.” It says the front of the army that faces the enemy is in the public fight; if it is wisely prepared, it helps very much. If the front of the army is poorly arranged, even though it consists of the best warriors, it will be divided and in disarray. In the same way, good players have to begin their games with the king’s or queen’s pawns, which, as we will demonstrate later, are the front of the army. The other ways to begin a game are not successful or valued by good players, unless the condition of the game requires them, as will be shown. As the same Vegetius says in book 3, title 26: “Paucos uiros fortes natura procreat, bona institutione plures reddit industria.” It says nature produces few strong men, but skill with good institution makes many. In other words, nature engenders few excellent players, but skill with good instruction and proper disposition produces many. Even if a player knows little about the game of chess, a well-arranged game is conducive to a strong defense. Furthermore, the same player may be capable of defeating a great player if the latter’s game is not well arranged, according to what we see from the experience of playing each day. This skirmish begins first with the front pawns. In other words, the good captains are not exposed to the danger that is ever-present on an open battlefield. Once their pawns are engaged, the pieces, clandestinely, kill the enemy or certainly scare them. According to what Vegetius says in book 3, title 9: “Boni enim duces non aperto proelio, in quo est commune



Book I 115

periculum, sed ex occulto semper adtemptant, ut integris suis, quantum possunt, hostes interimant uel certe terreant.”183 In addition to what has been said about ways to play and to arrange the games, I try to illustrate the specifics of Damiano’s errors, as well as the mistakes of others who are unable to teach effectively how to play the game of chess. The chapters that follow consist of detailed explanations. I will begin by showing the offenses and defenses that are common to games that begin equally [book 2]. Then, I will discuss Damiano’s offenses and defenses, including his errors, and propose ways to improve the offense and the defense [book 3]. Last, I will illustrate the many ways a player who has an advantage can arrange his game [book 4]. In addition, I will explain Damiano’s errors and propose corrections. 183. “For good generals do not attack in open battle where the danger is mutual, but do it always from a hidden position, so as to kill or at least terrorize the enemy while their own men are unharmed as far as possible” (Vegetius, Epitome of Military Science, 83–84).

116

Book I

BOOK II

Chapter 1

The first way to arrange the game with the first move White will begin, moving the king’s pawn to the extent that it moves [1.e4]. If Black were to play the king’s pawn to the extent that it moves [1…e5], White would move the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [2.c3]. If Black were to play the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2… Nf6] in order to capture the opposing king’s pawn [Nxe4], White would move the queen to her bishop’s second square [3.Qc2]. If Black moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of his queen’s bishop [3…Bc5], White will move the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [4.Nf3]. If Black moves the queen’s knight to her bishop’s third square [4…Nc6] in order to protect the king’s pawn [e5], White will move the king’s bishop to the opposing queen’s knight’s fourth square [5.Bb5], attacking the knight. If Black moves the queen’s pawn one square [5…d6] to protect the king’s pawn [e5], White will play the queen’s pawn [6.d4] to the extent that it can move against the opponent’s bishop. If Black took it with his king’s pawn [6…exd4], which is the best move, White would take the opponent’s pawn with the queen’s bishop’s pawn [7.cxd4]. If Black were to give check with the bishop to the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [7…Bb4+], White would cover it with the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [8.Nc3]. If Black were to move the queen’s bishop to the queen’s second square in order to remove the knight from covering the king [8…Bd7], White would move the king’s rook to the bishop’s square to transpose it [9.Rf1]. In this way, White, knowing how to play, will arrange his game very well; he has the game arranged better and his pieces will attack the enemy more effectively.



119

Note. When Black protected the king’s pawn [e5] with the queen’s knight [4…Nc6], the better move would have been if Black were to protect it with the queen [4…Qe7], because White could not push the queen’s pawn as far as it goes [6.d4], since Black would take the opposing queen’s pawn [6…exd4] and then the king’s pawn with the queen [7…Qxe4], giving check [7…Qe4+]. Let White do whatever it wants, because Black, knowing how to play, will win the game, if White were to move the queen’s pawn [6.d4] as we said. Chapter 2

Another way for the player with the first move to open and to arrange the game White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can [1.e4]. If Black plays the king’s pawn as far as it will go [1…e5], White moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [2.c3]. If Black were to move the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2… Nf6] in order to capture the opposing pawn [Nxe4], White would move his queen to his bishop’s second square [3.Qc2] to protect the pawn. If Black moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3…Bc5], White will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can to break open the opponent’s position [4.f4]. If Black moves the king’s knight to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [4…Ng4], White will move the king’s knight to his bishop’s third square [5.Nf3]. If Black moves the king’s knight to the second square of the opposing king’s bishop [5…Nf2] in order to capture the rook, White will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can toward the opponent’s bishop [6.d4]. If Black takes the opposing pawn with his king’s pawn [6…exd4], White will take the knight with his queen [7.Qxf2].

120

Book II

But if Black were not to take the aforementioned pawn before it took the rook with his knight [7…Nxh1], White would take the bishop with his queen’s pawn [8.dxc5]. If Black takes the bishop’s pawn with the pawn of his king [8…exf4], White will take the opponent’s pawn with the queen’s bishop [9.Bxf4]. And knowing how to play thus, White will win the game, because the king, jumping to the square of his knight, over the bishop, will have captured the knight, because the knight is trapped.1 The player should always keep in mind how the enemy will react. Note. But if, before capturing the rook as said, Black gives check on the second square of the opposing king’s bishop [5…Bf2+], White would play his king to his second square [6.Ke2]. If Black does not remove his bishop, White will win a piece, moving the king’s rooks’s pawn one square and into position to capture the opponent’s knight [hxg4]. But if Black removes his bishop and places it on the third square of his queen’s knight [Bb6], White will win the king’s pawn by taking it with his bishop’s pawn [fxe5], and in this way White will be left with a pawn advantage and a good game, if he knows how to play. Chapter 3

Another way to arrange the game, beginning similarly White plays the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black also plays the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5], White will move the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [2.c3]. If Black threatens the opponent’s pawn with the king’s knight [2…Nf6], White will protect the pawn by moving his queen to the bishop’s second square [3.Qc2]. 1. It was possible for the king to leap a piece in the earliest versions of chess. See book 1, chapter 10.



Book II 121

If Black moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3…Bc5], White will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [4.f4]. If Black takes the pawn with the king’s pawn [4…exf4], White will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go toward the opposing bishop [5.d4]. Then, White will take the opponent’s king’s pawn with the queen’s bishop, arranging his game better than his enemy [6.Bxf4].2 But if, before Black takes the pawn with his king’s pawn, he took the opponent’s king’s knight with his bishop [4…Bxg1], White would take the bishop with his rook [5.Rxg1], which is the best possible move, for if White were to take the king’s pawn with his bishop’s pawn [5.fxe5], advancing toward the opponent’s knight, Black would take the rook’s pawn with his bishop [5…Bxh2]. By taking the rook’s pawn, Black would have won a pawn because White does not know how to play. Returning to the stated purpose above, which is when Black takes the knight with his bishop [4…Bxg1], White takes the bishop with his rook [5.Rxg1]. If Black were to take the bishop’s pawn with his king’s pawn [5…exf4] then, White would move the queen’s pawn one square [6.d3], discovering the bishop against the opposing king’s pawn.3 If Black moves the knight to the rook’s fourth square [6…Nh5], protecting the pawn, White will move the queen to the second square of his king’s bishop [7.Qf2] to be in position to capture the pawn. If Black were to protect the pawn by moving his queen to the third square of the king’s bishop [7…Qf6], White would move the king’s bishop [8.Be2] in position to capture the opponent’s knight. In this way, White would win the pawn by force and place the enemy in a bad position. But if Black were not to protect his pawn with the queen, but rather with the king’s knight’s pawn, moving it as far as it can go [7…g5], White 2. It is Black’s turn to move, but López does not state this, in order to focus on how White can arrange his game better than his opponent. There are other instances where Black or White appear to move out of turn. 3. This sequence of moves is an example of a discovered attack.

122

Book II

would move the king’s bishop to the king’s second square [8.Be2], in position to capture the opponent’s knight. If Black moves the king’s knight to its own second square [8…Ng7], White will move his king’s knight’s pawn one square [9.g3]. If Black were to take the opponent’s pawn with the pawn of his king [9… fxg3], White would take [that pawn] with his queen [10.Qxg3], pressuring the knight’s pawn. If Black were to protect the knight’s pawn with the rook’s pawn [10…h6], White would move the pawn of his king’s rook as far as possible to disrupt the enemy [11.h4]. If Black moves the pawn of his king’s bishop one square [11…f6] to protect the king’s knight’s pawn, White will move the pawn of his king to disrupt it [12.e5]. If Black moves the king’s knight to the king’s third square to protect the pawn [12…Ne6], White will give check to the king with the [king’s] bishop [by moving it] to the fourth square of the opponent’s rook [13.Bh5+]. In this way, wherever Black moves, White, knowing how to play, will win the game. But if Black does not move the knight to the king’s third square, as we have said [Ne6], but first moves it to the fourth square of the king’s bishop [12.Nf5], positioning itself to capture the queen and the rook’s pawn, White will move his queen to the knight’s fourth square [13.Qg4], positioning itself to capture the opponent’s knight. If Black captures the rook’s pawn with the knight [13…Nxh4], White will give check with the queen on the opposing rook’s fourth square [14.Qh5+]. If Black moves the king to the bishop’s square [14…Kf8], White will capture the knight’s pawn with the queen’s bishop [15.Bxg5]. If Black were to take the queen’s bishop with his [king’s] bishop’s pawn [15…fxg5], White would give check with the rook from the king’s bishop’s square [16.Rf1+], and then checkmate with the queen from the second square of the opponent’s king’s bishop [Qf7#]. If Black makes another move, be it known that White will always have the game won by virtue of the checkmate.

Book II 123

Note. But if Black, instead of moving the king’s bishop’s pawn, as it has been said, had moved the king’s knight to the king’s third square [11… Ne6], White would take the knight’s pawn with the rook’s pawn [12. hxg5]. If Black moves his king’s rook to the knight’s square [12…Rg8], White will move the queen to the second square of his king’s rook [13.Qh2]. If Black were to take the [rook’s] pawn with his own rook’s pawn [13… hxg5], White would move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of his knight [14.Bg4]. If Black moves the queen to the second square of his king [14…Qe7], White will move the queen to the second square of his opponent’s rook [15.Qh7]. If Black moves the rook to the knight’s second square [15…Rg7], in position to capture the queen, White will move the queen to the opposing rook’s third square [16.Qh6]. If Black moves his rook to the knight’s third square [16…Rg6], in position to capture the opponent’s queen, White will give check with his queen from the opponent’s rook’s square [17.Qh8+]. If Black covers the king with his queen [17…Qf8], which is the best move possible, White will take the queen [18.Qxf8]. If Black takes the queen with his knight [18…Nxf8], White will move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s bishop [19.Bf5], in position to capture the rook. In this way, White will have preserved his pawn and be left with a game that is well arranged. But Black, instead of moving the rook to the knight’s third square, attacking the queen, could have moved the king’s bishop’s pawn one square [16…f6], protecting the rook with the queen, which appears to be a good move but is not, because White will move the rook to the bishop’s square [17.Rf1], where it can recover the opponent’s pawn and, knowing how to play, will win the game.

124

Book II

Note. If, when Black took the opponent’s rook’s pawn with his rook’s pawn, he had captured it instead with the knight [13.Nxg5], White would leap with his king to the second square of his queen’s bishop [14.Kc2] so that it could not be given check by the knight attacking the rook if instead of the king’s leap the queen captured the opposing rook’s pawn. By jumping, White is left with a good game, because even if Black had a one pawn advantage, he would be disorganized. Note. If, when Black moved the knight to his own second square, it had moved it instead to the third square of the king’s bishop [8.Nf6], White would move his king’s knight’s pawn one square [9.g3]. If Black were to take the king’s knight’s pawn with the king’s pawn [9… fxg3], White would take the king’s pawn with his rook’s pawn [10.hxg3]. If Black were to protect the knight’s pawn with his rook’s pawn [10…h6], White would move his rook to the square of his bishop [11.Rf1], in position to capture the knight [provided that the queen [Qf2] moves]. If Black were to leap his king to his knight’s second square [11…Kg7] in order to protect the knight, White would move the pawn of his king one square [12.e5] in position to capture the knight [f6], and Black will have lost the game.4 But if Black did not protect the knight’s pawn with his rook’s pawn, but first protected it with the queen, returning the knight to his designated square [10…Ng8], White would move the rook to his bishop’s square [11. Rf1]. If Black were to move the knight to the third square of his rook [11… Nh6], which is the best move, to protect the bishop’s pawn, White would move his queen to the second square of his king’s rook [12.Qh2], in position to capture the knight. 4. The king’s leap is a legal move. López addresses it in book 1, chapter 10. White is positioned well to defeat his opponent, whose knight is on [f6] and whose king is on [g7]. White has a pawn on [e5], a queen on [f2], and a rook on [f1]. Either the queen or the pawn can capture the knight, giving check to the king. If the king were to capture either of the pawn or the queen, the rook on [f1] could capture the king [f6].



Book II 125

And if Black were to return the knight to his square in order not to lose it [12…Ng8], White would move his queen to the fourth square of the opponent’s rook [13.Qh5], and regardless, knowing how to play, White would win the game. Chapter 4

Another way to arrange the game with the first move White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5], White will move the king’s bishop to the queen’s bishop’s fourth [square] [2.Bc4]. If Black played likewise [2…Bc5], White would move the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [3.c3]. If Black moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [3…Nf6], White will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can [4.d4] to position itself to capture the opposing bishop. If Black were to take the queen’s pawn with the pawn of his king [4… exd4], White would take the queen’s bishop’s pawn [5.cxd4]. If Black were to give check, moving the bishop to the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [5…Bb4+], White would protect his king with the queen’s bishop [6.Bd2]. Black taking the opponent’s bishop with his bishop [6…Bxd2+], White will take the opposing bishop with his knight [7.Nxd2], and thus protect also the king’s pawn. In this way, White will still have his bishop to attack the opposing king, but Black will not. If Black were not to give check with the aforementioned bishop, but, instead, were to move it to his queen’s knight’s third square [5…Bb6], White would move his queen’s knight to his bishop’s third square [6.Nc3]. In this way, White would be able to arrange his game very well.

126

Book II

But if, when Black captured the opposing queen’s pawn with his king’s pawn, White, before taking the pawn with the pawn of his queen’s bishop, first moved his king’s pawn in position to capture the opposing knight [5.e5], then if Black were to move the aforementioned knight to the fourth square of the opposing king [5…Ne4], White would move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing queen [6.Bd5] in position to capture the opponent’s knight, and if Black wanted to wreck White’s position by capturing the king’s bishop’s pawn [6…Nxf2], I would welcome this decision, because I want the knights more than the pawns, and especially at the beginning of the game. If Black did not want to disrupt White’s position, it would move the king’s bishop’s pawn to protect the knight [6…f5]. White would take the aforementioned knight with his bishop [7.Bxe4], and Black would take the bishop with his bishop’s pawn [7…fxe4]. White would take the king’s pawn with the pawn of his queen’s bishop [8.cxd4], and, in this way, knowing how to play, would arrange his game well. Note. If White had moved the king’s pawn one more square toward the opposing knight at the beginning [5.e5], Black would have moved his queen to the second square of his king [5…Qe7]. If White were to take the opposing king’s pawn with the pawn of his queen’s bishop [6.cxd4], Black would give check with his king’s bishop from the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [6…Bb4+]. If White were to cover the king with his queen’s knight from the bishop’s third square [7.Nc3], Black would move his queen’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [7…c5] to break up White’s game. If White moved the king’s knight to the second square of his king [8.Ne2] in order to remove the king from the opposing queen’s threat, Black would move his king’s knight to the opposing king’s fourth square [8…Ne4], and, in this way, disrupt White’s game. If White were to leap the king to his knight’s square [9.Kg1], this is the best move possible to ensure his game does not fall apart. With this move, White will have arranged his game well, as well as on the offen-



Book II 127

sive against his enemy, and do not worry that his rook is unable to move, because it will be able to move soon.5 White, knowing how to play, has a better game than his opponent. Chapter 5

Another way to arrange the game, beginning similarly White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black makes the same move [1…e5], White will move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of his queen’s bishop [2.Bc4]. If Black moves his king’s bishop to the fourth square of his queen’s bishop [2…Bc5], White will move the pawn of his queen’s bishop one square [3.c3]. If Black moves the king’s knight to his bishop’s third square [3…Nf6], in position to capture the opposing king’s pawn, White will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go toward the opponent’s bishop [4.d4]. If Black were to move his bishop to the knight’s third square [4…Bb6], White would take the king’s pawn with the pawn of his queen [5.dxe5]. If Black were to take the opposing king’s pawn with his knight [5… Nxe4], White would take the opposing king’s bishop’s pawn with his king’s bishop, giving check [6.Bxf7+]. If Black took the king’s bishop with his king [6…Kxf7], White would give check with his queen, [moving her] to the fourth square of the opposing queen [7.Qd5+], past the knight, and in this way White would have captured the pawn [dxe5] and made the best move possible. If Black did not take the bishop, but first moved the king to his bishop’s square [6.Kf8], White would move his queen to the third square of his 5. López addresses the reader. In today’s game of chess, the king’s leap to the knight’s square [g1] is the first move in castling. The player then moves the rook to the square over which the king crossed [f1].

128

Book II

king’s bishop [7.Qf3], and Black would play however it wanted, knowing that White would win the game because it knows how to play. This is because, if Black moved his knight to his own fourth square [7… Ng5] to be in a position to attack the queen and the bishop, White would capture the knight with his queen’s bishop [8.Bxg5].6 The opposing queen capturing the bishop [8…Qxg5] and placing herself in position to capture the opposing king’s pawn, White would move his king’s bishop to the fourth square of the opponent’s queen [9.Bd5+], giving discovered check to the king with his queen [f3], which also protects the king’s knight’s pawn [g2]. Black moves the king wherever it wants [9…Ke8]; White gives another check, moving his queen to the second square of the opponent’s king’s bishop [10.Qf7+]. If Black moves his king to the queen’s square [10…Kd8], White will move the pawn of his king’s bishop as far as possible toward the opponent’s queen [11.f4]. In this way, so will end a very good game. Note. When Black moved his king to the bishop’s square, if it had instead moved it to his king’s second square [6…Ke7], White would not move the queen to the third square of the king’s bishop, but instead would move it to the fourth square of the opponent’s queen [7.Qd5], which is better. If Black were to take the opposing king’s bishop’s pawn with his bishop, giving check [7…Bxf2+], White would move his king to the king’s second square [8.Ke2]. If Black were to take the knight with his bishop [8…Bxg1], White would capture the knight with his rook [9.Rxg1]. If Black moved the rook or his queen to the square of his king’s bishop [9…Rf8], White would move his rook to the square of his king’s bishop [10.Rf1]. In this way, knowing how to play different ways, White would win the game. 6. The knight, before White captures it, creates a fork because it can attack either the bishop or the queen.



Book II 129

If Black moves the queen to the square of his king’s bishop [8…Qf8], against the opponent’s bishop before capturing the knight with his bishop, White will move his bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s rook [9.Bh5]. If Black were to take the knight with his bishop then [9…Bxg1], White would capture the knight with his queen [10.Qxe4]. If Black were to give check with his queen to the second square of the opponent’s king’s bishop [10…Qf2+], White would move the king to his queen’s square [11.Kd1]. If Black, in an effort to position pieces in anticipation of check, moves the [queen’s] rook’s pawn one square [11…h6], White will move his queen to the third square of the opponent’s king’s knight [12.Qg6]. If Black moves the [queen’s] rook to his knight’s square in order to protect the pawn [12…Rg8], White will move the queen’s knight to the queen’s second square [13.Nd2]. If Black moves his queen’s knight to his bishop’s third square [13…Nc6], White will move his queen’s knight to the king’s fourth square [14.Ne4], in position to capture the opponent’s queen. If Black took the king’s pawn with his knight [14.Nxe5], placing the knight in position to capture the opposing queen [g6], White would give check with the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [15.Bg5+]. In this way, White can either capture the queen or give checkmate; and Black can play however it likes, but White, knowing how to play, will win the game by force. Note. If White moves his queen to the opposing queen’s fourth square [6.Qd5], where it can attack the opposing knight, it is a very good move to win the game, if the king moves to his second square.

130

Book II

Chapter 6

How Black can arrange his game against the aforementioned moves without the first move White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]; Black makes the same move [1…e5]. If White moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [2.Bc4], Black will make the same move [2…Bc5]. If White moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [3.c3], Black will move his queen to the king’s second square [3…Qe7] so that White cannot move his queen’s pawn as far as it can go, because White does not want to lose the king’s pawn [e4]. In this way, Black will be able to arrange his game well. But if Black did not want to move the queen to the king’s second square, and moved the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [3…Nf6], and if White were to move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [4.d4], Black would capture it with his king’s pawn [4…exd4]. White would take the queen’s pawn with the queen’s bishop’s pawn [5.cxd4], and Black would give check with his bishop to the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [5…Bb4+]. White would protect his king by moving the queen’s bishop to the queen’s second square [6.Bd2]. Black would capture the bishop with his own [6…Bxd2+]. White would capture with the queen’s knight [7.Nxd2], in order to protect the king’s pawn. Black would move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go toward the opponent’s bishop in order to break open the game [7…d5]. In this way, whether White takes or does not take, Black, with his pawns together, will have arranged his game well. White will be left with the queen’s pawn unaccompanied, and can easily lose it.



Book II 131

Chapter 7

Another way to play, opening with the king’s pawn White moves his [king’s] pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black makes the same move [1…e5], White will move his bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [2.Bc4]. If Black moves the king’s knight to his bishop’s third square [2…Nf6], White will move the queen’s pawn one square [3.d3]. If Black moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3…Bc5], White will move his king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [4.f4]. If Black moves his queen’s pawn one square [4…d6], White will move the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [5.Nf3]. If Black moves the king’s knight to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [5…Ng4], White will move his queen to his king’s second square [6.Qe2]. If Black gives check with his king’s bishop to the second square of the opposing king’s bishop [6…Bf2+], White will move his king to the queen’s square [7.Kd1]. If Black were to withdraw his bishop to the third square of the queen’s knight [7…Bb6], White would move his rook to the king’s bishop’s square [8.Rf1]. If Black moves the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [8…Nc6], White will move the king’s rook’s pawn one square [9.h3], placing himself in a position to capture the opponent’s knight. If Black moves the aforementioned [king’s] knight to the third square of his king’s bishop [9…Nf6], White will move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [10.Bb5], placing it in position to pin the opposing queen’s knight.7 7. A pin is a situation in which a defending piece cannot move without exposing a more

132

Book II

If Black moves the queen’s bishop to the queen’s second square [10… Bd7] so that the knight is unpinned, White will take the knight with his bishop[11.Bxc6], and Black will capture the opponent’s bishop with his queen’s bishop [11…Bxc6]. White will take the king’s pawn with his bishop’s pawn [12.fxe5]. If Black captures the pawn with his queen’s pawn [12…dxe5], White would take the queen’s pawn with his king’s knight [13.Nxe5], placing it in position to capture the queen’s bishop. If Black took the opposing king’s pawn with said bishop [13…Bxe4], because White’s queen’s pawn is pinned to his king,8 White would move his king’s knight to his fourth square [14.Ng4], positioning himself to capture the opponent’s knight and then his bishop, and, eventually, the whole game.9 If Black were to make a different move, White, it should be noted, knows how to play and has a much better game Chapter 8

Another way to play, opening with the king’s pawn White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black makes the same move [1…e5], White will move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [2.Bc4]. If Black were to move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [2…Bc5], White would move the queen to the king’s second square [3.Qe2]. valuable piece next to it to capture. After Black moves the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [Nc6], the knight is pinned by the opponent’s bishop [Bb5], because the knight is the only piece between the bishop and the king. When Black moves his queen’s bishop to the queen’s second square [Bd7], however, the bishop unpins the knight, because the bishop is the only piece between the opponent’s bishop and the king. 8. In other words, the pawn cannot move because it is pinned to the king. 9. After White moves his knight to his king’s knight’s fourth square [Ng4], the knight is in position to capture the opponent’s knight [Nf6] and then the opponent’s bishop [Be4].



Book II 133

If Black moves the queen’s pawn one square [3…d6], White will move the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [4.c3]. If Black moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [4…Nf6], White will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it will go [5.f4]. If Black took the king’s bishop’s pawn [5…exf4], White would move his queen’s pawn as far as it can go in the direction of the opposing bishop [6.d4]. Then, he would capture the king’s pawn with the queen’s bishop [7.Bxf4]. If Black, before he captures the pawn, were to take the king’s knight with his bishop [5…Bxg1], White would take the bishop with his rook [6.Rxg1]. If Black were to take the bishop’s pawn with his king’s pawn [6…exf4], White would move his queen’s pawn one square [7.d3], revealing the queen’s bishop on the pawn. If Black were to protect the pawn by moving the king’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go [7…g5], White would move his king’s knight’s pawn one square [8.g3]. If Black took the bishop’s pawn [8…fxg3], White would take the knight’s pawn with his queen’s bishop [9.Bxg5]. If Black were to take the rook’s pawn [9…gxh2], White would capture it with his queen [10.Qxh2]. If Black moves his rook to the knight’s square [10…Rg8], in position to capture the opposing bishop, White would be able to put himself in position to capture two pawns, the king’s bishop’s pawn and the king’s rook’s pawn, by taking the knight with his bishop [11.Bxf6]. Because if Black were to take the rook with his own rook, giving check [11…Rxg1+], White would take the rook with his queen [12.Qxg1]. If Black were to take the bishop with his queen [12…Qxf6], White would give check in the knight’s square [13.Qg8+]. If Black were to move his king to his queen’s second square [13…Kd7] so as not to lose the queen’s bishop, White would take the king’s bishop’s pawn with his queen’s bishop [14.Bxf7].

134

Book II

If Black, in order to avoid checkmate, moved his queen to the king’s second square [14…Qe7], White would take the rook’s pawn with his queen [15.Qxh7]. In this way, it would be able to move freely and have an advantage of one pawn. If White did not want to make this move [11.Bxf6], it could move the king’s pawn one square [11.e5], placing it in position to capture the knight, which is a better move. If Black did capture the king’s pawn with his queen’s pawn [11…dxe5], White would take the king’s pawn with his queen, placing the king in check [12.Qxe5+]. Whatever Black may do, White, knowing how to play, will win the game no matter what. Note. If Black did not move his rook to the knight’s square, but first moved the queen’s knight to the queen’s second square [10…Nd7] in order to protect the king’s knight, White would move the rook to his king’s bishop’s square [11.Rf1], placing it in position to capture the king’s knight. If Black then moved his [king’s] rook to the [king’s] knight’s square [11… Rg8], White would take the rook’s pawn with his queen [12.Qxh7], making it difficult for the opposing king to avoid check. If Black were to take the queen with his knight [12…Nxh7], White would take the king’s bishop’s pawn with his queen’s bishop, placing the king in check [13.Bxf7+]. If Black were to move his king to the bishop’s square [13…Kf8], as it is the only option, White would take the queen with his [queen’s] bishop [14. Bxd8]. In this way, White, knowing how to play the entire game, will have captured three pawns and have an advantage of two pawns, in addition to the better arranged game.



Book II 135

Chapter 9

Another way to play, opening with the king’s pawn White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black moves his king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5], White will move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [2.Bc4]. If Black likewise moves his king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [2…Bc5], White will move his queen to the second square of his king [3.Qe2]. If Black moves the queen’s pawn one square [3…d6], White will move the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [4.c3]. If Black moves the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [4…Nc6], White will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [5.f4]. If Black were to take the king’s bishop’s pawn with his king’s pawn [5… exf4], White would move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [6.d4], placing it in position to capture the opposing bishop. If Black were to give check with the queen from the opposing rook’s fourth square [6…Qh4+], White would move his king to his queen’s square [7.Kd1]. If Black moves the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [7…Bg4], White will move his king’s knight to his bishop’s third square [8.Nf3], protecting it from the opponent’s bishop and positioning it to capture the opponent’s queen. If Black were to take the king’s knight with the queen’s bishop [8…Bxf3], White would take the opposing queen’s bishop with his queen [9.Qxf3].10

10. López informs the reader that Black is able to sacrifice his queen’s bishop in order to capture a knight because he still has the king’s bishop. In addition, López notes that Black and White have the same number of pieces on the board, a reference to the king’s bishop’s pawn, which Black captured earlier.

136

Book II

But if Black did not move the queen’s bishop as we have said, but instead were to withdraw the king’s bishop to the third square of the queen’s knight [7…Bb6], White would move his king’s knight to his bishop’s third square [8.Nf3], placing it in position to capture the opposing queen. If Black moves his queen to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [8…Qg4], protecting his pawn, White will move the [king’s] rook’s pawn one square [9.h3], placing it in position to capture the opponent’s queen. If Black moves the queen to the third square of the aforementioned knight [9…Qg3], still protecting the pawn, White will move the queen’s knight to his queen’s second square [10.Nd2]. If Black moves the king’s knight to his bishop’s third square [10…Nf6], White will move the king’s rook to the king’s square [11.Re1]. If Black moves his king’s knight to his rook’s fourth square [11…Nh5] to protect the pawn, White will move the king’s pawn one square forward [12.e5]. And so, knowing how to play, White should be advised that even if his play is met differently, he will always have a good game. Chapter 10

Another way to arrange the game, beginning similarly White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5], White will move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of his queen’s bishop [2.Bc4]. If Black makes the same move [2…Bc5], White will move his queen to his king’s second square [3.Qe2]. If Black moves the queen’s pawn one square [3…d6], White will move the pawn of his queen’s bishop one square [4.c3].



Book II 137

If Black moves his queen’s knight to his bishop’s third square [4…Nc6], White will move the pawn of his king’s bishop as far as it can go [5.f4]. If Black were to take the opposing king’s knight with his bishop [5… Bxg1], White would capture the bishop with his rook [6.Rxg1]. If Black took the bishop’s pawn with his king’s pawn [6…exf4], White would move his queen’s pawn as far as it can go [7.d4]. If Black were to give check with his queen to the fourth square of the opponent’s rook [7…Qh4+], White would protect the king with his knight’s pawn [8.g3]. If Black took the knight’s pawn with his king’s pawn [8…fxg3], White would take the king’s pawn with his rook [9.Rxg3]. If Black moves the king’s knight to his bishop’s third square [9…Nf6], White will move the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [10.Bg5], placing it in position to capture the opponent’s queen and knight. If Black moves his queen to his rook’s fourth square [10…Qh5] in order to exchange queens, White will move his queen to the second square of his king’s knight [11.Qg2]. If Black moves his king’s knight to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [11…Ng4], White will withdraw the queen’s bishop to the queen’s second square [12.Bd2]. If Black took the rook’s pawn with his queen [12…Qxh2], White would take the knight with his rook [13.Rxg4], winning it. If Black, instead of taking the pawn with his queen, captures the pawn with his knight [12…Nxh2], White will move the king’s bishop to his king’s second square [13.Be2], placing it in position to take the opponent’s queen. In this way, White will win the knight, or the queen if [Black] prefers to keep the knight.

138

Book II

Since we will speak more about this in another game, I will not continue to discuss this way of playing, because, regardless of how the opponent plays, White has a good game if he knows how to play. Chapter 11

Another way to arrange the game, opening with the king’s pawn White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black makes the same move [1…e5], White will move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [2.Bc4]. If Black moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [2…c6], White will move his queen to his king’s second square [3.Qe2]. If Black moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3…Bc5], White will move the pawn of his king’s bishop as far as it can go [4.f4]. If Black took the king’s bishop’s pawn with his king’s pawn [4…exf4], White would move the king’s knight to his bishop’s third square [5.Nf3]. If Black were to withdraw the king’s bishop to his queen’s knight’s third square [5…Bb6], White would move his queen’s pawn as far as it can go [6.d4]. If Black moves the king’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go to protect his pawn [6…g5], White will advance the pawn of his king’s rook as far as it can go to disrupt the opponent [7.h4]. If Black were to advance the [king’s] knight’s pawn one square forward [7…g4], placing it in position to capture the opponent’s knight, White would move his knight to the fourth square of the opposing king [8.Ne5] in order to take the opposing king’s bishop’s pawn. If Black moves his [king’s] knight to the third square of his rook [8… Nh6], White has, of course, many good moves he can make, among oth-



Book II 139

ers pushing the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square to protect his queen’s pawn.11 The move that gives me the most pleasure, because it keeps the enemy constricted, is capturing the opposing queen’s bishop’s pawn with the bishop [9.Bxf4], placing it in position to take the knight. If Black were to take the queen’s pawn with his king’s bishop [9…Bxd4], placing it in position to take the opposing king’s knight, White would advance the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [10.c3], attacking the bishop. If Black took the knight with his bishop so as not to lose a piece [10… Bxe5], White would take the bishop with his bishop [11.Bxe5], placing it in position to take the opposing king’s rook. If Black moves the pawn of his king’s bishop one square toward the opponent’s bishop [11…f6], protecting his rook, White will move said bishop to the opposing queen’s third square [12.Bd6] in order to keep the opponent’s pieces imprisoned. In this way, White, knowing how to play, will win the game easily, despite having one less pawn, because the enemy is in disarray as a result of the position of his king. In addition, Black’s king is unable to find a comfortable place where it feels safe, because it cannot play freely with his pieces. Note. When, near the beginning, White moved the pawn of his king’s bishop as far as it could go, if Black, instead of taking it, had captured the opposing king’s knight with his bishop [4…Bxg1], White would have taken the bishop with his rook [5.Rxg1]. If Black then were to take the bishop’s pawn with his king’s pawn [5… exf4], White would move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [6.d4]. If Black were to give check with his queen from the fourth square of the opposing rook [6…Qh4+], White would protect the king with the knight’s pawn [7.g3]. 11. Henceforth, López offers several variations to the moves he has played to this point in the chapter.

140

Book II

If Black were to take the knight’s pawn with his king’s pawn [7…fxg3], White would capture the knight’s pawn with his rook [8.Rxg3]. If Black moves the king’s knight to the third square of the bishop [8… Nf6] in order to capture the king’s pawn, White, in order to ascertain how much his opponent knows about playing chess, will move his queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [9.Nc3] to protect his pawn. If Black moved the king’s knight to the rook’s fourth square [9…Nh5], in position to capture the opponent’s rook, which is covering the king, White would take the opposing king’s bishop’s pawn with his bishop, giving check [10.Bxf7+]. If Black does not take the bishop, it will lose the knight. If Black captures the bishop [10…Kxf7], it will lose his queen or perhaps even the whole game, because White will move the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [11.Bg5], positioning it to capture the queen. If Black were to take the rook with his knight [11…Nxg3], placing it in position to capture the opponent’s queen, White would move his queen to the third square of the king’s bishop, giving check [12.Qf3+]. On his next move, [White] would capture the queen [with the queen’s bishop] [13.Bxh4]. But if Black were not to take the rook with his knight, instead moving this knight to the fourth square of the [opposing] king’s bishop [11… Nf4], placing it in position to capture the queen, White would give check with his queen from his own bishop’s fourth square [12.Qc4+]. If Black were to protect the king with the queen’s pawn as far as it can move toward the opponent’s queen [12…d5], White would take it with his knight [13.Nxd5]. And if Black took the opposing rook’s pawn with his queen [13…Qxh2], White would take the knight with his bishop [14. Bxf4]. In this way, White, knowing how to play, will win the game in all ways. Note. If Black moved the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square to place it in position to capture the king’s pawn or to threaten the rook, as



Book II 141

we have said, then White would not have wanted to tempt Black by moving the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [9.Nc3], which would give Black an opportunity to flee.12 Instead, White chose to move the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [9.Bg5], placing it in a position to capture the queen and the knight. If Black moves the queen to the fourth square of his king’s rook [9…Qh5] in order to exchange it for the opposing queen, White will not exchange but rather move his queen to the second square of the king’s knight [10. Qg2]. If Black moves the [king’s] rook’s pawn in position to capture the opponent’s bishop [10…h6], White will move the king’s bishop to his king’s second square [11.Be2], in position to take the opposing queen. If Black plays it to the third square of his king’s knight’s [11…Qg6], White plays his queen’s bishop to the queen’s second square [12.Bd2], discovering the rook on the opposing queen. If Black moves the queen to the second square of the king’s rook [12… Qh7], White will move the king’s pawn in position to take the opposing king’s knight [13.e5]. If Black were to move the king’s knight wherever it wants, it will lose the piece or the whole game. But if Black did not move the king’s knight, first taking the opposing queen’s bishop’s pawn with his queen [13…Qxc2], White would capture the knight with the king’s pawn [14.exf6]. If Black were to take the opposing queen’s knight’s pawn with his queen [14…Qxb2], White would capture the opposing knight’s pawn with his pawn [15.fxg7], placing it in position to capture the opponent’s rook. If Black were to move the rook to his knight’s square [15…Rg8], White would give check with his queen from his king’s fourth square [16.Qe4+]. 12. If White, instead of trying to capture the opponent’s queen, moved the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [Nc3], Black would be able to remove his queen from possible capture.

142

Book II

If Black moved the king to his queen’s square [16…Kd8], White would give check once again with the same queen from his king’s rook’s fourth square [17.Qh4+]. In this way, White will have won the game no matter what, and I will not address it more since the moves are evident. Chapter 12

Another way to arrange the game, opening with the king’s pawn White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5], White will move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of his queen’s bishop [2.Bc4]. If Black moves his king’s bishop to the fourth square of his queen’s bishop [2…Bc5], White will move the queen to the king’s second square [3.Qe2]. If Black moves the queen’s knight to his bishop’s third square [3…Nc6], White will move the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [4.c3]. If Black moves the queen’s pawn one square [4…d6], White will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [5.f4]. If Black took the king’s bishop’s pawn with the king’s pawn [5…exf4], White would move the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [6.Nf3]. If Black moves the [king’s] knight’s pawn as far as it can go [6…g5] to protect his pawn, White will move the pawn of his king’s rook as far as it can go [7.h4]. If Black moves the knight’s pawn one square forward, in position to capture the opposing knight [7…g4], White will move the aforementioned knight to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [8.Ng5]. If Black moves the queen’s knight to the fourth square of his king [8… Ne5], in order to protect the pawn of his king’s bishop, White will move



Book II 143

the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [9.d4], placing it in position to capture the opponent’s bishop and knight.13 If Black were to take the opposing king’s bishop with the aforementioned knight [9…Nxc4], White would take the knight with his queen [10. Qxc4]. If Black were to move the queen to his king’s second square to avoid mate [10…Qe7], White would take the king’s bishop with the pawn of his queen [11.dxc5]. If Black moves the pawn of his king’s rook into position to capture the opposing knight [11…h6], White will take the queen’s pawn with his own queen’s pawn [12.cxd6]. If Black captures the queen’s pawn with the pawn of his queen’s bishop [12…cxd6], White will take the king’s bishop’s pawn with his queen, giving check [13.Qxf7+]. If Black captures the queen with his queen [13…Qxf7], White will take the queen with his knight [14.Nxf7]. If Black takes the knight with his king [14…Kxf7], White will take the king’s pawn with his queen’s bishop [15.Bxf4]. In this way, White will have one more pawn than Black and the better game. Note. If when Black moved the queen’s knight, as we have said, it moved instead the king’s knight to his rook’s third square [8…Nh6] to protect the bishop’s pawn, White would have moved the queen’s pawn [9.d4] as far as it can go, placing it in position to capture the bishop. If Black were to withdraw the bishop to the third square of the queen’s knight [9…Bb6], White would capture the king’s pawn with his queen’s bishop [10.Bxf4].

13. This is another example of a fork, because the pawn [d4] can capture either the knight [dxe5] or the bishop [dxc5].

144

Book II

If Black moved his queen to his king’s second square [10…Qe7] to try to win the opposing king’s knight, White would move the king’s rook to the square of his bishop [11.Rf1]. In this way, it will have an excellent game and, knowing how to play, will defeat the enemy. Chapter 13

Another way to arrange the game with the king’s pawn White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5], White will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [2.f4]. If Black took it [2…exf4], White would move the king’s knight to his bishop’s third square [3.Nf3]. If Black moves the king’s knight to his bishop’s third square [3…Nf6], White will move the king’s pawn one square forward, against the opposing knight [4.e5]. If Black moves his queen to his king’s second square [4…Qe7], White will move his queen to the king’s second square [5.Qe2]. If Black moves the king’s knight to the fourth square of his rook [5… Nh5], protecting his pawn, White will move the queen’s knight to his bishop’s third square [6.Nc3]. If Black moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [6…c6] to prevent the opposing knight from threatening the queen, White will move the aforementioned knight to his king’s fourth square [7.Ne4]. In this way, even though White has one less pawn, knowing how to play, he has a good game: White attacks the enemy and Black is constricted. And we have seen enough of this way of playing.



Book II 145

Chapter 14

Another way to arrange the game, beginning similarly and playing as in Italy, where the pawn passes battle White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black moves the king’s pawn as far as it can [1…e5], White will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [2.f4]. If Black took the king’s bishop’s pawn with his king’s pawn [2…exf4], White would move the king’s knight to his bishop’s third square [3.Nf3]. If Black moves the king’s knight to his bishop’s third square [3…Nf6], White will move the king’s pawn one square forward [4.e5], placing it in position to capture the knight. If Black moves the knight to his king’s rook’s fourth square [4…Nh5], White, playing “to pass battle,” will move the king’s knight’s pawn as far as it will go [5.g4].14 But if for this reason Black does not move the knight as said, but first moves the queen to the king’s second square [4…Qe7], White will move his queen to the king’s second square in order to provide protection for the king [5.Qe2]. If Black moves the king’s knight to the fourth square of his queen [5… Nd5], White will move the pawn of his queen’s bishop as far as it can go [6.c4], placing it in position to capture the knight. If Black moves the king’s knight to the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [6…Nb4], positioning the knight to give check, White will move the pawn of his queen as far as it can go [7.d4] to defend a 14. In Italy, players did not observe the en passant capture rule. Instead, they played passar bataglia (to pass battle). Unlike en passant, passar bataglia does not permit a pawn to capture the opposing pawn when it moves two squares from its starting square and could have been captured if it had moved only one square.

146

Book II

likely check with his queen, opening the way for the queen’s bishop to be against the opposing king’s pawn.15 If Black moves his king’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go [7…g5] to protect the king’s pawn, White will move the pawn of his king’s rook one square [8.h3]. If Black moves the queen’s pawn one square [8…d6], which appears to be a good move, White would not take it with the pawn of his king, because he would lose the queen’s rook sooner or later. Instead, he would move the pawn of his queen’s rook one square [9.a3], placing it in position to capture the opposing knight [that could capture the rook later in the game]. If Black moves the aforementioned knight to his queen’s bishop’s third square [9…Nc6], White will move the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [10.Nc3]. If Black were to move his king’s knight’s pawn one square closer [10…g4] to capturing the opposing king’s knight, White would take it with the rook’s pawn [11.hxg4]. If Black took the opposing rook’s pawn with his queen’s bishop [11… Bxg4]—all of these moves seem to be good and attack the enemy—White would move the queen to the fourth square of his king [12.Qe4]. If Black were to take the knight with his bishop [12…Bxf3], White would take the bishop with his knight’s pawn [13.gxf3]. If Black took the king’s pawn with his queen’s pawn [13…dxe5], White would move the queen’s knight to the fourth square of the opposing queen [14.Nd5], placing it in position to capture the opposing queen. If Black moves the queen to her own third square [14…Qd6], which appears to be the best move, White will take the pawn on the king’s fourth square with his queen’s pawn [15.dxe5]. 15. Currently, Black has his knight on [b4] and would be able to give check from [c2]. If Black moved to [c2], White would capture the knight with his queen [Qxc2].



Book II 147

If Black took the pawn with his knight [15…Nxe5] and not with his queen so as not to lose the rook, White, if he knows how to play, would win the game by force either by taking the king’s pawn with his queen’s bishop [16.Bxf4], placing it in position to capture the knight, or by moving the queen’s bishop’s pawn in position to capture the opposing queen [16.c5].16 But earlier, when Black took the knight with his queen’s bishop, if instead of the capture he first moved the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it could go [12…f5] to be in position to capture the opposing queen, and playing, as we have said, “passing battle,” White would take the pawn that is on the fourth square of the king’s bishop with his queen [13.Qxf4].17 If Black took then the knight with the queen’s bishop [13…Bxf3], White would take the queen’s bishop with his knight’s pawn [14.gxf3]. If Black were to take the king’s pawn with the pawn of his queen [14… dxe5], White would capture the opposing king’s bishop’s pawn with his queen [15.Qxf5]. If Black took the queen’s pawn with his pawn, giving discovered check [15…exd4+], White would cover it by moving the knight to the king’s fourth square [16.Ne4]. And thus, although Black has one more pawn, White would have the better game, because his pieces attack the enemy. If the play went differently than what has been said, White should take notice that if he knows how to play, he will win. Black, on the other hand, has no choice but to hope that he wins tomorrow.

16. If Black were to capture the king’s pawn with his queen [Qxe5], the opposing queen would capture his queen [Qxe5], positioning it to capture his rook diagonally [Qxh8]. 17. A player is not obligated to capture a pawn en passant.

148

Book II

Chapter 15

Another way to arrange the game, beginning similarly White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black moves likewise [1…e5], White will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [2.f4]. If Black took it [2…exf4], White would move his king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [3.Nf3]. If Black moves the king’s knight to his bishop’s third square [3…Nf6], White will move the king’s pawn one square [4.e5], placing it in position to capture the knight. If, not playing “passing battle,” Black moves the knight to his rook’s fourth square [4…Nh5], White will move his queen’s pawn as far as it can go [5.d4]. If Black moves the king’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go to protect the pawn [5…g5], White will move the king’s knight to the queen’s second square [6.Nd2], positioning the queen to capture the opposing king’s knight. If Black moves the knight to his second square [6…Ng7], White will move the king’s knight to the fourth square of his own king [7.Ne4]. If Black moves the king’s bishop to his king’s second square [7…Be7] to defend against the knight’s check, White will move the king’s rook’s pawn [8. h4] as far as it can go to break open the game. If Black moves the king’s knight to the third square of his king [8…Ne6], White will move the queen’s pawn one square forward [9.d5], placing it in position to take the knight. If Black moves the knight to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [9… Nc5], White will move the queen’s knight to his bishop’s third square



Book II 149

[10.Nc3] and, knowing how to play, White has a good game regardless of what Black captures or does. Note. If White wanted to test the enemy’s knowledge, it would not move the queen’s knight, as we have said. Instead, it would capture the opposing knight with his knight, having moved first the knight to his king’s fourth square [10.Nxc5]. If Black took the opposing knight with his bishop [10…Bxc5], White would move his queen to the fourth square of the opposing rook [11.Qh5], placing it in position to take the knight’s pawn. If Black moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing queen [11…Bd4], which appears to be the best move, White will capture the opposing knight’s pawn with the pawn of his rook [12.hxg5]. If Black took the opposing king’s pawn with his bishop [12…Bxe5], White would move his rook’s pawn one square [13.g6], discovering his queen against the opposing bishop. If Black moves his queen to the second square of his king [13…Qe7], White will capture the opposing king’s bishop’s pawn with his pawn, giving check [14.gxf7+]. If Black moves his king to his bishop’s square [14…Kf8], White will move his king’s bishop to the king’s second square [15.Be2] in order to remove the king from a discovered check and to vacate the bishop’s square for the king’s rook to attack the opponent. And because the bishop is more useful there. In this way, White, knowing how to play, will defeat his enemy by force, as his position is wrecked.

150

Book II

Chapter 16

Another way to open the game with the kings’ pawns and the king’s bishop’s pawn, beginning similarly White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5], White will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [2.f4]. If Black took the king’s bishop’s pawn [2…exf4], White would move the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [3.Nf3]. If Black moves the king’s knight to his king’s second square [3…Ne7], White will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [4.d4]. If Black moves the king’s knight to the knight’s third square [4…Ng6], protecting the pawn, White will move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [5.Bc4]. If Black moves his queen’s pawn one square [5…d6], White will move the king’s rook to the bishop’s square [6.Rf1]. If Black moves the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [6…Bg4], placing it in position to capture the knight, White will move the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [7.c3]. If Black moves the king’s knight to the fourth square of the opposing king’s rook [7…Nh4], placing it in position to capture the knight and to disrupt his enemy’s game, White will leap to the second square of the queen’s bishop with his king [8.Kc2].18 If Black were to take the opposing king’s knight’s pawn with his knight [8…Nxg2], White would move the rook to his knight’s square [9.Rg1], placing it in position to capture the opposing knight and bishop.

18. López explains the king’s leap, which is not a legal move today, in book 1, chapter 10.



Book II 151

If Black, in order not to lose a piece, were to move the bishop to the opposing rook’s third square [9…Bh3] to protect his knight, White would move the queen to his king’s second square [10.Qe2], placing it in position to capture the knight. If Black were to give check from the opposing king’s third square with his knight [10…Ne3+], White would capture the knight with his queen’s bishop [11.Bxe3]. But if Black moved his knight to the opposing rook’s fourth square [10… Nh4] instead of giving check, White would move his knight to the opposing knight’s fourth square [11.Ng5], placing it in position to capture the bishop and the bishop’s pawn. In this way, White, knowing how to play, will win the game. But if, instead of moving the queen’s bishop to the rook’s third square, Black first captured the opposing knight with his bishop [9…Bxf3], White would take the bishop with his queen [10.Qxf3]. If Black moves his knight to the fourth square of the opposing rook [10… Nh4], White, with his queen, will take the opposing king’s pawn, which is on the fourth square of the king’s bishop [11.Qxf4], placing [the queen] in position to take the opposing king’s bishop’s pawn. If Black moves the queen to his king’s second square [11…Qe7] to protect it, White would move his king’s rook to his bishop’s square [12.Rf1]. In this way, White will capture the opposing king’s pawn by force, and will take the game if he knows how to play, because if Black moves his knight to his own third square [12…Ng3], placing it in position to capture the opposing queen, White will capture the bishop’s pawn with his bishop, giving check [13.Bxf7+]. If Black moves his king to the queen’s square [13…Kd8], White will move his queen to the fourth square of the opposing king’s bishop [14.Qf5]. If Black moves the queen’s knight to the queen’s second square [14… Nd7], White will move the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [15.Bg5], pinning the queen.

152

Book II

If Black moves his queen’s knight to the third square of the king’s bishop [15…Nf6], White will move the king’s pawn one square [16.e5], placing it in position to capture the knight. If Black took the opposing king’s bishop with his queen [16…Qxf7], White would take the queen’s knight with his king’s pawn [17.exf6], placing him in a position to win the game. But if Black did not take the bishop with his queen, but first captured the opposing king’s pawn with his queen’s pawn [16…dxe5], White would take the queen’s pawn with his queen’s pawn [17.dxe5], placing it still in a position to capture the knight. If Black were to take this pawn with his queen [17…Qxe5], White would capture the opposing king’s knight with his king’s bishop [18.Bxg6]. In this way, White will have won the game by force, because even if Black were to give check with his queen from the opposing king’s second square [18…Qe2+], White would cover it by moving the queen’s knight to the queen’s second square [19.Nd2]. If Black took the bishop with his rook’s pawn [19…hxg6], placing it in position to take the queen, White would capture the other knight with his queen’s bishop, giving check [20.Bxf6+]. In this way, White will have the game well in hand. But if when Black captured the pawn with his queen, it had taken instead the pawn with his king’s knight [17…Nxe5], White would have given check from his queen’s square with his rook [18.Rd1+]. Black would be unable to do anything except block it, moving the king’s knight to his queen’s second square [18…Ned7]. White would move the king’s bishop to the opposing king’s third square [19.Be6], placing it in position to capture the knight. In this way, Black is hopelessly lost.



Book II 153

Chapter 17

Another way to begin the game with the same kings’ pawns and the king’s bishop’s pawn White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black moves likewise [1…e5], White will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [2.f4]. If Black took the king’s bishop’s pawn with the pawn of his king [2… exf4], White would move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of his queen’s bishop [3.Bc4].19 If Black moves the king’s knight to his bishop’s third square [3…Nf6], placing it in position to take the opposing king’s pawn, White will move his queen to the third square of his king’s bishop [4.Qf3] in order to capture the opposing pawn and to protect his own. If Black moves the queen to the king’s second square [4…Qe7], threatening the opposing king’s pawn, White will move the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [5.Nc3] in order to protect it. If Black moves his king’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go [5…g5] to protect his pawn, White will move the pawn of his king’s rook as far as it can go [6.h4] to disturb the opponent’s game. In this way, White, knowing how to play, has a good game. Chapter 18

Another way to arrange the game, beginning with the aforementioned pawns White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black likewise [1…e5], White will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [2.f4]. 19. This move is known as the Bishop’s Gambit.

154

Book II

If Black took the king’s bishop’s pawn with the king’s pawn [2…exf4], White would move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3.Bc4]. If Black moves the king’s knight to his bishop’s third square [3…Nf6], White will move the queen, as in the previous game, or if not, then he may move it to the king’s second square [4.Qe2]. If Black moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [4…Bc5], White will move the pawn of his queen’s bishop [5.c3]. If Black moves his king’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go [5…g5] to protect his pawn, White will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [6.d4], against the opposing bishop. If Black were to withdraw his bishop to his queen’s knight’s third square [6…Bb6], White would move the pawn of his king’s rook as far as it can go [7.h4], disturbing the opponent’s game and organizing his own game well. But if Black took the opposing king’s knight with his bishop [5…Bxg1] before it moved the king’s knight’s pawn as far as it could go, White would take the bishop with his rook [6.Rxg1]. Then, if Black moved the knight’s pawn [6…g5] to protect the other pawn, as we said, White would move the king’s pawn one square forward [7.e5], placing it in position to capture the opposing knight. If Black were to return the knight to his own square [7…Ng8] so as not to lose it, White would move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [8.d4]. If Black moves the queen to the king’s second square [8…Qe7], White will move his king’s knight’s pawn one square [9.g3]. If Black were to take the king’s knight’s pawn with his pawn [9…fxg3], White would capture the pawn with his rook [10.Rxg3], positioning it to capture the knight’s pawn.



Book II 155

If Black were to protect the knight’s pawn, moving the rook’s pawn one square [10…h6], White, of course, has good moves, such as his queen to the opposing rook’s fourth square [11.Qh5]. If Black moves the king’s knight to his bishop’s third square [11…Nf6], placing it in position to capture the opposing queen, because White cannot take the knight with his pawn because it is covering his king, White could capture the king’s bishop’s pawn with his queen, giving check [12. Qxf7+]. If Black captures the queen with his queen [12…Qxf7], White would take the queen with his king’s bishop, giving check once again [13.Bxf7+]. If Black takes the bishop with his king [13…Kxf7], White will move his rook to the third square of the king’s bishop [14.Rf3], pinning his knight. In this way, White will have won a pawn, but I do not consider it a good game. Consequently, it would be better not to move the queen to the rook’s fourth square, as we have said, but first to move the king’s rook’s pawn as far as it can go [11.h4]. If Black does not capture the king’s rook’s pawn—so as not to give the opposing rook access to the knight’s second square—but, instead, moves the king’s bishop’s pawn one square [11…f6], White will give check with his queen from the fourth square of the opposing rook [12.Qh5+]. If Black moves the king to his queen’s square [12…Kd8], which is the best possible move, White will capture the knight with his bishop [13.Bxg8], and, knowing how to play, he has the game well in hand. If Black takes the bishop with his rook [13…Rxg8], White will capture the rook’s pawn with his queen [14.Qxh6]. If Black moves the queen’s pawn one square [14…d6], White will capture the bishop’s pawn with his queen [15.Qxf6]. If Black were to take the queen with his queen [15…Qxf6], which is the best possible move, White would capture the queen with his king’s pawn [16.exf6].

156

Book II

If Black were to give check with his rook, moving to the king’s square [16…Re8+], White would move the king to his bishop’s second square [17. Kf2]. If Black were to take the opposing rook’s pawn with his pawn [17…gxh4], White would move the rook to the opposing knight’s second square [18. Rg7]. If Black plays his queen’s bishop to the king’s third square [18…Be6], White plays his queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [19.Bg5]. If Black moves the king’s rook to the king’s bishop’s square [19…Rf8], White will move the queen’s knight to the queen’s second square [20. Nd2]. If Black moves the queen’s knight to the queen’s second square [20… Nd7], White will move the queen’s rook to the king’s square [21.Re1], placing it in position to capture the opposing bishop. If Black were to move the bishop to the second square of his king’s bishop [21…Bf7] to avoid checkmate, White would move the queen’s rook to the opposing king’s second square [22.Re7]. In this way, Black has, perforce, lost the game, because if Black moves the bishop to the king’s square [22…Be8], White will move the pawn one square [23.f7], placing it in position to take the aforementioned bishop, which is hopelessly lost. Chapter 19

Another way to arrange the game, beginning with the same kings’ pawns and the king’s bishop’s pawn White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black does likewise [1…e5], White will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [2.f4].



Book II 157

If Black were not to capture the king’s bishop’s pawn, but moved the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2…Nf6] in order to take the opposing king’s pawn, White could capture the king’s pawn with the pawn of his bishop [3.fxe5], and if Black captured the king’s pawn with his knight [3…Nxe4], White could move the king’s knight to his bishop’s third square, thus arranging his game well [4.Nf3]. If White did not want to play this way, however, it could move the queen’s knight to his bishop’s third square [3.Nc3], protecting the king’s pawn. If Black were to take the bishop’s pawn with his king’s pawn [3…exf4], White would move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [4.d4]. If Black moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [4…Bb4], placing it in position to capture the aforementioned knight, White will move the king’s bishop to his queen’s third square [5.Bd3], protecting the king’s pawn. If Black moved his queen to the second square of his king to take the king’s pawn [5…Qe7], White would protect the pawn, moving the queen to his king’s second square [6.Qe2]. If Black were to move the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [6… Nc6], placing it in position to capture the opposing queen’s pawn, White would protect that pawn, moving the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [7.Nf3]. If Black moves his king’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go [7…g5], White will move the queen’s pawn one square forward [8.d5], placing it in position to take the opposing queen’s knight. If Black moves the aforementioned knight to his king’s fourth square [8…Ne5], White will capture the knight’s pawn with his king’s knight [9.Nxg5]. If Black were to take the opposing queen’s pawn with his king’s knight [9…Nxd5], White would capture the king’s knight with the king’s pawn [10.exd5].

158

Book II

If Black took the opposing king’s knight with his queen [10…Qxg5], White would move the king’s knight’s pawn one square [11.g3]. If Black moves his king to the square of his queen [11…Kd8], White will take the king’s pawn with the queen’s bishop [12.Bxf4]. If Black took the king’s bishop with his knight, giving check [12…Nxd3+], White would take the knight with his queen [13.Qxd3]. If Black were to give check with his king’s rook, moving to his own king’s square [13…Re8+], White would move the king to his queen’s second square [14.Kd2]. If Black moves his queen to the third square of his king’s knight [14… Qg6], in order to exchange queens, White will move the queen’s rook to the king’s square [15.Re1]. If Black were to take the queen with his queen [15…Qxd3+], White would capture the queen with his king [16.Kxd3]. If Black moves the queen’s pawn one square [16…d6], White will take the opposing rook with his rook, giving check [17.Rxe8+]. If Black captures the rook with his king [17…Kxe8], White will give check with the other rook from the king’s square [18.Re1+]. If Black moves the king to the queen’s second square [18…Kd7], White will move his bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [19.Bg5]. In this way, White will win the game. Note. The best move Black could make after exchanging his queen is not to move the queen’s pawn, but first to move the king’s bishop to the king’s second square [16.Be7] so that the opposing bishop could not move to the fourth square of the king’s knight, which, as we have said, is the most troublesome move. If White moves the queen’s rook to the king’s third square [17.Re3] in order to double the rooks, Black will be able to defend itself.20 20. Doubled rooks occur when both rooks are on the same rank or file and not separated by another piece or a pawn.



Book II 159

If White takes the bishop with his rook [17.Rxe7], however, Black would capture the rook with his rook [17…Rxe7]. If White, in order to pin Black’s rook, moves the bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [18.Bg5], Black will move the king to his own square [18…Ke8]. This is the best he can do, as White, knowing how to play, will win by force, taking the rook with his bishop [19.Bxe7] and then giving check with his rook from the king’s square [20.Re1+],21 then playing according to how the opponent plays. Because the moves are evident even to an average player, I will not discuss this game anymore. Chapter 20

Another way to arrange the game, beginning similarly White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5], White will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [2.f4]. If Black moves the king’s knight to his bishop’s third square [2…Nf6], White will move the queen’s knight to his bishop’s third square [3.Nc3]. If Black took the bishop’s pawn with his king’s pawn [3…exf4], White would move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [4.d4]. If Black moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [4…Bb4], attacking the knight, White will move the king’s bishop to the queen’s third square [5.Bd3], protecting the king’s pawn. If Black moves the queen to the king’s second square [5…Qe7], White will move his queen to the king’s second square [6.Qe2].

21. Before the rook places the king in check, the king captures the bishop [Kxe7].

160

Book II

If Black moves the queen’s knight to his bishop’s third square [6…Nc6], placing it in position to take the opposing queen’s pawn, White will not protect the queen’s pawn, as we said in the game before this one, but, instead, it will move the king’s pawn one square forward [7.e5], placing it in position to capture the opposing king’s knight. If Black were to take the queen’s pawn with his queen’s knight [7…Nxd4], placing it in position to capture the opposing queen, White would capture the opposing king’s knight with the king’s pawn [8.exf6]. If Black took the queen with his knight [8…Nxe2], White would capture the opposing queen with his pawn [9.fxe7]. If Black took the queen’s knight with his knight [9…Nxc3], White would move the queen’s rook’s pawn one square [10.a3], placing it in position to take the opposing bishop. If Black withdrew the bishop to his rook’s fourth square [10…Ba5], White would move the queen’s bishop to the queen’s second square [11.Bd2], thus winning a piece. But if Black were not to capture the queen’s pawn with his queen’s knight, but first moved the king’s knight to the fourth square of his queen [7… Nd5], placing it in position to take the opposing queen’s knight, which is pinned by the bishop, White would move the queen’s bishop to the queen’s second square [8.Bd2]. If Black were to take the queen’s pawn with his queen’s knight [8… Nxd4], White would capture the opposing king’s knight with his knight [9.Nxd5], placing it in position to take the opposing queen. If Black were to give check with his queen from the opposing rook’s fourth square [9…Qh4+], White would block the king with the king’s knight’s pawn [10.g3]. If Black took the king’s knight’s pawn with his pawn [10…fxg3], White would move the queen to the second square of the king’s knight [11.Qg2]. If Black were to take the rook’s pawn, giving discovered check [11… gxh2+], White would move the king to his bishop’s square [12.Kf1].

Book II 161

If Black took the bishop with his bishop [12…Bxd2], White would take the pawn with his rook [13.Rxh2], placing it in position to capture the opposing queen. If Black flees with his queen, White would capture the bishop with his queen, thus winning a piece. If Black, before it takes the bishop, took the knight with his pawn [12… hxg1Q+], making it a queen and giving check, White would take the pawn with his queen [13.Qxg1], leaving the rook discovered and in position to capture the opposing queen. In this way, Black has perforce lost the game. Chapter 21

Another way to arrange the game, beginning with the same kings’ pawns and the king’s bishop’s pawn White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black moves likewise [1…e5], White will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [2.f4]. If Black moves the queen’s pawn one square [2…d6], White will move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of his queen’s bishop [3.Bc4]. If Black were to take the king’s bishop’s pawn with his king’s pawn [3… exf4], White would move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [4.d4]. If Black were to give check with his queen from the opposing rook’s fourth square [4…Qh4+], White would move the king to the bishop’s square [5.Kf1]. If Black moves the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [5…Bg4], placing it in position to capture the queen, White will move the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [6.Nf3], protecting his queen and positioning himself to take the opposing queen.

162

Book II

If Black took the aforementioned knight with his bishop [6…Bxf3], White would take the bishop with his queen [7.Qxf3]. If Black moves the king’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go [7…g5] to protect the pawn, White will move the queen to his knight’s third square [8.Qb3] in order to capture the opposing queen’s knight’s pawn or the king’s bishop’s pawn. If Black moves the king, leaping to the queen’s bishop’s square [8…Kc8], White will capture the king’s bishop’s pawn with his king’s bishop [9.Bxf7]. If Black moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [9…Nf6], White will give check with his queen from the opposing king’s third square [10.Qe6+]. If Black moves the king to his queen’s square [10…Kd8] or protects it by moving the queen’s knight to the queen’s second square [10…Nd7], White will move the king’s pawn one square forward [11.e5], placing it in position to capture the opposing king’s knight. This way, White will have won the game irreversibly. Chapter 2 2

Another way to arrange the game, beginning similarly with the aforementioned pawns White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black moves likewise [1…e5], White will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [2.f4]. If Black were to take this pawn [2…exf4], White would move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3.Bc4]. If Black were to give check with the queen from the fourth square of the opposing rook [3…Qh4+], White would move the king to his bishop’s square [4.Kf1].

Book II 163

If Black moves the queen’s pawn one square [4…d6], White will move the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [5.Nf3], placing it in position to capture the opposing queen. If Black moves the queen to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [5…Qg4], White will move the king to the bishop’s second square [6.Kf2]. If Black moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [6…Nf6], placing it in position to take the opposing king’s pawn, White will move the rook to his king’s square [7.Re1], protecting the pawn. In this way, White, knowing how to play, will arrange his game well even if it has one less pawn, because Black, in protecting the pawn, will disorganize his game. Chapter 23

Another way to arrange the game, beginning with the same pawns White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black moves the king’s pawn in similar fashion [1…e5], White will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [2.f4]. If Black took the bishop’s king’s pawn [2…exf4], White would move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3.Bc4]. If Black were to give check with his queen from the opposing rook’s fourth square [3…Qh4+], White would move the king to the bishop’s square [4.Kf1]. If Black moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of his queen’s bishop [4…Bc5], White will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [5.d4], placing it in position it to capture the bishop. If Black were to withdraw the bishop to his queen’s knight’s third square [5…Bb6], White would move the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [6.Nf3], placing it in position to capture the opposing queen.

164

Book II

If Black moves the queen to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [6…Qg4], White will take the opposing king’s bishop’s pawn with his bishop, giving check [7.Bxf7+]. If Black took the bishop with his king [7…Kxf7], White would give check with his knight from the fourth square of the opposing king [8.Ne5+], placing it in position to take the queen as well. If Black does not move the queen to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight, but, first, moves it to the third square of his king’s bishop [6…Qf6], White will move the king’s pawn one square forward [7.e5], placing it in position to take the queen. If Black moves the queen to his bishop’s third square [7…Qc6], placing it in position to capture the opposing king’s bishop, White will move his queen to the king’s second square [8.Qe2], protecting the bishop. In this way, White will recover his pawn and have an excellent game. But if Black does not move the queen to his bishop’s third square, but, instead, moves it to the fourth square of the king’s bishop [7…Qf5], protecting the pawn, White will move the king’s bishop to his queen’s third square [8.Bd3], placing it in position to capture the opposing queen. If Black still wants to protect the pawn, it will move the queen to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [8…Qg4]. White will move the pawn of his king’s rook one square [9.h3], placing it in position to take the queen. If Black were to move the queen to the third square of the aforementioned knight [9…Qg3] in order to protect the pawn, White would move the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [10.Nc3]. In this way, White will have won the queen and the game, moving later the aforementioned knight to either the king’s second or the fourth square, according to how the opponent plays.



Book II 165

Chapter 24

Another way to arrange the game, beginning similarly with the aforementioned pawns White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5], White will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [2.f4]. If Black were to take the king’s bishop’s pawn [2…exf4], White would move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of his queen’s bishop [3.Bc4]. If Black were to give check with the queen from the fourth square of the opposing king’s rook [3…Qh4+], White would move the king to the bishop’s square [4.Kf1]. If Black moves the king’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go [4…g5], White will move the king’s knight to his bishop’s third square [5.Nf3], placing it in position to capture the opposing queen. If Black moves the queen to the fourth square of the king’s rook [5…Qh5], White will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [6.d4]. If Black moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [6…Nf6], White will move the queen to the king’s second square [7.Qe2]. If Black moves the queen’s knight to his bishop’s third square [7…Nc6], White will move the king’s pawn one square forward [8.e5], placing it in position to capture the opposing king’s knight. If Black were to move it to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [8…Ng4], White will move the queen’s knight to his bishop’s third square [9.Nc3]. If Black moves the king’s bishop to the king’s second square [9…Be7], White will move the queen’s knight to the fourth square of the opposing queen [10.Nd5].

166

Book II

If Black moves the king’s bishop to the queen’s square [10…Bd8] to defend against the check and the attack on the rook by the opposing knight,22 White will move his king’s rook’s pawn one square [11.h3], placing it in position to capture the knight. If Black moves the queen’s knight to the fourth square of his rook [11… Na5] in order to capture the opposing king’s bishop, which seems to be a good move, White will move the king to his knight’s square [12.Kg1]. If Black moves the king’s knight, so as not to lose it and the entire game, to the opposing king’s third square [12…Ne3], White will have an excellent game, because he will collect his pawn and be left with the better arranged game and, knowing how to play, will defeat his enemy. Chapter 25

Another way to arrange the game, beginning similarly with the same pawns White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black does likewise [1…e5], White will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [2.f4]. If Black took the king’s bishop’s pawn [2…exf4], White would move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3.Bc4]. If Black were to give check with his queen from the fourth square of the opposing rook [3…Qh4+], White would move the king to his bishop’s square [4.Kf1]. If Black moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [4…Nf6], White will move the king’s knight to his bishop’s third square [5.Nf3], placing it in position to capture the opposing queen. If Black moves the queen to the fourth square of the king’s rook [5…Qh5], White will move the queen to his king’s second square [6.Qe2]. 22. López describes a “fork” here: If White’s queen’s knight were to move to c7, it could offer a simultaneous attack on Black’s king and his queen’s rook.



Book II 167

If Black moved the king’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go [6…g5], White would not move the knight to the fourth square of the opposing king [7.Ne5], even though it seems like a good move, because Black would exchange his queen [7…Qxe2+]. White capturing the queen with his king [8.Kxe2], Black would move the queen’s pawn one square [8…d6], placing it in position to take the knight. If White were to take the king’s bishop’s pawn with the knight [9.Nxf7], Black would move the same queen’s pawn another square [9…d5], placing it in position to capture the opposing bishop, winning a piece, because if White took the rook with his knight, Black would take the bishop with his pawn, leaving the knight hopelessly lost. It is for this reason that I said earlier that White would not move the knight to the opposing king’s fourth square, even though it seemed like a good move. Instead, it will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [7.d4]. If Black moves the queen’s pawn one square [7…d6], White will move the king’s pawn one square forward [8.e5], placing it in position to capture the opposing king’s knight. If Black were to take the pawn with his queen’s pawn [8…dxe5], White would capture the queen’s pawn with his queen, giving check [9.Qxe5+]. Then, White will win a pawn, of the opposing king’s knight or of the opposing queen’s bishop, depending on how the enemy plays. In this way, White will have the better game, and he will defeat [the opponent], knowing how to play. Chapter 26

Another way for Black to arrange the game against the king’s bishop’s pawn’s attack White will move the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. Black, likewise [1…e5].

168

Book II

If White moves the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [2.f4], Black will move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [2…Bc5], because White will not dare to take the king’s pawn since Black would give check with the queen and position himself to win the game.23 White will not dare to capture the king’s pawn, therefore, first moving the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [3.Nf3]. Black will move the queen’s pawn one square [3…d6]. If White were to take the king’s pawn with his bishop’s pawn [4.fxe5], however, Black would capture the bishop’s pawn with his queen’s pawn [4…dxe5]. If White took the queen’s pawn with his knight [5.Nxe5], Black would give check with his queen from the fourth square of the opposing rook [5…Qh4+]. If White protects the king with the knight’s pawn to avoid checkmate [6.g3], Black will take the king’s pawn with the queen, giving check again [6…Qxe4+]. If White protects the king with his queen [7.Qe2], Black will capture the rook with his queen [7…Qxh1]. If White were to give discovered check, moving the knight to the third square of the opposing king’s knight [8.Ng6+], Black would protect his king with the king’s knight [8…Ne7]. If White took the rook with his knight [9.Nxh8], Black would move the queen’s bishop to the third square of the opposing rook [9…Bh3] and exchange the queen and the bishop.24 Black will leap to his knight’s square and soon thereafter capture the knight [Kxh8], and eventually win the game. 23. Today, this opening sequence where Black does not accept White’s pawn sacrifice is known as the King’s Gambit Declined. Instead of capturing the king’s bishop’s pawn with the king’s pawn, Black could capture the king’s knight with his king’s bishop [Bxg1], unless White moves the knight to f3. 24. In order to protect the king, White will not move either the bishop [f1] or the queen [e2]. After White makes another move, Black can capture the bishop with his queen’s bishop [Bxf1]. Then, White will take the bishop with his queen [Qxf1]. Black will capture the queen with his queen [Qxf1], and White will capture the queen with his king [Kxf1].



Book II 169

Note. If, at the beginning, so as not to lose the game, White avoided capturing the king’s pawn, as we have said, but, first, moved the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [4.Bc4], Black would have moved the queen to the king’s second square [4…Qe7], protecting the pawn. If White moves the king’s knight to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [5.Ng5], placing it in position to capture the bishop’s pawn, Black will move the king’s knight to the rook’s third square [5…Nh6], protecting the pawn. If White moves the queen to the opposing rook’s fourth square [6.Qh5], Black will move the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [6…Bg4], in position to take the opposing queen. If White took the bishop’s pawn with his bishop, giving check [7.Bxf7+], a move that will look good to some people, Black would take the aforementioned bishop with his queen [7…Qxf7], winning a piece, because if White were to take the queen with his knight [8.Nxf7], Black would capture the opposing queen with his bishop [8…Bxh5]. If White were to capture the rook with his knight [9.Nxh8], the knight would be lost. In this way, Black would have won a bishop and a knight in exchange for a pawn and a rook, respectively, emerging with the better game because it has one more piece. If White did not want to lose the piece, and moved his queen to the fourth square of his king’s rook [7.Qh4], Black would take the bishop’s pawn with his king’s pawn [7…exf4]. Then, he would move the pawn of his king’s bishop one square [8…f6], placing it in position to capture the opposing knight. In this way, Black will have arranged his game well, based on how the opponent played.

170

Book II

Chapter 27

Another way for Black to arrange the game against the king’s bishop’s pawn’s attack White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black moves likewise [1…e5], and White moves the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [2.f4], Black will capture the king’s bishop’s pawn [2…exf4]. If White moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3.Bc4], Black will move the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [3…c6]. If White moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [4.Nf3] or the queen’s pawn as far as it can go, Black will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [4…d5], placing it in position to take the opposing bishop. If White took the queen’s pawn with his king’s pawn [5.exd5], Black would take the pawn with the pawn of his queen’s bishop [5…cxd5]. If White were to give check with the aforementioned bishop [6.Bb5+], Black would protect the king, moving the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [6…Nc6]. In this way, Black would be able to arrange his game well, depending on how the enemy plays: because if White had moved the queen’s pawn [4.d4], as we have said, and took the king’s pawn with the queen’s bishop [7.Bxf4], Black would give check with his queen from the rook’s fourth square [7…Qa5+]. If White blocked by moving the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [8.Nc3] to protect his king’s bishop, Black would move the king’s bishop against said knight [8…Bb4]. If White were to take the opposing queen’s knight with his bishop, giving check [9.Bxc6+], Black would capture the bishop with his knight’s pawn [9…bxc6].



Book II 171

In this way, Black will be able to connect his pawns and arrange his game well, according to the opponent’s moves.25 Chapter 28

Another way for Black to arrange the game against the king’s bishop’s pawn’s attack White will move the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4], and Black will move the king’s pawn similarly [1…e5]. If White moves the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [2.f4], Black will capture the king’s bishop’s pawn [2…exf4]. If White moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3.Bc4], Black will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [3…f5]. If White were to take the king’s bishop’s pawn with his king’s pawn [4.exf5], Black would give check with his queen from the fourth square of the opposing king’s rook [4…Qh4+]. If White moves the king to the bishop’s square [5.Kf1], which is the best move possible, Black will move the king’s pawn one square forward [5… f3], discovering his queen against the opposing king’s bishop. If White were to protect his bishop or take the king’s knight with it [6.Bxg8], Black would capture the opposing king’s knight’s pawn with his pawn, giving check [6…fxg2+]. If White captures the pawn with his king [7.Kxg2], Black will take the bishop with his rook [7…Rxg8]. In this way, White will be left disorganized, and Black, knowing how to play, will win easily. 25. The player connects pawns when there are two or more pawns of the same color on adjacent files. The connected pawns, which are c6 and d5 in this game, can protect each other. This observation displays a sophisticated positional sense on López’s part and an acute understanding of the strategic possibilities that characterize the game of chess.

172

Book II

Note. If when Black moved the king’s bishop’s pawn, as we have said, White, before capturing the pawn, had taken with his bishop the opposing king’s knight [4.Bxg8], Black, before capturing the bishop, would give check with his queen from the opposing rook’s fourth square [4…Qh4+], and would then play accordingly, depending on how his enemy played. If White moved the king to the bishop’s square [5.Kf1], then Black would take the bishop with his rook [5…Rxg8] and have the better game, and this suffices to defend the aforementioned pawn. Chapter 29

Another way to arrange the game, beginning with the player whose first move is the king’s pawn; the opponent’s is the queen’s pawn White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4].26 If Black moves the queen’s pawn [1…d5], White will be able to advance the king’s pawn another square, which is not a bad move. In my opinion, however, a better move for White would be to capture the opposing pawn, because it wins a move against the enemy [2.exd5]. If Black were to take the king’s pawn with his queen [2…Qxd5], White would move the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [3.Nc3], placing it in position to take the opposing queen. If Black were to return the queen to her square [3…Qd8], White would move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [4.d4]. In this way, White will advance his pieces cautiously on the enemy and arrange his game well, and this is enough explanation for this way to start. With this information, we conclude the ways to arrange a game without advantage, beginning with the king’s pawn and without additional possibilities. Now, we will discuss other ways that Damiano sets 26. Later this variation became known as the Center Counter Game or, in modern times, the Scandinavian Defense.



Book II 173

forth in his book, demonstrating their imperfections and errors, offering alternatives for the attacker and defender both as needed. We will describe and treat them as we have the others, so that they are better understood, and not confusingly as does Damiano, who says, “if you were to move and if he played this move if not if White moved this way, Black would move this other way.” The way we describe it seems to be a clearer and more transparent way for players and beginners.

174

Book II

BOOK III

Chapter 1

Beginning to arrange the game, according to Damiano The first way to begin to play is with the king’s pawn. The second is beginning with the queen’s pawn. The first is better in my judgment, because it is useful to know how to begin with the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5], White will move the king’s knight to his bishop’s third square [2.Nf3]. If Black moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2…Nf6], White will capture the king’s pawn with his knight [3.Nxe5].1 If Black were to take the opposing king’s pawn with his knight [3… Nxe4], White would move the queen to the king’s second square [4.Qe2]. If Black were to withdraw the knight in order not to lose it [4…Nf6], White would give a discovered check with his queen, moving the knight to the third square of the opposing queen’s bishop [5.Nc6+]. But if Black did not withdraw the knight but instead moved the queen to the king’s second square [4…Qe7], placing it in position to capture the opposing knight, White would take the knight with his queen [5.Qxe4]. If Black moves the queen’s pawn one square [5…d6], placing it in position to capture the opposing knight, White will not move the knight, because he would lose his queen. Instead, White will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [6.d4]. If Black moves the king’s bishop’s pawn one square [6…f6], White will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [7.f4].

1. Today, this opening is known in English-speaking countries as the Petrov Defense (and in some languages, as the Russian Game).



177

If Black took the knight with the queen’s pawn [7…dxe5], White would take the queen’s pawn with his queen’s pawn [8.dxe5]. If Black moves the queen’s knight to the queen’s second square [8…Nd7], White will move the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [9.Nc3], protecting the queen. If Black took the pawn with his own pawn [9…fxe5], White would move the queen’s knight to the fourth square of the opposing queen [10.Nd5], placing it in position to take the queen. If Black moves the queen to the queen’s third square [10…Qd6], White will capture the pawn with his pawn [11.fxe5], placing it in position to take the queen. If Black were to take the pawn with his knight [11…Nxe5], White would move the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the king’s bishop [12.Bf4] against the knight, winning it by force. If Black does not take the pawn with his knight, he will lose a pawn. If Black captures the pawn with the queen [11…Qxe5], White will exchange his queen [12.Qxe5] for the opposing queen [12…Nxe5]. Then, White will fork with the knight, giving check and threatening the rook after it captures the bishop’s pawn [13.Nxc7+]. Note. If Black does not capture the pawn,2 but moves the queen to the bishop’s third square [11…Qc6], White will move the king’s bishop to the opposing queen’s knight’s fourth square [12.Bb5], placing it in position to take the queen. If Black took the bishop with his queen [12…Qxb5], White will fork with the knight, giving check and threatening the queen after capturing the bishop’s pawn [13.Nxc7+]. If Black does not capture the bishop, but, instead, moves the queen to the bishop’s fourth square [12…Qc5], White will move the queen’s bishop to the king’s third square [13.Be3], placing it in position to take the oppos2. That is, instead of either Nxe5 or Qxe5.

178

Book III

ing queen, winning it because it is not able to escape. Neither can it give check from the rook’s fourth square, as Damiano says, unless it leaps over the opposing bishop.3 If, when we said Black moved the queen to the bishop’s third square, it had moved it to the fourth square [11…Qc5] instead, White would have moved the queen’s bishop to the king’s third square [12.Be3], placing it in position to capture queen. If Black were to give check with his queen from the rook’s fourth square [12…Qa5+], White would block it, moving the bishop to the queen’s second square [13.Bd2]. If Black were to return his queen to the bishop’s fourth square [13…Qc5], White would move the queen’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go [14.b4], placing it in position to capture the queen. If Black moves the queen to the bishop’s third square [14…Qc6], White will move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [15.Bb5], placing it in position to capture the queen. If Black were to take the bishop, it would lose the queen, White giving check with the knight and threatening the queen, as we have said. But if Black does not capture the bishop, but, instead, moves the queen to the third square of the king’s knight [15…Qg6], White would exchange the queen [16.Qxg6+] and then take the queen’s bishop’s pawn with his knight, giving check [17.Nxc7+] and threatening the rook. In this way, White will have won the game. This manner of playing is Damiano’s teaching, although in different words. Note. What a gallant and beautiful principle for starting is the aforementioned. Everyone who knows how to play a little will appreciate it very well, because it is good for anyone establishing precepts for demonstrating and organizing games not only to show how to attack, but also how to defend. The player desires, if not the most effective way, then at least 3. López notes in the margin: “Oversight by Damiano.”



Book III 179

one that seems to be good. Many players would play this way, which is in contrast to Damiano, who demonstrates ways that never have or will be played. Consequently, he is known by all for his sad way of playing. Note: Furthermore, if Black captures the pawn with his knight, and White moves the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the king’s bishop, the knight is not necessarily lost, as Damiano says, because Black will be able to move the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [12…c6], placing it in position to capture the opposing knight. If White were to withdraw the aforementioned knight to the third square of the queen’s bishop, that would be the best move, because if he played it someplace else, Black would give check with his queen from the fourth square of the opposing queen. The queens would be exchanged and Black would save his knight, but if White moves the aforementioned knight, as it has been said, to the third square of the queen’s bishop [13.Nc3], Black would leap with his king to the bishop’s third square [13…Kf6] to protect his knight. In this way, Black, knowing how to play, will defend his knight, even if it is not a very good game, given that the king is out in the open field. One will risk everything in order not to lose a piece, all the more so when it is evident that the game is not lost yet. If White knows how to attack in the game as badly as Black, following Damiano’s teaching, knows how to defend, Black will save the knight and the game. In order not to dwell on this subject anymore, I will return to the principle of this way of playing, organizing well what both sides can do, beginning the game in the following way.

180

Book III

Chapter 2

Beginning to play, according to Damiano’s first way White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. Black does no more and no less [1…e5]. White moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2.Nf3]. If Black moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2…Nf6], White will take the opposing king’s pawn with his knight [3.Nxe5]. If Black took similarly the opposing king’s pawn with his knight [3… Nxe4], White would move the queen to the king’s second square [4.Qe2], placing it in position to take the knight. If Black moves his queen to the king’s second square [4…Qe7], White will capture the knight with his queen [5.Qxe4]. If Black advances the queen’s pawn one square [5…d6], placing it in position to take the knight, White will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [6.d4]. If Black moves the king’s bishop’s pawn one square [6…f6], placing it in position to capture the knight, White will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [7.f4]. If Black took the knight with the queen’s pawn [7…dxe5], White will take the pawn with the queen’s pawn [8.dxe5]. If Black moves the queen’s knight to the queen’s second square [8…Nd7], White will move the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [9.Nc3]. If Black took the queen’s pawn with the bishop’s pawn [9…fxe5], White will move the knight to the fourth square of the opposing queen [10. Nd5], placing it in position to take the queen.



Book III 181

If Black moves the knight to the third square of the king’s bishop [10… Nf6], it will be in position to attack the enemy’s queen and knight. If White were to give check with the queen from the rook’s fourth square [11.Qa4], it would seem to be a good move, and it is, because if Black protected the king with the queen’s bishop from the queen’s second square [11…Bd7], placing the bishop in a position to capture the opposing queen, White would capture the opposing queen with his knight [12.Nxe7]. Thus, he would win the game, because if Black captures the opposing queen with his bishop [12…Bxa4], White will capture the knight with his king’s pawn, protecting the knight and winning a piece.4 Chapter 3

Another way to arrange the game, beginning with Damiano’s same game White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4], and Black also [1…e5]. White will move the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2.Nf3]. If Black plays likewise [2…Nf6], White will take the opposing king’s pawn with his knight [3.Nxe5]. If Black took the enemy’s pawn with his knight [3…Nxe4], White would move the queen to the king’s second square [4.Qe2]. If Black moves his queen to the king’s second square [4…Qe7], White will take the knight with his queen [5.Qxe4]. If Black moves the queen’s pawn one square [5…d6], placing it in position to capture the opposing knight, White will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [6.d4].

4. White would capture the knight not with the king’s pawn, which Black captured in move 3, but with the bishop’s pawn. First, White would capture the bishop’s pawn with his bishop’s pawn [13.fxe5]. Then, if Black did not move the knight, White would capture it with his bishop’s pawn [14.exf3].

182

Book III

If Black moves the king’s bishop’s pawn one square [6…f6], placing it in position to take the same knight, White will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [7.f4]. If Black took the knight with the queen’s pawn [7…dxe5], White would take the queen’s pawn with his queen’s pawn [8.dxe5]. If Black took the queen’s pawn with the bishop’s pawn [8…fxe5] and White were to take the bishop’s pawn with his bishop’s pawn [9.fxe5], Black would move the queen’s knight to the queen’s second square in order to capture the pawn [9…Nd7]. If White moves the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the king’s bishop [10.Bf4], protecting the pawn, Black will advance the king’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go [10…g5], placing it in position to capture the bishop. If White were to withdraw the bishop to the third square of the king’s knight [11.Bg3], Black would move the king’s bishop to the knight’s second square [11…Bg7]. In this way, Black will have won the pawn by force, although the game is left somewhat disorganized. Note. If, when White captured the bishop’s pawn with his bishop’s pawn, the queen captured the bishop’s pawn instead [9.Qxe5], it would be a better move, because it would leave White with one more pawn. If Black were to exchange the queen [9…Qxe5], White would take the queen with the bishop’s pawn [10.fxe5]. If Black moves the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the king’s bishop [10…Bf5], placing it in position to take the opposing queen’s bishop’s pawn, White will push the aforementioned pawn one square [11.c3]. If Black moves the queen’s knight to the queen’s second square [11…Nd7], White will move the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the king’s bishop to protect the pawn [12.Bf4].



Book III 183

White should not move the king’s bishop to the queen’s third square [11. Bd3] to exchange bishops [11…Bxd3] and to connect the pawns, because, even though it seems like a good move, it is not, for Black would exchange, and, after White captured with his pawn [12.cxd3], Black would move the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [12…Nc6], placing it in position to capture the pawn that is on his king’s fourth square. This is why we said that playing the king’s bishop to the queen’s third square would not be a good move. Instead, it would be more advisable to move the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square. If White moves the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the king’s bishop [13.Bf4], Black will move the queen’s rook to the queen’s square [13… Rd8], placing it in position to capture the other pawn. If White moves the king to protect the pawn wherever it wants [14.Ke2], it will not be able to protect it because Black will move the knight to the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [14…Nb4]. In this way, Black will win the pawn, or the queen’s rook, or the bishop, according to how White moved his king. Consequently, White, knowing how to play, will keep his additional pawn and will win the game. If the game were played in the Italian style that permits leaping, it would not be possible to protect the pawn if Black knows how to play.5

5. Chess historian and scholar Jorge Amador observes: “I suspect that here he means the king’s leap, to e6 in this case, putting a second attacker on the e5-pawn and White has no way to add defenders. But it’s odd that he would stop to point this out, since thus far in the book the king’s leap has always been an option and indeed it’s been used several times” (J. Amador, personal communication, September 23, 2018).

184

Book III

Chapter 4

Another way to arrange the game, beginning with Damiano’s same game White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. Black moves likewise [1…e5]. If White moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2.Nf3], Black will also move the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2…Nf6]. If White took the opposing king’s pawn with his knight [3.Nxe5], Black would move the queen to the king’s second square [3…Qe7], placing it in position to take the knight. If White moves the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [4.d4] to protect the knight, Black will move the queen’s pawn one square [4…d6], placing it in position to capture the aforementioned knight. If White were to withdraw the knight, moving it to the third square of the king’s bishop [5.Nf3], Black would take the opposing king’s pawn with his queen, giving check [5…Qxe4+]. If White protects the king, moving the king’s bishop to the king’s second square [6.Be2], Black will move the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the king’s bishop [6…Bf5], placing it in position to take the opposing queen’s bishop’s pawn. If White were to move this pawn one square [7.c3], Black would move the queen’s knight to the queen’s second square [7…Nd7]. If White moves the queen’s knight to the queen’s second square [8.Nd2], placing it in position to take the opposing queen, Black will move the queen to the second square of the opposing queen’s bishop [8…Qc2]. In this way, it will exchange his queen with the opponent’s queen by force, and will be able to arrange his game well because the enemy will not have an advantage.



Book III 185

This way of playing, knowing how to make corrections, makes it possible to transform a bad beginning into a good game. It is not possible to make corrections, however, with the ones Damiano demonstrates. This is all we need to say for players’ benefit about Damiano’s first way of playing. Chapter 5

Beginning to arrange the game, according to Damiano’s second way White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. Black makes the same move [1…e5]. White moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2.Nf3] to capture the pawn. If Black moves the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2…Nc6] to protect the pawn [e5], White will move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3.Bc4]. If Black moved the king’s bishop to the queen’s bishop’s fourth square [3…Bc5], White would move the queen’s pawn one square, or indeed move the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [4.c3], so that we do not stray from what Damiano says. If Black moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [4…Nf6], White will move the queen’s pawn one square [5.d3], protecting the pawn. If Black moves the queen’s pawn one square [5…d6], White will move the king’s rook to the bishop’s square [6.Rf1]. If Black moves the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [6…Bg4], placing it in position to take the knight, White will move the queen to the knight’s third square [7.Qb3]. White will win a pawn, either the opposing king’s bishop’s pawn, or the queen’s knight’s pawn.

186

Book III

If Black moves the queen’s knight to the rook’s fourth square [7…Na5] to capture the queen or the bishop, White will take the king’s bishop’s pawn with his bishop, giving check [8.Bxf7+]. Black will move his king to its bishop’s square [8…Kf8]. Then, White will move the queen to the rook’s fourth square [9.Qa4]. If Black took the bishop with his king [9…Kxf7], White would take the knight with his queen [10.Qxa5]. Note. If Black did not capture the bishop, but first moved the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [9…c6], White would move the queen’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go [10.b4], because if White moved the bishop, it would lose it, or, even worse, the queen. And so, in said manner White will have won a pawn, because if Black took the bishop with the king [10…Kxf7], White would take the knight with his queen [11.Qxa5]. If Black were to exchange queens [11…Qxa5], [White] should not be afraid to double the pawns [12.bxa5] because even though doubled, it is still one more pawn. All of what has been said is Damiano’s doctrine, although not expressed in these words. Note. To tell the truth, I do not know how much Damiano has won playing this way, because in order to win the aforementioned pawn, he will have doubled pawns two times, to wit, the queen’s knight’s pawn and the king’s knight’s pawn after Black captures the knight with his bishop [12… Bxf3]. In this way, Black, knowing how to play, has a good game, especially if Black did not exchange the queen when White captured the knight with his queen. Black would first move the king’s bishop to his queen’s knight’s third square [11…Bb6], placing it in position to capture the opposing queen. Then, it would take the opposing king’s knight with the queen’s bishop [12…Bxf3].



Book III 187

In this way, White will be disorganized and disjointed on both sides [offense and defense], giving his enemy an opening to confuse him and win the game. Since this manner of playing is Damiano’s most effective way to demonstrate how to play, it is extremely bad for very good players, and even worse for beginners. Since Damiano has not followed the general rules in this game, it is advisable to follow the twelfth rule: not to double the pawns.6 Although it seems that Damiano’s purpose was to win a pawn, it disorganized his game. According to the universal rules he established, Damiano contradicted himself in two ways.7 The first, the king should never be abandoned, and the game should not be altered negatively to capture a pawn, even more so if the player has an advantage in the game. The other, stating that the main thing a player who wants to learn how to play well should do is to put the king where it is safe. Which he cannot do in his main game, because his position is wrecked on both sides and provides the enemy with an easy way to attack. Chapter 6

Beginning to arrange the game according to Damiano’s third way White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black makes the same move [1…e5], White will move the king’s knight to the bishop’s second square [2.Nf3] in order to capture the opposing king’s pawn, if it is not protected.8

6. In Book 1, chapter 27, López addresses why a player should not double his pawns (place two pawns of the same color on the same file). 7. López notes in the margin: “Damiano contradicted himself, ignoring what he showed in his general rules.” 8. The king’s knight moves to the bishop’s third square, not the second.

188

Book III

In order to protect it, Black can do three things: move the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square, and this move is the best one; protect it with the queen’s pawn, which is not as effective because the king’s bishop is shut in; worse is if Black protected it with the king’s bishop’s pawn [2… f6], because White will take the king’s pawn with the knight [3.Nxe5], and if Black took the knight with his bishop’s pawn [3…fxe5], White would give check with his queen from the fourth square of the opposing rook [4.Qh5+], and not the third square, as Damiano says. This error is attributed to the printer or to Damiano’s memory.9 Black can protect the king with the king’s knight’s pawn or move the king to his second square. If Black protected the king with the king’s knight’s pawn [4…g6], White would take the pawn on the opposing king’s fourth square with his queen, giving check [5.Qxe5+]. If Black were to protect the king with his queen [5…Qe7], White would capture the king’s rook with the queen [6.Qxh8]. If Black were to take the opposing king’s pawn with the queen, giving check [6…Qxe4+], White would move the king to the queen’s square [7.Kd1]. Black cannot do harm to the king. It is better for Black to protect the king’s knight and the rook’s pawn, which is lost. If Black moves the knight to the king’s second square [7…Ne7], White will take the aforementioned rook’s pawn [8.Qxh7] and seek to exchange queens, because it will win playing this way. All of these moves are taught by Damiano, but before we move forward with his game in this way, a warning is in order: If when White captured the rook with his queen, Black did not take the opposing king’s pawn with his queen, giving check, as we have said, but, first moved the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [6…Nf6], plan9. López notes in the margin here: “Damiano’s memory lapse.”



Book III 189

ning to trap the queen, White would have moved the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [7.d4] in order to provide an opening for the queen’s bishop, and would not have moved one square in order not to shut in the king’s bishop. It is necessary that the bishops be ready to help the queen. The player should not worry about protecting a pawn, because if the queen is free, he has a much better game than does the enemy, with sufficient advantage to win it. If the game were not played this way, White would see his game in a tight spot. But White can instead open the way for the two bishops: the queen’s bishop to the opposing rook’s third square, where it is in position to capture the king’s bishop, which the queen protects; and the king’s bishop to give check [8.Bc4+] at the right time, after the opposing king moves to the bishop’s second square [7…Kf7]. This latter would not be a good move to make right away, because Black would protect the king by moving the queen’s pawn as far as it can go. If White took the queen’s pawn with his bishop [9.Bxd5+], then, because White could not discover, Black would take the bishop with his knight [9…Nxd5]. The other reason to make the long move with the queen’s pawn is, when it is useful, to move the king’s pawn another square forward, placing it in position to capture the knight, protected by the queen’s pawn. Damiano does not address any of these situations, because they involve the type of game that some players play only against beginners. An experienced player who was known as “the Roman boy” even played this type of game with me. The game took place in Rome at the beginning of the pontificate of Pope Pius IV in the year 1560. Having noted the above, let us return to the purpose of discussing Damiano’s game. Note. If, when White gave check with the queen from the fourth square of the opposing rook, Black, instead of protecting the king with the knight’s pawn, had moved the king to his own second square [4…Ke7],

190

Book III

White would have given check with the same queen, taking the pawn on the opposing king’s fourth square [5.Qxe5+]. If Black moved the king to the bishop’s second square [5…Kf7], which is the only possible move, White would have given check with the king’s bishop from the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [6.Bc4+]. If Black were to protect the king, moving the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [6…d5], it would be his best possible move. If Black did not protect the king, but, instead, moved the king to the knight’s third square [6…Kg6], which is not as good a move, White would give check with the queen from the fourth square of the opposing king’s bishop [7.Qf5+]. The only move Black can make is the king to the rook’s third square [7… Kh6]. White will move the queen’s pawn one square [8.d3+], giving discovered check with the queen’s bishop. Black cannot make any move except to protect the king with the knight’s pawn [8…g5]. White will move the rook’s pawn as far as it can go [9.h4]. If Black does not move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go, it will lose the queen with checkmate coming. Damiano, of course, does not make another reference to the queen. If Black does move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go, placing it in position to capture the opposing bishop and discovering his bishop to the opposing queen, White will take the knight’s pawn with his rook’s pawn [10.hxg5+], giving double check. If Black moves the king to the knight’s second square [10…Kg7], which is the only possible move, White will give check with his queen from the opposing king’s fourth square [11.Qe5+]. The best Black can do is to protect the king with the knight from the bishop’s third square [11…Nf6]. White will capture the knight with the rook’s pawn, giving check [12.gxf6+], and Black will take the rook’s pawn with his queen [12…Qxf6].



Book III 191

White will capture the queen with his queen [13.Qxf6+], and then it will take the queen’s pawn with the king’s bishop [14.Bxd5], leaving it with seven pawns.10 Black will have four pawns. The aforesaid is Damiano’s teaching, although in different words and more clearly shown. In this way, Damiano concludes all of the ways to play and arrange well the games that begin with the king’s pawn. May these ways to arrange the games teach how to play with depth and skill. Each person, I believe, even if he or she is not a good player, will see and understand. Before I discuss the many ways to arrange the games on offense and defense for both sides—beginning them this way, which Damiano began, and in them, showing what Damiano did not discuss or attain—I want briefly to address this last way to arrange the game that Damiano has shown from the perspective of the attacking side, which in Spain is called Damiano’s Gambit Game.11 Since it is long, I will make it its own chapter. Chapter 7

Which addresses the true way to know how to play the gambit game, with a statement about the oversights and errors that Damiano committed in the way he showed how to play this gambit. Stating, lastly, why this game, more so than any other, is called a gambit game, what a “gambit” means, and where the term “gambit” originates White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5], White will move the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2.Nf3], placing it in position to capture the opposing pawn. 10. 13…Kxf6. 11. López first learned of the gambit, a strategy he would popularize, when he visited Italy in 1560.

192

Book III

If Black were to protect the pawn, moving the king’s bishop’s pawn one square [2…f6], White would take the opposing king’s pawn with his knight [3.Nxe5]. If Black took the knight with his bishop’s pawn [3…fxe5], White would give check with the queen from the fourth square of the opposing rook [4.Qh5+]. If Black moves the king to his own second square [4…Ke7], White will take the bishop’s pawn with his queen, on the fourth square of the opposing king, giving check [5.Qxe5+]. If Black were to move the king to the bishop’s second square [5…Kf7], which is the only possible move, White would give check with the king’s bishop from the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [6.Bc4+]. The best move Black can make is to protect the king, moving the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [6…d5], according to Damiano, and here he speaks the truth. It seems, however, he does not know this move is the best one, because if the game were played according to how he demonstrated, it would appear to be the worst move. If White took the queen’s pawn, saying check, with his bishop [7.Bxd5+], Black would move the king to the bishop’s third square [7…Kg6]. If White were to move the king’s rook’s pawn as far as it can go [8.h4], and Black were to move the pawn of his king’s rook one square [8…h6], White would take the queen’s knight’s pawn with his bishop [9.Bxb7]. If Black took the bishop with the queen’s bishop [9…Bxb7], White would give checkmate with the queen from the fourth square of the opposing king’s bishop [10.Qf5#]. If Black did not take the bishop, but first moved the king’s bishop to the queen’s third square [9…Bd6], placing it in position to capture the opposing queen, White would have moved the queen to the fourth square of the opposing queen’s rook [10.Qa5]. Then, White could take the rook or the queen’s knight [11.Bxc6], and the rook’s pawn.

Book III 193

If Black wanted to move the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [10…Nc6], placing it in position to take the opposing queen, and then moved the rook to the aforementioned knight’s square [11…Rb8], White would be left with either an advantage of four pawns and a rook for a knight or an advantage of five pawns because it will keep all of his pawns and Black would be left with only three. Damiano says White would be left with only a three-pawn advantage and no more if the game were played the other way.12 May each person decide for himself if it is better to be left with five pawns or four and a rook for a knight, or to be left with three pawns and no other advantage. If the game is played the first way, knowing how to play, it is beneficial to know that if Black does not protect the king against the opposing bishop’s check with the queen’s pawn, White will win the entire game by force, and not three pawns, as Damiano, not knowing how to play, says. It will happen as follows. After White gives check with the king’s bishop from the fourth square of the queen’s bishop, if Black, instead of protecting the king as mentioned, moves the king to the knight’s third square [6…Kg6], White will not give check with the queen from the fourth square of the king’s bishop—as Damiano, who, having reached this position, says—but, first, before giving check, it will move the king’s rook’s pawn as far as it can go [7.h4].13 If Black moves the rook’s pawn wherever it wants, the game will end in checkmate, because if it moved it one square, it would take the square away from the king, and if it moves it two squares, I mean, as far as it can go [7…h5], White will give check with the queen from the fourth square of the opposing king’s bishop [8.Qf5+]. If Black moves the king to the rook’s third square [8…Kh6], which is the only possible move, White will give discovered check with the queen’s bishop, moving the pawn as far as it can go [9.d4+].

12. López notes in the margin: “Damiano’s mistake.” 13. López notes in the margin: “Damiano did not know how to play the gambit game.”

194

Book III

If Black protects the king with the knight’s pawn [9…g5], White will take the knight’s pawn with the rook’s pawn, giving check [10.hxg5+]. Whether Black takes or does not take the rook’s pawn with his queen, when the king reaches the knight’s second square [10…Kg7], White will give checkmate with the queen from the second square of the opposing king’s bishop [11.Qf7#]. But if, when White moved the rook’s pawn as far as it can go, Black did not move the rook’s pawn, but, instead, moved the [king’s] knight to the rook’s third square [Nh6] to defend against the queen’s check [Qf5+], White would give checkmate with the rook’s pawn [g5#]. And if Black moves the knight either to the king’s second square [Ne7] or to the bishop’s third square [Nf6], White will give checkmate with his queen from the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [Qg5#]. If Black were not to touch his knight and moved the king’s bishop wherever it wanted, White would give check with the queen from the fourth square of the opposing king’s bishop [Qf5+]. If Black moves the king to the rook’s third square [Kh6], which is the only possible move, White will advance the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [d4+], giving discovered check from the bishop. If Black protects the king with the knight’s pawn [g5], White will capture the knight’s pawn with the rook’s pawn, giving double check [hxg5+]. Then, White will give checkmate from the second square of the king’s bishop [Qf7#]. If Black makes none of the aforementioned moves, however, and moves the queen to the third square of the king’s bishop [7…Qf6], White will give check with the queen from the opposing king’s square [8.Qe8+]. If Black moves the king to the rook’s third square [8…Kh6], which is the only possible move, White will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [9.d4+], giving discovered check from the queen’s bishop.



Book III 195

If Black protects the king with the knight’s pawn [9…g5], which is the only possible move, White will take the knight’s pawn with the rook’s pawn, giving double check [10.hxg5+]. If Black moves the king to the knight’s second square [10…Kg7], which is the only move, White will take the queen with the pawn and give check [11.gxf6+]. Whichever way Black took, White would give checkmate with the queen from the second square of the opposing king’s bishop [12.Qf7#]. If Black did not move the queen to the bishop’s third square, but, instead, moved it to the king’s second square [7…Qe7], White would give check with the rook’s pawn [8.h5+]. Black moves the king to the rook’s third square [8…Kh6], White will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [9.d4+], giving discovered check from the bishop. If Black moves the knight’s pawn as far as it can go [9…g5], White will capture the knight’s pawn en passant with the rook’s pawn [10.hxg6+], giving discovered check from his rook. If Black takes the rook’s pawn with his king [10…Kxg6], which is the only possible move, White will give check with the queen from the third square of his king’s knight [11.Qg3+]. Black has nothing other than to move the king to the bishop’s third square [11…Kf6], and White will give checkmate with his queen from the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [12.Qg5#]. Thus, in all these lines Black is checkmated. If the game were played in “passing battle” style, when Black moves the queen to the king’s second square [7…Qe7], White will give check not with his rook’s pawn, but, rather, with the queen from the opposing king’s bishop’s fourth square [8.Qf5+].

196

Book III

If Black moves the king to the rook’s third square [8…Kh6], White will give check with the queen’s bishop, moving the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [9.d4+]. If Black protects the king with the knight’s pawn [9…g5], White will capture the king’s knight’s pawn with the queen’s bishop, giving check once again [10.Bxg5+]. If Black moves the king to the knight’s second square [10…Kg7], White will take the queen with his bishop [11.Bxe7]. Whatever piece Black captured the bishop with, White would give check with the queen from the second square of the opposing king’s bishop [12. Qf7+]. Black has no move other than to the rook’s third square [12…Kh6]. White will move his king’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go [13.g4]. In this way, White, knowing how to play, will give checkmate by force. Since the moves are evident, I will not discuss them anymore. There is another way by which White could take the queen and not lose the bishop, giving check with the queen from the third square of the king’s knight [Qg3+] when it gave check from the fourth square of the opposing king’s bishop [Qf5+]. This is not necessary, however, since we gave checkmate as we said. I wanted to address it, though, so that no one would believe this was overlooked, just as in other games we did not make some other moves that to other players might seem good. To return to the subject, if, when White moved the rook’s pawn as far as it can go, Black did not make any of the aforementioned moves, but, instead, moved the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [7…d5] against the bishop in order to make sure that White cannot give check with the queen from the fourth square of Black’s king’s bishop, which is the best possible move Black can make, White will give check with the rook’s pawn [8.h5+].



Book III 197

If Black were to move the king to the bishop’s second square [8…Kf7], White would capture the queen’s pawn with his bishop, giving check [9.Bxd5+]. In this way, Black, in order to avoid checkmate, will lose the queen.14 If Black does not move the king to the bishop’s second square, but, instead, moves it to his rook’s third square [8…Kh6], White will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [9.d4+], giving discovered check with the queen’s bishop. If Black moves the [king’s] knight’s pawn as far as it can go [9…g5], White will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [10.f4], placing it in position to take the knight’s pawn and to give checkmate. If Black, in order to avoid checkmate, moves the king’s bishop to the king’s second square [10…Be7], which is the best possible move, White will take the queen’s pawn with his king’s bishop [11.Bxd5]. If Black moves the same king’s bishop to his own third square [11…Bf6], placing it in position to take the opposing queen, which seems to be a good move, White will capture the knight’s pawn with his bishop’s pawn, giving check [12.fxg5+]. If Black were to take the bishop’s pawn with his bishop [12…Bxg5], White would take the rook with his queen [13.Qxh8], attacking the knight. If Black took the opposing queen’s bishop with his bishop [13…Bxc1], White would take the opposing king’s knight with the king’s bishop [14. Bxg8] in order to capture the rook’s pawn with his queen, giving checkmate or winning the whole game. If Black, in order to defend against checkmate, moves the queen to the king’s second square [14…Qe7], White will take the rook’s pawn with his bishop [15.Bxh7], protecting the king’s pawn.

14. 9…Qxd5 10.Qxd5+

198

Book III

If Black were to take said bishop with his queen [15…Qxh7], White would give checkmate with the queen from the third square of the opposing king’s bishop [16.Qf6#].15 In this way, whether Black captures or does not capture, White, knowing how to play, will win the game without fail. But if, when White captured the knight’s pawn with the king’s bishop’s pawn, Black had not taken the king’s bishop’s pawn, as we said, but, instead, had moved the king to the knight’s second square [12…Kg7], White would have given another check with the rook’s pawn from the opposing rook’s third square [13.h6+]. If Black moves the king to the knight’s third square [13…Kg6], White will take the opposing king’s bishop with the king’s bishop’s pawn [14.gxf6]. If Black took the king’s bishop’s pawn with his queen [14…Qxf6], White would give checkmate with the queen from the opposing rook’s fourth square [15.Qh5#]. If Black took the king’s bishop’s pawn with the knight [14…Nxf6], White would give checkmate with the queen from the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [15.Qg5#]. But if, when White gave check with the rook’s pawn, Black moved the king to his bishop’s square [13…Kf8], White would capture the bishop with the king’s bishop’s pawn [14.gxf6]. If Black were to take the king’s bishop’s pawn with the king’s knight [14… Nxf6], which is better than with the queen, so that it does not get pinned, White would move the rook to the king’s bishop’s square [15.Rf1], pinning the knight. If Black moves the queen’s knight to the queen’s second square [15…Nd7], protecting the knight and placing it in position to take the opposing queen, White will move the queen to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [16.Qg5]. 15. Since Black can interpose Qg6, checkmate is not possible until after Qxg6#.



Book III 199

Now, whether Black moves the queen to the king’s second square or the king to his own square [16…Ke8], White will push the king’s pawn one square [17.e5], against the knight, winning the knight and the whole game. If Black took the opposing king’s bishop with the knight [17…Nxd5], White would give check with the queen from the opposing rook’s fourth square [18.Qh5+], and then give checkmate with the same queen from the second square of the king’s bishop [19.Qf7#].16 Now, may all players see if Damiano understood this way of playing, because he was unable to say that he was left with an advantage of more than three pawns. This seems to me to be enough to say in order to play this gambit, because if it is played another way Black will lose sooner, if White is careful not to make an error or to forget the moves that we have shown and at the appropriate time. Now, to conclude what we have said in this chapter, it is useful to state what “gambit” means, what word it is, and why, more than others, this game is called Damiano’s Gambit Game. The following is a lesson. Note. With respect to the last thing we promised to discuss in this chapter, it is useful to know that this term “gambit” derives from the Italian language. “Gamba” for the Italians means “pierna” [leg] in Spanish, and “gambitare” means in our Castilian “armar zancadilla” [to set a trap]. The gambit game means a game of traps and pitfalls, because in all of the games that Damiano composed, he did not compose or arrange any other game involving more skill or snares than this game.

16. López implies that Black moves his king to e7 [18…Ke7] before White gives checkmate.

200

Book III

Chapter 8

Another way to begin the game on offense and defense, beginning with the moves from Damiano’s second and third games White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. Black plays the same [1…e5]. White will move the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2.Nf3], placing it in position to capture the opposing king’s pawn. If Black does not protect the king’s pawn, which it can in one of five ways [three ways with pieces and two with pawns], and not only the three Damiano showed in his gambit game, as we stated above, one with a piece and the other two with pawns.17 Since previously we addressed the ways in which Damiano protects the king’s pawn, here we will address my ways to protect the pawn. We will arrange a game and demonstrate the disadvantages and advantages of each way for the players. In addition, we will reveal which way is the best and safest to protect the pawn for the good players as well as for the players who know little. I say that the pawn can be protected in five ways. It is useful to know the first, which is moving the queen’s knight to its bishop’s third square [2…Nc6]. Damiano believes that this move is the best one to protect the pawn, because he does not understand the problems and disadvantages that could arise if the opponent knows how to play a different way than Damiano demonstrates. We will see as the game progresses. The second way is moving the queen’s pawn one square [2…d6], a move that Damiano does not consider as effective, as we will show in due time. The third way is moving the queen’s bishop’s pawn [2…f6], a move that Damiano considers the worst because his gambit game is based on this 17. López notes in the margin: “Damiano miscalculates how to protect the king’s pawn from the opposing king’s knight.”



Book III 201

move against the opponent. If the player makes a different move, the game will not end as Damiano describes. The fourth way is moving the queen to the king’s second square [2…Qe7]. The fifth way is moving the king’s bishop to the queen’s third square [2… Bd6]. Now that we have listed them in general, we will discuss each one in detail, as we promised. The first is moving the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2… Nc6]. If White moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3.Bc4], Black similarly will move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3…Bc5]. If White moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [4.c3], Black will not move the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [Nf6] as Damiano says. Instead, he will first move the queen to the king’s second square [4…Qe7], in order to protect her king from that square and in order not to give an advantage to his enemy—which could include some moves that Damiano has not shown, namely the queen’s pawn, if it were moved as far as it can go and placed in position to capture the opposing king’s bishop. Now, if White moves the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [5.d4], Black will capture it with the king’s pawn [5…exd4]. If White were to take the king’s pawn with the queen’s bishop’s pawn [6.cxd4], maintaining the threat to the opposing king’s bishop, Black would capture the king’s pawn with his queen, giving check [6…Qxe4+]. If White were to move the king to the queen’s second square [7.Kd2], Black would give check with the bishop from the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [7…Bb4+]. Then, Black will take care to prevent his enemy from pinning the queen. If White did not want to move his king and blocked the queen’s check with the queen’s bishop from the king’s third square [7.Be3], Black would give the aforementioned check with the king’s bishop [7…Bb4+] to protect his. Then, Black will ensure that White will not be able to take the

202

Book III

king’s bishop’s pawn with his bishop, giving check, when if Black took the king’s bishop with his king, White would move his knight to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight, giving check. If White does not move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go, in order not to lose the king’s pawn, as we said, but first moves the aforementioned queen’s pawn one square [5.d3], Black will move the queen’s pawn one square [5…d6] to protect the king’s pawn and to make way for the queen’s bishop. If White moves the king’s knight to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [6.Ng5], placing it in position to take the king’s bishop’s pawn, Black will protect the king’s bishop’s pawn, moving the queen’s knight to the queen’s square [6…Nd8]. In this way, Black will be able to arrange his game well, and neither offense nor defense thus having an advantage, the side that knows how to play best will win. Chapter 9

Another way to begin the game on offense and defense, beginning with Damiano’s method White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. Black makes the same move [1…e5]. If White moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2.Nf3], placing it in position to capture the pawn, Black will protect it with the first way, moving the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2…Nc6]. If White moves the king’s bishop, not to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop, as Damiano says, but, rather, to the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [3.Bb5], placing it in position to capture the knight.18

18. The “Ruy López” opening.



Book III 203

If Black moves the queen’s pawn one square [3…d6] to protect the pawn, the king’s bishop will be shut in, as Damiano says, and there will be another drawback still: White will take the knight with his bishop [4.Bxc6+], causing Black to double his pawn [4…bxc6]. Then, White will advance the queen’s pawn as far as it can go to disrupt his enemy’s game [5.d4]. Thus, protecting the king’s pawn with the queen’s knight, as Damiano says, will not have been a good way to play, because Damiano did not consider that the enemy would play the king’s bishop more effectively, threatening the queen’s knight from the fourth square of the aforementioned knight instead of the fourth square of the queen’s bishop. Let’s put forth other ways to arrange the game, and we will see what happens with the move that Damiano considered the best one. Chapter 10

Another way to attack and to defend the game, beginning like Damiano White will move the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. If Black moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5], White will move the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2.Nf3], placing it in position to capture the pawn. If Black were to protect the king’s pawn, moving the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2…Nc6], White would move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [3.Bb5], placing it in position to take the aforementioned knight. Black moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3…Bc5] so that it is not shut in. If White took the queen’s knight with the king’s bishop [4.Bxc6], Black would take the king’s bishop with the queen’s pawn [4…dxc6], which is better than with the knight’s pawn, as we will see later.

204

Book III

If White were to take the opposing king’s pawn with the king’s knight [5.Nxe5], Black would capture the opposing king’s bishop’s pawn with the king’s bishop, giving check [5…Bxf2+]. If White took the bishop with his king [6.Kxf2], Black would give check with his queen from the opposing queen’s fourth square [6…Qd4+]. Then, it would take the knight with his queen. In this way, Black will be better because it has an advantage of one move when the time comes. White cannot leap because it moved the king, which matters now because both sides have their queen, and Black will be able to attack more easily. But if, despite having a good game here, Black preferred not to exchange of the king’s bishop, then when White captured the king’s pawn with his knight, Black could move the queen to the fourth square of the opposing queen [5…Qd4], threatening the knight and the opposing king’s bishop’s pawn. If White moves the knight to the knight’s fourth square [6.Ng4], Black will not capture the knight with the queen’s bishop: even though it looks like a good move, it is not, because it is better to take the king’s pawn with the queen, giving check [6…Qxe4+]. If White moves the king or protects it with the queen, it will lose the knight, and if White protected the king with the knight from the king’s third square [7.Ne3], Black would take the knight with the king’s bishop [7…Bxe3]. If White took the bishop with the queen’s pawn [8.dxe3], Black would take the knight’s pawn with his queen [8…Qxg2], placing it in a position to take the rook. If White moves the rook to the bishop’s square [9.Rf1], Black will move the queen’s bishop to the opposing rook’s third square [9…Bh3], winning the game.



Book III 205

And if White did not take the bishop with the queen’s pawn, but rather with the king’s bishop’s pawn [8.fxe3], Black would take the knight’s pawn with his queen [8…Qxg2], placing it in position to capture the rook. If White moves the rook to the bishop’s square [9.Rf1], Black will move the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [9… Bg4], placing it in position to capture the queen, winning the game by force. If, in order to avoid the aforementioned moves, White does not move the knight to the knight’s fourth square, but, instead, moves it to the queen’s third square [6.Nd3], guarding against checkmate and placing it in a position to take the opposing bishop, Black will capture the king’s pawn with his queen, giving check [6…Qxe4+]. If White protects the king with his queen [7.Qe2], which is the best possible move, Black will capture the queen [7…Qxe2+]. Once White takes the queen with his king [8.Kxe2], Black will withdraw his bishop to the third square of the queen’s knight [8…Bb6]. If White moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [9.c4] in order to capture the bishop or to trap it, which appears to be a good move, Black will move the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of his own king’s bishop [9…Bf5], in order to take the opposing king’s knight and then, with the other bishop, Black could take the opposing king’s bishop’s pawn [Bxf2]. If White, in order to solve all of this, moves the aforementioned knight to his king’s square [10.Ne1], making it possible for the queen’s bishop to move unimpeded, Black will move the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [10…Nf6]. If White moves the queen’s pawn one square [11.d3], Black will leap his king to the knight’s third square [11…Kg6]. If White moves the queen’s bishop to the king’s third square [12.Be3] to exchange bishops and cluster the pawns, or to capture the opponent’s bishop if he is careless, which seems to be a good move, Black will move

206

Book III

the king’s rook to the king’s square [Rhe8] so that the queen’s bishop cannot discover the king. If White, in order to remove the pin, moves the king to the queen’s second square [13.Kd2], Black will take the bishop with his bishop [13… Bxe3+]. White capturing the bishop with the king’s bishop’s pawn [14.fxe3], Black will move the queen’s rook to the queen’s square [14…Rad8] to win the game. If White moves the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [15.Nc3], Black will move the king’s knight to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [15…Ng4]. If White moves the queen’s knight to the queen’s square [16.Nd1] to protect the pawn that is on the king’s third square, Black will move the king’s knight to the king’s fourth square [16…Ne5], placing it in position to capture the queen’s pawn. In this way, Black will have won the game. If, when Black moved the queen’s rook to the queen’s square, White did not move the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square, but, first, moved the king to his own second square [15.Ke2] to remove the pin, Black would have moved the king’s knight to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [15…Ng4], placing it in position to take the king’s pawn. If White were to advance the king’s pawn one square [16.e4], placing it in position to take the opponent’s queen’s bishop, Black would capture the king’s pawn with the bishop [16…Bxe4]. If White were to take the bishop with the queen’s pawn [17.dxe4], Black would take the queen’s pawn with the king’s rook, giving check [17… Rxe4+]. If White moves the king to the bishop’s third square [18.Kf3], placing it in position to capture the opponent’s rook and knight, Black will give check with the same rook from the third square of the opposing king [18…Re3+].

Book III 207

If White took the knight with his king [19.Kxg4] or moved the king to the bishop’s fourth square [19.Kf4], which is the only other possibility, Black would give checkmate with the queen’s rook from the fourth square of the opposing queen [19…Rd4#]. If, when Black gave check with the rook, White did not move the king to the bishop’s third square, but, first, moved the king to the square of his own bishop [f1], Black would have moved the queen’s rook to the opposing queen’s square In this way, White, attacking in this manner, will have lost because he did not know how to attack the enemy, and because he captured the king’s pawn with the knight at the beginning. Despite this, White could have a good game, for when Black moved the king’s rook to the king’s square [12.Rhe8], White could have moved the king’s rook’s pawn one square [13.h3], so that the opposing king’s knight could not move to the king’s knight’s fourth square, against the bishop, before White loses the king’s rook’s pawn. Black could then move this knight to the rook’s fourth square [13…Nh5], which seems to be a good move but is not, because White would advance the king’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go [14.g4], placing it in position to capture the opposing knight and bishop. In this way, White will have won a piece, and, knowing how to play, the game. Chapter 11

Another way to attack and to defend, beginning with Damiano’s aforementioned method White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. Black makes the same move [1…e5], and White moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2.Nf3], placing it in position to capture the opposing pawn.

208

Book III

If Black moves the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2…Nc6] in order to protect the king’s pawn, still according to Damiano’s first method, White will move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [3.Bb5], threatening said knight. If Black moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3…Bc5], White will not capture the knight with his bishop, as in the previous game, but will first move the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [4.c3]: first, so that if White were to take the knight [with his bishop] and then the king’s pawn with his knight, Black could not move with his queen to the opposing queen’s fourth square, as in the aforementioned game; and, second, to disrupt the enemy by advancing the queen’s pawn as far as it can go, depending on how the opponent moves. If Black moves the queen’s pawn one square [4…d6], White will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [5.d4], against the opposing king’s bishop. If Black were to withdraw the bishop to the third square of the queen’s knight [5…b6], it will have lost the knight, because White would advance the queen’s pawn another square [6.d5], placing it in position to take the knight, which is pinned by the king’s bishop.19 But if Black does not withdraw the bishop, but first captures the pawn with the king’s pawn [5.exd4], White will take the king’s pawn with the queen’s bishop’s pawn [6.cxd4]. If Black were to give check with the bishop from the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [6…Bb4+], White would protect the king with the knight from the bishop’s third square [7.Nc3]. If Black moves the queen’s bishop to his own queen’s second square [7…Bd7] because of the pin, White will move the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [8.Bg5] against the opposing queen, in order to disorganize his enemy: for if Black moves the king’s bishop’s pawn one square [f6] against the bishop, he will not be able to 19. The king’s bishop on b5 has Black’s knight on c6 in an “absolute pin.” The knight cannot legally move without placing the king in check.



Book III 209

create good moves for his pieces; while if Black moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [8…Nf6], White will move the queen to her own third square [9.Qd3]. If Black moves the queen to the king’s second square [9…Qe7], White will move the king’s knight to the queen’s second square [10.Nd2], in order to protect the king’s pawn, and so that White can move the queen’s knight wherever and whenever it wishes. If Black were to take the queen’s knight with the king’s bishop [10…Bxc3], White would capture the king’s bishop with the queen’s knight’s pawn [11.bxc3]. In this way, White will have a great advantage with respect to the arrangement of the game. And from this we see that it is not such a good idea to protect the king’s pawn with the queen’s knight from the bishop’s third square, as Damiano naively believed, because he did not note the move of the opposing king’s bishop, which, as we said, places it in a position to take the knight. Chapter 12

Another way for Black to arrange the game against the aforementioned attack White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. Black makes the same move [1…e5]. If White moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2.Nf3], placing it in position to capture the pawn, Black will protect it still according to Damiano’s first method, moving the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2…Nc6]. If White moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [3.Bb5], placing it in position to take the knight, Black will move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3… Bc5]. If White moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [4.c3], Black will move the king’s knight to the second square of his own king [4…Nge7].

210

Book III

If White moves the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [5.d4], placing it in position to take the opposing bishop, Black will capture the queen’s pawn with the king’s pawn [5…exd4]. If White were to take the king’s pawn with the queen’s bishop’s pawn [6.cxd4], Black would give check with his bishop from the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [6…Bb4+]. If White blocks with the queen’s knight from the bishop’s third square [7.Nc3], Black will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [7…d5] in order to break the game open. If White took the queen’s pawn with the king’s pawn [8.exd5], Black would take the king’s pawn with his queen [8…Qxd5], and, in this way, arrange his game well. White will be left with the unaccompanied queen’s pawn. But if White does not capture the queen’s pawn with the king’s pawn, but instead moves the king’s pawn one square forward [8.e5], Black will move the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [8… Bg4] in order to capture the knight. In this way, Black, taking care to place his king in a safe area, will have a good game, provided that he knows how to play well, because White is somewhat freer since the queen’s knight keeps an eye on the pawn. Chapter 13

Another way for Black to arrange the game against the aforementioned attack White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. Black moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5]. If White moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2.Nf3], placing it in position to capture the pawn, Black will still protect the pawn with the queen’s knight from the bishop’s third square [2…Nc6].



Book III 211

If White moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [3.Bb5], placing it in position to capture the knight, Black will move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3… Bc5]. If White moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [4.c3], Black will move the king’s knight to the king’s second square [4…Nge7], so that if White were to take the [queen’s] knight with his bishop, Black would take the bishop with the king’s knight, keeping the king’s pawn protected. If White does not take the knight with his bishop, but, first, moves the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [5.d4], placing it in position to capture the bishop, Black would take the queen’s pawn with the king’s pawn [5… exd4]. If White took the king’s pawn with the queen’s bishop’s pawn [6.cxd4], Black would retreat his bishop to the third square of the queen’s knight [6…Bb6]. If White were to advance the queen’s pawn one square [7.d5], placing it in position to capture the opposing queen’s knight, Black, to avoid losing the queen’s knight, would withdraw it to his own square [7…Nb8]. If White moves the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [8.Nc3], Black will move the king’s rook to the bishop’s square [8…Rf8] for transposition. If White moves the king’s knight to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [9.Ng5] to capture the rook’s pawn, Black will move the rook’s pawn one square [9…h6], placing it in position to take the knight. If White returns the knight to the third square of the king’s bishop [10. Nf3], Black will move the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [10…c6], placing it in position to capture the opposing bishop. If White were to withdraw the bishop to the rook’s fourth square [11. Ba4], Black would move the queen’s pawn one square [11…d6]. In this way, White, knowing how to play, will arrange his game well.

212

Book III

Note. If, instead of moving the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square, White first moved the queen’s pawn another square forward [8.d6], placing it in position to take the opposing king’s knight, Black would capture the queen’s pawn with the queen’s bishop’s pawn [8…cxd6]. If White were to take the queen’s bishop’s pawn with his queen [9.Qxd6], Black would move the queen to the second square of the queen’s bishop [9…Qc7] to exchange the queens, because after the exchange Black would be able to arrange his game better. If White does not want to exchange his queen, to protect the queen’s bishop, he should move the queen to the queen’s second square, which obstructs the bishop. If White moves the queen to his own square [10.Qd1], it will lose the game, because Black will move the queen to the bishop’s fourth square [10…Qc5], placing it in position to capture the opposing king’s bishop and the king’s bishop’s pawn to give checkmate. Thus, either it will be checkmate or White will lose one of his bishops.20 Chapter 14

Another way for Black to arrange the game against the aforementioned attack White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. Black makes the same move [1…e5]. If White moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2.Nf3] to capture the opposing pawn, Black will still protect it moving the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2…Nc6].

20. With respect to López’s conclusion, Jorge Amador notes: “Ruy’s conclusion is not totally accurate, for White here could play the KB [king’s bishop] back to e2, which saves both bishops and also prevents mate, albeit at the cost of two pawns [f2 and g2 or e4]” (J. Amador, personal communication, September 23, 2018).



Book III 213

If White moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [3.Bb5], placing it in position to take the knight, Black will move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3… Bc5]. If White moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [4.c3], Black will move his queen to the king’s second square [4…Qe7]. If White took the queen’s knight with his bishop [5.Bxc6], Black will take the bishop with the queen’s pawn [5…dxc6] so as not to disorganize his game and to provide an opening for the queen’s bishop. The player should understand that the aforementioned moves do not contradict the general advice that discourages doubled pawns, because the doubled pawns permit Black to arrange his game well and to prevent enemy incursions. Black necessarily doubles the queen’s pawn because he knows how to play and that White wants to capture one of his pawns. Since Black is in a position that prevents White from capturing a pawn, the doubled pawn should not count as doubled, as it might be in a different location and circumstance. I put it this way to counsel inexperienced players and to avoid the slander of the ill-willed. What I said above rebukes Damiano, and with good reason, as any good player free of jealous passion will say. Returning to our game, if White does not capture the aforementioned knight, so as to avoid exchanging the bishop, but first moves the king’s rook to the bishop’s square [5.Rf1] in order to transpose and make it possible to attack the enemy more easily,21 then Black could move the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square. Black could also first withdraw the king’s bishop to the queen’s knight’s [third] square [5…Bb6], which is a better move, so that the enemy, after transposing, does not gain a move. Prior to the transposition, Black 21. López’s use of the word transpose indicates the intention to follow up with a king’s leap to g1. Today, this transposition of the king and the rook is a single move known as castling. In López’s time, however, castling consisted of two moves.

214

Book III

might have prevented White from gaining a move, but to the detriment of his game. If White transposed [6.Kg1], Black would move the queen’s pawn one square [6…d6]. If White moves the queen’s pawn one square.22 If White moves the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [7.d4], Black will move the queen’s bishop to the queen’s second square [7…d7]. In this way, Black, knowing how to play, will arrange his game well. Note. I said that it was better for Black to withdraw the king’s bishop to the third square of the queen’s knight than to move first the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [5…Nf6], placing it in position to capture the opposing king’s pawn, though this may seem to some to be a better move, because it threatens the enemy and brings out his pieces. This would be a good move if the opponent protected the pawn with the pawn of his queen; it would not be a good move if he did not guard it but first leaped with the king [6.Kg1], because Black will be hemmed in, disorganized, or will lose the game if he takes the opposing king’s pawn with the king’s knight [6…Nxe4]: White will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [7.d4], placing it in position to capture the opposing bishop. If Black were to take the queen’s pawn with the king’s pawn [7…exd4], White would capture the king’s pawn with the queen’s bishop’s pawn [8.cxd4]. If Black retreated the bishop to the third square of the queen’s knight [8… Bb6], White would move his rook to the king’s square [9.Re1], placing it in position to take the knight. If Black moves the queen’s pawn as far as it can go to protect the knight [9…d5] and to provide an opening for the bishop, White will move the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [10.Nc3], threatening the knight and the pawn. 22. This sentence, which seems extraneous, appears in López’s manuscript.



Book III 215

If Black protects the pawn, moving the queen’s bishop to the king’s third square [10…Be6], White will capture the knight with the queen’s knight [11.Nxe4]. If Black takes the knight with the queen’s pawn [11…dxe4], White will capture the queen’s pawn with the rook [12.Rxe4]. If Black moves the queen’s rook to the queen’s square [12…Rd8], placing it in position to take the opposing queen’s pawn, White will move the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [13. Bg5], placing it in position to take the queen and the rook. If Black moves the king’s bishop’s pawn one square [13…f6], protecting his queen and placing [the pawn] in position to capture the opposing bishop, it is good to know that White will have many good moves it can play: either the queen to the king’s second square [14.Qe2] or the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [14.Bc4]. With either move, White will win the game by force. If White played differently after Black captured the king’s pawn with his knight [11…Nxe4], White, knowing how to play, would win it. This is all that needs to be said to warn players of that move, which appears to be good, but is not. It is better to retreat the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s knight, as I have said. Chapter 15

Another way to protect the king’s pawn against the opposing king’s knight’s attack White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. Black moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5]. If White moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2.Nf3] to capture the pawn, Black can protect it the second way, moving the queen’s pawn one square [2…d6].23 This is the best and safest move, and the one 23. Today, this move is known as the Philidor Defense [1. e4 e5; 2. Nf3 d6], named for

216

Book III

giving the most freedom to his pieces. Damiano did not consider this to be as good as the first way for two reasons. First, he did not notice the attacking methods or the drawbacks, as seen in the previous ways to play. Second, he overlooked the way or ways in which protecting the pawn in this manner could arrange the games so that the pieces remained free and the enemy’s means of attack were diminished. So, as will be seen, in my opinion this second way of protecting the king’s pawn with the queen’s pawn is the best one.24 If White were to move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3.Bc4], Black would move the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [3…c6]. If White moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [4.c3], Black will move the queen’s pawn one square [4…d5], placing it in position to capture the opposing king’s bishop. If White were to take the queen’s pawn with the king’s pawn [5.exd5], Black would capture the king’s pawn with his bishop’s pawn [5…cxd5]. If White were to give check with the bishop from the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [6.Bb5+], Black would protect the king with the queen’s bishop [6…Bd7]. If White were to take the bishop with his bishop [7.Bxd7+], Black would capture the opponent’s bishop with the knight [7…Nxd7], protecting the king’s pawn. If White moves the queen to the knight’s third square [8.Qb3], placing it in position to capture the opposing queen’s pawn and the opposing queen’s knight’s pawn, Black will move the king’s pawn one square forward [8…e4], placing it in position to take the opposing king’s knight.

the French composer and chess player François-André Danican Philidor (1726–1795). Andrew Soltis described Philidor as “the best player in the world for 50 years. In fact, he was probably about 200 rating points better than anyone else yet alive—set apart by the mysteries of the game he had solved” (Soltis, “Tools of the Trade . . .,” Chess Life, July 1995, 14). 24. López notes in the margin: “Damiano miscalculates how to protect the king’s pawn from the opposing knight’s attack.”



Book III 217

If White moves said knight to the queen’s fourth square [9.Nd4], Black will move the queen’s knight to the queen’s bishop’s fourth square [9…Nc5], placing it in position to capture the opposing queen. If White were to give check with the queen from the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [10.Qb5+], Black would protect the king with his queen [10…Qd7], and exchanging [11.Qxd7+], Black would take the queen with his king [11…Kxd7] in order to move the queen’s knight to the opposing queen’s third square to keep the opponent’s pieces captive. In this way, Black, knowing how to play, has a better game. Chapter 16

Another way to arrange the game, according to the second way to protect the pawn White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. Black makes the same move [1…e5]. If White moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2.Nf3], placing it in position to capture the pawn, Black will move the queen’s pawn one square [2…d6], protecting the pawn. If White moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3.Bc4], Black will move the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [3…c6]. If White moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [4.c3], Black will move the queen’s pawn another square forward [4…d5], placing it in position to take the opposing bishop. If White took the queen’s pawn with the king’s pawn [5.exd5], Black would take the king’s pawn with the queen’s bishop’s pawn [5…cxd5]. If White were to give check with the bishop from the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [6.Bb5+], Black would protect the king with the queen’s bishop [6…Bd7].

218

Book III

If White moves the queen to the knight’s third square [7.Qb3], Black will take the opposing king’s bishop with the queen’s bishop [7…Bxb5]. If White took the opposing queen’s bishop with the queen, giving check [8.Qxb5+], Black would protect the king with his queen [8…Qd7]. If White took the queen with his queen [9.Qxd7+], Black would take the opposing queen with the queen’s knight [9…Nxd7], protecting the king’s pawn. If White were not to take the queen, but instead moved the queen to the king’s second square [9.Qe2], placing it in position to capture the opposing king’s pawn, Black would move the king’s bishop’s pawn one square [9…f6], protecting the king’s pawn, which is the best move, for, if Black did not make this move, but advanced the king’s pawn one square [9…e4], placing it in position to capture the opposing knight, White would move the knight to the opposing king’s fourth square [10.Ne5], placing it in position to take the queen. Wherever Black wants to go with his queen [10…Qc7], White will give check with the queen from the opposing knight’s fourth square [11.Qb5+], thus winning either the queen’s knight’s pawn or the queen’s pawn, and the whole game. But if Black went with his queen to the fourth square of the opposing queen’s rook [10…Qa4] to avoid that check, White would move the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [11.c4] to break up the enemy. The best move for Black is the king’s bishop to the queen’s third square [11…Bd6], placing it in position to capture the opposing knight. White will move the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [12.Nc3], placing it in position to take the opposing queen. If Black were to withdraw the queen to the rook’s third square [12…Qa6], White would move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [13.d4]. In this way, knowing how to play, White will have a better arranged game than his opponent. This is why I said above that I would not advance the king’s pawn against the opposing knight. First I would move the king’s

Book III 219

bishop’s pawn one square, to protect the pawn and so that White could not take that square with his knight, threatening the queen. If Black moves the aforementioned pawn of the king’s bishop, it will be able to arrange well his attack on the enemy, because all of his pieces can move well and comfortably. Chapter 17

Another way to arrange the game, according to the second way to protect the king’s pawn against the knight’s attack White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. Black moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5]. Whichever move White makes first, either the [king’s] bishop [to the queen’s bishop’s fourth square; 2.Bc4] or the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2.Nf3], placing it in position to capture the opposing king’s pawn, Black will still protect the pawn with the second way, moving the queen’s pawn one square [2…d6]. If White moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3.Bc4], Black will move the queen’s bishop to the king’s third square [3…Be6] to exchange bishops. If White were to take the bishop with his bishop [4.Bxe6], Black would take the bishop with the pawn of his king’s bishop [4…fxe6]. If White moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [5.c3], Black will move the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [5…Nc6]. If White moves the queen to the knight’s third square [6.Qb3], Black will move the queen to the bishop’s square [6…Qc8], protecting the pawns. If White moves the king’s knight to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [7.Ng5], placing it in position to capture the bishop’s pawn, Black will move the queen’s knight to the queen’s square [7…Nd8], protecting both pawns. 220

Book III

In this way, Black will be able to arrange his game well and make way for the king’s bishop, as well as undoubling the pawn if the opponent tries to break. Playing cautiously thus, Black will have a good game, for the opponent’s attack is very weak and easy to resist. Consequently, it is easily proven that the second way to protect the king’s pawn against the opposing king’s knight’s attack is better and safer, as well as much more conducive to opening up the game and the pieces more comfortably than is the first way that Damiano naively demonstrated, as shown by the aforementioned ways of playing. In addition to the aforementioned three ways of arranging a game by this second method, we will address another, which is not bad, although not as good as the foregoing, but, as I say, not bad, if one knows how to play well. It is the one we will address now. Chapter 18

Another way to arrange the game against the king’s knight’s attack according to the second way to defend White will move the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. Black will move the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5]. If White moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2.Nf3], placing it in position to capture the opposing king’s pawn, Black will move the queen’s pawn [2…d6], protecting the king’s pawn. If White moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3.Bc4], Black will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [3…f5]. If White took the opposing king’s knight with his king’s bishop [4.Bxg8], Black could take the king’s bishop with his rook [4…Rxg8]. If White took the opposing king’s bishop’s pawn with the pawn of his king [5.exf5], Black would take the opposing king’s pawn with his queen’s bishop [5…Bxf5].



Book III 221

If White moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [6.c3], Black will move the king’s bishop to the king’s second square [6…Be7]. If White moves the queen to the knight’s third square [7.Qb3], placing it in position to take the opposing king’s rook and the opposing queen’s knight’s pawn, Black, in order to protect everything, will leap to the queen’s bishop’s square with his king [7…Kc8]. Even though it looks like a good game because it is easy to arrange, it does not seem to me to be as good as the first and second ways, although it is very good that the enemy’s pieces are pretty well restricted and Black can make use of his own pieces more easily. If Black does not want to play this way—which is much better than the opponent’s game—knowing how to play, he can, instead of moving the king’s bishop to the king’s second square, move the queen to the bishop’s square [6…Qc8]. If White moves the king’s knight to the rook’s fourth square [7.Nh4], placing it in position to capture the opposing bishop, Black will move the aforementioned bishop [f5] to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [7…Bg4], placing it in position to take the queen. If White moves the queen to the knight’s third square [8.Qb3], placing it in position to capture the opposing king’s rook, Black will move the queen’s bishop to the king’s third square [8…Be6], placing it in position to take the queen and protecting the rook. In this way, Black, knowing how to play, can arrange his game very well. Or it can move the aforementioned bishop [f5] to the opposing queen’s third square [7…Bd3] to enclose the enemy, which is better. Note. Near the beginning, when White captured the opposing king’s knight with the king’s bishop, if, instead of taking the aforementioned bishop with his rook, Black did not take the bishop, but rather, the king’s pawn with his bishop’s pawn [4…fxe4], placing it in position to capture the opposing king’s knight, it would not be a good move, although it seems to be good, because White would move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing queen [5.Bd5].

222

Book III

If Black were to take the knight with his pawn [5…exf3], White would capture the pawn with his queen [6.Qxf3], placing it in position to take the opposing queen’s knight’s pawn and to give checkmate from the second square of the opposing king’s bishop. If Black wanted to move his queen to protect the king [Qd7] against checkmate, White would take the knight’s pawn with his bishop [Bxb7]. In this way, White, knowing how to play, would win the game, because he would have one more pawn. Thus, in order not to lose a game that can be arranged very well, as we demonstrated, it is not advantageous to capture the aforementioned pawn, because it is a bad move, even if those players who know little think it is a good move. Now, I conclude the second way to protect the pawn; although I could discuss other moves, I will not, because the aforementioned ones seem to be the best ones. Chapter 19

Another way to arrange the game against the knight’s attack, according to the third way to defend the pawn White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. Black makes the same move [1…e5]. If White moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2.Nf3] to capture the opposing king’s pawn, Black will protect it according to the third way, moving the king’s bishop’s pawn one square [2…f6], which Damiano says is the worst way to protect the pawn. He would be correct if the game were defended the way he demonstrated. If the pawn is defended as I instruct, it will not look like such a bad move as he made it look with his poor play.25

25. López notes in the margin: “Damiano miscalculates the third way to protect the pawn against the opponent’s knight’s sorties.”



Book III 223

If White were to take the pawn with his knight [3.Nxe5], Black will not capture the knight with his bishop’s pawn, but, first, move the queen to the king’s second square [3…Qe7], placing it in position to take the knight. If White moves the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [4.d4], protecting the knight, Black will move the queen’s pawn one square [4…d6]. Otherwise, Black will capture the knight with the bishop’s pawn [4…fxe5] when the queen will guard against check. If White does not advance the queen’s pawn, but in order not to lose the knight first gives check with the queen from the opposing rook’s fourth square [4.Qh5+], Black will protect the king with the knight’s pawn [4…g6]. If White took the knight’s pawn with his knight [5.Nxg6], placing it in position to take the opposing queen and rook, Black will take the opposing king’s pawn with his queen, giving check [5…Qxe4+], and then capture the knight with the same queen, winning a piece and the game this way. But if, when Black moved the queen to the king’s second square, placing it in position to take the knight, White did not give this check, but instead retreated the knight to the bishop’s third square [4.Nf3], Black would capture the opposing king’s pawn with his queen, giving check [4…Qxe4+]. If White were to protect the king with his queen [5.Qe2], Black would capture the queen [5…Qxe2+]. White, in turn, would capture the queen with his bishop [6.Bxe2]. Then, Black would move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [6…d5], striving to bring out his pieces. [Black] will arrange the game well because his king has a good place, the bishop’s second square, which is free such that it will not lose a move when the time comes to move the king. Note. But if, when I say that White protects the king with his queen, White does not protect the king with the queen, but, instead, with the

224

Book III

bishop, moving it to the king’s second square [5.Be2], Black will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [5…d5]. If White moves the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [6.Nc3], placing it in position to take the opposing queen, Black will move his queen to the king’s third square [6…Qe6], protecting the queen’s pawn. If White moves the king’s rook to the bishop’s square to transpose it [7.Rf1], Black will move the pawn of his queen’s bishop one square [7… c6] to protect the queen’s pawn and to strengthen the game, and to open a square where it can leap with his king if it were advantageous and necessary. White will move the rook to the king’s square [9.Re1], and Black will move the knight to his king’s second square [9…Ne7] after bringing the king’s bishop to the third square of his queen [8…Bd6], which he will do when White transposes.26 Then, White moves the rook and Black moves his knight to the king’s second square, as I said. In this way, Black will have a safe game, and the enemy cannot attack. Black, knowing how to play and taking care to place his king in a safe place, will be able to make very effective use of his pieces. Note. If when Black protected the king’s pawn with the pawn of his bishop, White did not capture the pawn with his knight, but, first, moved the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3.Bc4], Black would move the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [3…c6], wanting to provoke his enemy. If White were to take the king’s pawn with his knight [4.Nxe5], Black would move his queen to his king’s second square [4…Qe7], placing it in position to capture the opposing knight. If White moves his knight to the opposing bishop’s second square [5.Nf7] to capture the rook by force, Black will take the king’s pawn with his queen, giving check [5…Qxe4+]. 26. Since castling consisted of two moves, White moves his king to g1.



Book III 225

In order not to lose the king’s bishop, it will be good for White to protect the king with the queen [6.Qe2]. Black will capture the queen [6… Qxe2+]. If White takes the opposing queen with his king [7.Kxe2], Black will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [7…d5], placing it in position to capture the opposing bishop. If White were to take the rook with his knight [8.Nxh8], Black would capture the bishop with the queen’s pawn [8…dxc4].27 In this way, Black will have won a piece, because the opposing knight, unable to move, is lost. Black, knowing how to play, will win the game. If the game were played differently, Black should know that it is always possible to adjust well, although not as freely as with the second way to defend the pawn. Therefore, this third way is not as good as the second way. Chapter 20

Another way to arrange the game against the knight’s attack, according to the fourth way to defend the pawn White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. Black makes the same move [1…e5]. If White moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2.Nf3] to capture the opposing pawn, Black can protect it according to the fourth way, moving the queen to the king’s second square [2…Qe7], but it is not as good as some of the aforementioned ways, because it prevents the king’s bishop from moving and the king’s knight as well, should it need to move to that square.

27. Jorge Amador notes: “Ruy seems to overlook that White can just capture the d5 pawn with the bishop, preserving this piece and still winning Black’s rook” (J. Amador, personal communication, September 23, 2018).

226

Book III

The main reason the fourth way is not as good as other moves is, regardless of how effective it is to move the queen to the king’s second square, the bishop is as hindered as it was before this move. In spite of the aforementioned problems, however, it is possible to arrange the game in the way we will discuss. If White moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3.Bc4], Black will move the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [3…c6]. If White moves the rook to the bishop’s square to transpose [4.Rf1], Black will move the queen’s pawn one square [4…d6]. If White were to leap with his king [5.Kg1], Black would move the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [5… Bg4], placing it in position to capture the knight. If White moves the queen’s pawn one square [6.d3], Black will move his queen to the third square of the king’s bishop [6…Qf6] to ruin the enemy’s transposed position. If White moves the queen’s knight to the queen’s second square [7.Nbd2] to prevent having his position wrecked, Black will move the king’s bishop to the king’s second square [7…Be7]. If White moves the rook’s pawn [8.h3], placing it in position to take the bishop, Black will not withdraw it to the rook’s fourth square, because it would lose it when White advanced the knight’s pawn as far as it can go [9.g4], placing it in position to capture the aforementioned bishop, and if Black were to move the bishop to the third square of the king’s knight [9…Bg6], White would advance the knight’s pawn one more square [10. g5], placing it in position to take the queen.28 If Black moved the queen to the fourth square of the opposing king’s bishop [10…Qf4], which is the only possible move, White would move the queen’s knight to his own square [11.Nb1]. In this way, White will have won the queen. 28. Black moves his bishop to h5 before g6.



Book III 227

It is for this reason that I said above that if White were to advance the rook’s pawn one square, placing it in position to capture the bishop, Black would not retreat his bishop to the rook’s fourth square, but instead would move the bishop to the king’s third square [8…Be6] to exchange it for the opposing king’s bishop. In this manner, Black, knowing how to play, can arrange his game well. If the game were played another way, be it known that, knowing how to play, Black will be able to adjust well. And this is enough for this way of playing. Chapter 21

Another way to arrange the game against the king’s knight’s attack, protecting its pawn, according to the fifth way to defend the pawn White will move the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4]. Black making the same move [1…e5], if White moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2.Nf3], placing it in position to capture the opposing king’s pawn, which Black can protect according to the fifth way, moving the king’s bishop to the queen’s third square [2…Bd6]. This is the worst way of all, as it hinders and hems in his pieces and pawns. Although this is not a good way to play a game, still I will explain how to deal with it, because many players starting to learn this game usually make this move, which is truly a beginner’s move, but it is played. If White moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3.Bc4], Black will move his queen to the king’s second square [3… Qe7]. If White moves the queen’s pawn one square [4.d3], Black will move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [4…Bc5].

228

Book III

If White moves the king’s knight to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [5.Ng5], placing it in position to capture the bishop’s pawn, Black will move the king’s knight to the rook’s third square [5…Nh6], protecting the pawn. If White moves his queen to the opposing rook’s fourth square [6.Qh5], Black will move the queen’s pawn one square [6…d6]. If White moves the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [7.f4], Black will move the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [7…Bg4], placing it in position to take the opposing queen. If White moves the queen to the rook’s fourth square [8.Qh4], which is the only move, Black will move the [king’s] bishop’s pawn one square [8… f6], placing it in position to take the knight. If White moves the [king’s] rook’s pawn one square [9.h3], placing it in position to take the bishop, Black will capture the knight with his pawn [9…fxg5], threatening the queen and winning the knight. If White took the bishop’s pawn with his bishop’s pawn [10.fxg5], placing it in position to take the knight, Black would retreat the bishop to the queen’s second square [10…Bd7]. White would not be able to capture the knight with his pawn because Black would take the queen with his queen. If White were to give check with his queen [11.Qh5+], Black would protect his king with the knight [11…Nf7], and the best move for White is to advance the king’s bishop’s pawn to the opposing knight’s third square [12.g6], placing it in position to take the knight that protects the king. The best move for Black to avoid losing the game is not to move the knight, but to move the queen’s bishop to the king’s third square [12… Be6]. In this way, Black will be arranged well, without giving an advantage to his opponent. But, when I said that if White moves the rook’s pawn one square, placing it in position to capture the bishop the aforementioned way to play would follow, if instead White did not move the rook’s pawn, but first were to



Book III 229

take the king’s pawn with his bishop’s pawn or to move the king’s rook to the bishop’s square [9.Rf1], Black would capture the knight with his bishop’s pawn [9…fxg5]. White taking the opposing bishop’s pawn [10.fxg5], Black would move the king’s rook to the bishop’s square [10…Rf8].29 Knowing how to play thus, he will have won the piece and will win the game. But, knowing how to play, when White pushed the pawn against the knight, Black plays it to the queen’s square, and not the bishop as we said above, keeping the piece. Note. If Black moves the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [7…Bg4], placing it in position to take the opposing queen, then White does not move his queen, as said earlier, but first captures the opposing king’s bishop’s pawn with his king’s bishop, giving check [8.Bxf7+]. Black will not capture the opponent’s bishop with his knight, because it will have lost a pawn, as White captures the bishop with his queen, but first Black captures the aforementioned bishop with his queen [8…Qxf7]. White taking the queen with his knight [9.Nxf7], Black captures the opposing queen with his bishop [9…Bxh5], and White takes the rook with his knight [10.Nxh8]. Black moves the king to the knight’s square [10…Kg8], winning a piece and the game, knowing how to play, because even though White has a rook and a pawn in exchange for a bishop and a knight, Black still has an advantage. With this, we conclude all of the ways to protect the pawn. Chapter 2 2

Beginning the game with the queen’s pawn, according to Damiano In the third chapter of his book, Damiano writes about this way to arrange the game, starting with the queen’s pawn. I will couch it in different terms, to make it clearer for players. 29. Subsequent moves here would be 11.Rxf8+, 11…Kxf8, and 12.g3.

230

Book III

The second way, Damiano says, is to begin with the queen’s pawn thus. If White moves the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [1.d4], and Black makes the same move [1…d5], White will move the queen’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [2.c4]. If Black took the queen’s bishop’s pawn with his queen’s pawn [2…dxc4], White would move the king’s pawn as far as it can go [3.e4]. If Black moves the queen’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go [3…b5] to protect the queen’s pawn, White will move the queen’s rook’s pawn as far as it can go to [4.a4] to break up the queen’s knight’s pawn. If Black were to take the rook’s pawn with the knight’s pawn [4…bxa4], White would capture the queen’s pawn with the king’s bishop [5.Bxc4]. Then, Black will lose the knight’s pawn by force, as White will move the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square. Note. If Black did not capture the rook’s pawn with his knight’s pawn, but instead moved the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [4…c6], White would take the knight’s pawn with his rook’s pawn [5.axb5]. If Black took the rook’s pawn with the bishop’s pawn [5…cxb5], White would move the queen’s knight’s pawn one square [6.b3]. If Black were to take the queen’s knight’s pawn with his bishop’s pawn [6…cxb3], White would capture the opposing knight’s pawn with the king’s bishop, giving check [7.Bxb5+]. If Black were to protect his king with his bishop [7…Bd7], White would take his other pawn with his queen [8.Qxb3]. Black will capture the opposing bishop with his bishop [8…Bxb5], White will take the bishop with his queen, giving check [9.Qxb5+]. If Black protected his king with the queen [9…Qd7], White would exchange, because Black’s rook’s pawn will be unaccompanied. Black will lose the rook’s pawn by force. White will double his rooks and use the bishop and knight to win the queen’s rook’s pawn.30 30. A player doubles his rooks when he moves both rooks to the same open file. In this position, the player is able to attack with more efficiency.



Book III 231

Note. If Black did not take the bishop with his bishop, but instead moved the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [8…Nc6] to capture the opposing queen’s pawn, White would move the queen’s bishop to the king’s third square [9.Be3], protecting the pawn. If Black moves the queen’s rook to the knight’s square [9…Rb8], White will move the queen out of the pin and move it to the rook’s fourth square [10.Qa4]. If Black moves the queen to his knight’s third square [10…Qb6], White will move the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [11.Nc3]. Then, White will take the knight with his bishop, winning the rook’s pawn, and make sure to move the king’s knight and to make use of the rooks, exchanging pieces because it will lead to victory. All of the aforementioned is Damiano’s teaching, but even though this game appears to be the one that Damiano arranged the best, I think it is good to tell the players about something in this game, which I will address now. Note. Damiano says that when Black moves the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square to capture the opposing queen’s pawn, White moves the queen’s bishop to the king’s third square to protect the pawn. It seems to me to be more effective to advance the queen’s pawn one square [9.d5], placing it in position to capture the aforementioned knight. If Black moves the knight to the king’s fourth square [9…Ne5], White will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [10.f4] toward this knight, so that the opposing pieces are not in a position to attack. If Black moves the knight [instead] to the fourth square of the opposing queen [9…Nd4], placing it in position to take the queen and the bishop, White will capture the opposing bishop with his bishop, giving check [10. Bxd7+]. If Black takes the bishop with his queen [10…Qxd7], White will move his queen to her third square [11.Qd3], placing it in position to capture the opposing knight.

232

Book III

If Black moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [11…e5] to protect the knight, the opposing queen’s pawn will be left free and close to queening. In addition to which, White moves the queen’s bishop to the king’s third square [12.Be3], placing it in position to capture the knight. If Black moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [12…Bc5], White will move the king’s knight to the king’s second square [13.Ne2]. This way, White will have a much better game. If the play goes differently, White, knowing how to play, will always have a better game. But let us say that the bishop were not played as Damiano says. Instead, Black moved the rook to the knight’s square [9…Rb8], White moved the queen to the rook’s fourth square [10.Qa4], Black moved his queen to the knight’s third square [10…Qb6], and White moved the knight to the bishop’s third square [11.Nc3]: it would not be good for White to capture the knight with his bishop, as Damiano says, if he [White] is not aware of what Black will do, because if he does not move the queen from where it is, White will lose the game. In my view, whatever Black plays, White, knowing how to play, will win the game more easily by not exchanging the bishop for the knight, instead making sure to move the knight and leap with the king, and using his rooks. Furthermore, there is no reason to make the exchanges Damiano suggests, because exchanging benefits Black more by removing as much of the enemy as possible. And this is all that needs to be said about this game. Chapter 23

Another way to arrange the game, beginning with the queen’s pawn White moves the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [1.d4]. Black makes the same move [1…d5].



Book III 233

White moves the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the king’s bishop [2.Bf4]. If Black moves the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the king’s bishop [2…Bf5], White will move the queen’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [3.c4]. If Black captures the queen’s bishop’s pawn with his queen’s pawn [3… dxc4], White will move the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [4.Nc3]. If Black moves the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [4…Nc6], placing it in position to take the opposing queen’s pawn, White will move the king’s pawn as far as it can go [5.e4], placing it in position to capture the opposing bishop. If Black withdraws the bishop to the third square of the king’s knight [5…Bg6], White will move the queen’s pawn one square forward [6.d5], placing it in position to take the opposing knight. If Black moves said knight to the rook’s fourth square [6…Na5], White, playing in the Italian way, “passing battle,” will win the knight, moving the queen’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go. If the game is not played the Italian way, White will give check with his queen from the rook’s fourth square [7.Qa4+]. If Black moves the queen’s knight’s pawn one square [7…b6] to stop White from capturing the knight with his queen, White will move the queen’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go [8.b4], placing it in position to take the knight. If Black takes the queen’s knight’s pawn in passing with his queen’s pawn [8…cxb3], to wit, one square back, White would capture the queen’s pawn with his rook’s pawn [9.axb3], discovering the rook against the knight. If Black moves the queen’s knight’s pawn one square [9…b6] to protect the knight, White, either by moving the rook’s pawn one more square against the knight, or by capturing the bishop’s pawn with the queen’s

234

Book III

pawn [10.dxc6], will have won the game in all ways, although it is best to take the bishop’s pawn before advancing the other pawn against the knight. Note. When White captured the queen’s pawn with the rook’s pawn, discovering the rook to the opposing knight, Black could have moved the king’s pawn one square [9…e6], because if White were to take the knight with his queen [10.Qxa5], Black would take the queen with his queen [10…Qxa5]. If White took the knight with his rook [11.Rxa5], Black would move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [11…Bb4], placing it in position to take the opposing rook and knight and giving him [White] a bad game. Consequently, when Black moved said pawn one square, White, instead of taking the knight, would move the pawn one square forward [10.b4], placing it in position to capture the knight. If Black took the queen’s pawn with the king’s pawn [10…exd5], then White would capture the king’s pawn with the queen’s knight [11.Nxd5]. If Black moved the queen’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go [11…b5], placing it in position to capture the opposing queen, White would take it with his king’s bishop [12.Bxb5]. Black taking the king’s bishop with the bishop’s pawn [12…cxb5], White would take the bishop’s pawn with his queen, giving check [13.Qxb5+]. If Black covers his king with the queen [13…Qd7], White will give check with the knight from the second square of the opposing queen’s bishop [14.Nc7+]. In this way, it will either be checkmate or Black will lose the queen. If the game proceeds differently, White should be aware that, knowing how to play well, he will always win, because if earlier he did not want to advance the king’s bishop’s pawn toward the knight, as stated above, he could advance the queen’s pawn one square, that is, in the direction of the opposing queen’s third square, obstructing the opposing king’s bishop’s exit. In this way, White will win the knight and the game. This is all that needs to be said about how to arrange the game when starting with the queen’s pawn.



Book III 235

Chapter 24

Other ways to begin the games, not starting with the aforementioned ways Players who are not skilled in this game usually begin their games in none of the aforementioned ways. For example, by opening with one of the knight’s pawns. Since I have seen people playing this way many times, I will say something about these methods of playing for purposes of teaching and not to show how to arrange the games by these ways to begin. Note 1: The first observation is that if White moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [1.Nf3], Black will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [1…d5] so that his opponent is unable to arrange around his game the king’s pawn. Then, Black will continue its game according to what the opponent does. Note 2: The second observation is that if White begins by moving the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [1.Nc3], Black will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [1…d5] if he does not want his opponent to be able to rearrange around the king’s pawn without losing many moves. If Black wants to let White arrange around the king’s pawn, he will move the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5], because he will still have a better arrangement than his opponent, as White has left behind the queen’s bishop’s pawn, around which the player going first usually sets up his game to break down the enemy. Note 3: The third observation is that if White begins by moving the queen’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [1.c4], Black will move the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5], and if White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [2.e4], Black will move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [2…Bc5]. In this way, Black will arrange his game well, because the opposing queen’s fourth square is available for the queen’s knight and the king’s bishop is freer to attack his enemy, as there is no pawn that can easily hinder it.

236

Book III

Note 4: The fourth observation is that if White begins by moving the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [1.f4], Black will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [1…d5], and if White moves the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [2.d4], Black will move the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the king’s bishop [2…Bf5]. In this way, Black will proceed with his game as needed, with his bishops freer to attack than the enemy’s, moreover with the fourth square of the opposing king available for the king’s knight to move into. Note 5: The fifth observation is that if White were to begin his game by moving one of his knights’ pawns in order to create an opening for the bishops [1.g3], Black should do nothing other than moving the king’s and queen’s pawn [1…d5], depending on how the enemy plays, thus making sure to fortify his game by cautiously bringing out his pawns and pieces so that his play is free and his enemy’s is cramped. This is enough to inform those who wish to be good players, because it is not worthwhile to dwell on these ways of playing, which any good player should not use. As they say, a game that is played with complete integrity is one in which neither player gives an advantage. We will demonstrate now how to play a game with advantages, according to what they are.



Book III 237

BOOK IV

Chapter 1

How to arrange the game to defend against a player who receives an advantage of two moves White moves the king’s pawn and the queen’s pawn as far as they can go [e4; d4]. Black moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [1…c6] and not any other pawns, that is, neither the king’s pawn nor the queen’s pawn, because this would confine the pieces and give the enemy advantageous moves. As I say, Black moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [c6], waiting to see what the enemy will do. If White moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [2.c4], Black will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [2…d5]. If White took the opposing queen’s pawn with his king’s pawn [3.exd5], Black would take the king’s pawn with his bishop’s pawn [3…cxd5]. If White took the bishop’s pawn with his bishop’s pawn [4.cxd5], Black would take the opposing bishop’s pawn with his queen [4…Qxd5]. In the case that White were to receive the advantage of an extra move, he would move the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [5.Nc3], placing it in position to take the opposing queen. It would be good for Black in this type of advantage to break the game open so that his pieces can be free and not hindered, and the opponent’s pieces free as well, moreover enjoying compensation for his move in that his pawns remain together and White’s queen’s pawn is alone. Although, knowing better, at the moment this is not as important as breaking up the enemy. So White, moving the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square, as I said, placing it in position to capture the opposing queen, Black will withdraw his queen to her own square [5…Qd8].



241

If White moves the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the king’s bishop [6.Bf4], Black will move the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [6…Nf6]. If White moves the queen’s knight to the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [7.Nb5], to fork the king and rook in a subsequent move, Black will move the king’s knight to the fourth square of his queen [7… Nd5], placing it in position to take the opposing queen’s knight if it moves into check, and to guard against the check. If White moves the aforementioned bishop to the king’s third square [8.Be3], Black will give check with his queen from the rook’s fourth square [8…Qa5+]. If White protects the king, moving the queen to her own second square [9.Qd2], Black will capture the queen with his queen [9…Qxd2+], and after White takes the opposing queen with his king [10.Kxd2], Black will be able to arrange his game well. Note. If, when Black moved the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square, White, before moving the queen’s knight, as we said earlier, moved the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [7.Bc4] so that Black could not move the knight to his queen’s fourth square [Nd5], Black will move the king’s pawn one square [7…e6]. If White moves the queen’s knight to the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [8.Nb5] to give check in a subsequent move from [c7], to fork the king and rook, Black will move the queen’s knight to the rook’s third square [8…Na6]. If White moves the queen to the rook’s fourth square [9.Qa4], Black will move the queen’s bishop to the queen’s second square [9…Bd7]. If White moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [10.Nf3], Black will move the king’s bishop to the king’s second square [10…Be7] and will seek to castle. In this way, Black will arrange his game well and will be able to attack his enemy.

242

Book IV

Note. If, in the beginning, White does not want to wreck the king’s pawn, it will move it one square forward [3.e5]. Black will move the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the king’s bishop [3…Bf5]. If White were to advance the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [4.c5] to confine his opponent, Black would move the queen’s knight’s pawn one square [4…b6] to try to break up the enemy. If Black were not happy playing this way, it could capture the opposing queen’s bishop’s pawn with his queen’s pawn [3…dxc4] when White moved the king’s pawn one square forward [3.e5]. If White captures the opposing queen’s pawn with his king’s bishop [4.Bxc4], Black will move the king’s pawn one square [4…e6] and bring out the queen’s knight to place it on the queen’s fourth square. However, in order to avoid blocking the queen’s bishop, it is better to move the bishop first than to capture the pawn. Chapter 2

How the player who receives an advantage of two moves for the king’s bishop’s pawn should arrange the game White, needing to make two moves in exchange for the king’s bishop’s pawn,31 does not move both the king’s and the queen’s pawns as far as they can go, because, although they look like good moves, they are not, as Black would move the king’s pawn as far as it goes [1…e5], disrupting White’s game. If White took the opposing king’s pawn with the queen’s pawn [2.dxe5], Black would give check with the queen from the fourth square of the opposing rook [2…Qh4+]. 31. In this chapter, White makes the first two moves in exchange for removing the king’s bishop’s pawn.



Book IV 243

If White were to protect the king with the knight’s pawn [3.g3], Black would take the king’s pawn with the queen, giving check again [3… Qxe4+]. It would also be in a position to capture the rook. If White did not protect the king with the knight’s pawn, but instead moved the king to the queen’s second square [3.Kd2], Black would take the king’s pawn with his queen [3…Qxe4]. In this way, Black would have discomfited White, and, furthermore, would have caused the opponent to move the king. Therefore, in order to avoid this disruption, as I said, White should not move the two pawns, but first should move the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4] and the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [1.Nf3]. If Black moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5], then White will not take the king’s pawn with his knight, for fear of the aforementioned check, but rather will move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [2.Bc4]. If Black moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [2…Bc5], White will move the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [3.c3]. If Black moves the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [3…Nc6], White will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [4.d4]. If Black took the opposing queen’s pawn with the king’s pawn [4…exd4], White would take the king’s pawn with his bishop’s pawn [5.cxd4], attacking the opposing bishop. If Black were to give check with the bishop from the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [5…Bb4+], White would protect the king with the queen’s knight from the bishop’s third square [6.Nc3]. If Black moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [6…Nf6], White will advance the king’s pawn one square [7.e5], placing it in position to capture the knight. If Black moves the aforementioned knight to the opposing king’s fourth square [7…Ne4], White will move his queen to the third square of her

244

Book IV

knight [8.Qb3], placing it in position to take the opposing king’s bishop, or to her own third square, placing it in position to capture the knight. In this way, White, knowing how to play, will arrange his game well. If play goes differently from the aforesaid, be aware of these moves while proceeding as necessary, because White, knowing how to play, will arrange his game well. Chapter 3

Another way the player who receives an advantage of two moves for the king’s bishop’s pawn can arrange the game White has two moves for the king’s bishop’s pawn. In my view, the best and safest moves are the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [1.d4] and the queen’s bishop to the king’s bishop’s fourth square [1.Bf4]. If Black moves the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [1…d5], White will move the queen’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [2.c4]. If Black took the queen’s bishop’s pawn with his queen’s pawn [2…dxc4], White would move the king’s pawn one square [3.e3]. If Black were to advance the queen’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go [3… b5] to protect the queen’s pawn, White would push the queen’s rook’s pawn as far as it can go [4.a4]. If Black takes this pawn with the queen’s knight’s pawn [4…bxa4], White will capture the opposing queen’s pawn with the king’s bishop [5.Bxc4], or, alternatively, it will capture the queen’s knight’s pawn with his queen, giving check [5.Qxa4+], and then will capture the other one. If Black does not take the rook’s pawn with the queen’s knight’s pawn, but first moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [4…c6] to protect the knight’s pawn, White will capture the knight’s pawn with the rook’s pawn [5.axb5].



Book IV 245

If Black captures the rook’s pawn with his bishop’s pawn [5…cxb5], White will move the queen’s knight’s pawn one square [6.b3]. In this way, White, knowing to play, will win that pawn by force and disrupt his opponent’s game. Then, White will capture the rook’s pawn, which is left alone. White, being more knowledgeable, will win the game. But if Black plays another way, White should take note of what Black plays so that he can arrange his game very well, and safely, while attacking the enemy in such a way that the opponent will have to keep defending instead of attacking. This is enough. Chapter 4

How the player who receives first move advantage for the king’s bishop’s pawn should arrange the game White, who gets to play first in exchange for the king’s bishop’s pawn, moves the king’s pawn one square [1.e3].32 If Black moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5], White will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [2.d4]. If Black captures the queen’s pawn with the king’s pawn [2…exd4], White will take the king’s pawn with his king’s pawn [3.exd4]. If Black were to give check with his queen from the opposing rook’s fourth square [3…Qh4+], White would protect the king with the knight’s pawn [4.g3]. If Black were to give check with the same queen from the opposing king’s fourth square [4…Qe4+], White would protect his king with his queen [5.Qe2]. The two sides would exchange the queens by force, after which the game would continue without the queens.33 32. Unlike today, White did not always make the first move (see footnote 167 in book 1, chapter 27). White exchanges his king’s bishop’s pawn for the first move. 33. “Today’s chess player would likely consider trading Queens this early in the game

246

Book IV

The pawn deficit is not such a liability, because White will not have to deal with defending it, and his pieces will enjoy more freedom. White, knowing more, will defeat his opponent. If Black does not want to capture the queen’s pawn with his king’s pawn, but, first, advances the king’s pawn one more square [2…e4], White will move the queen’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [3.c4]. In this way, White will arrange his game well, always attacking his enemy and making sure to use all of his pieces as he wishes. This is enough for this game, because every player will be able to make use of the games and moves we will present when discussing the ways to arrange the game against this pawn’s attack when the occasion arises in other similar games. Now I will only show another way to play for those players who, giving the aforementioned pawn for the move, do not wish to exchange queens later. Chapter 5

Another way for the player who receives first move advantage for the king’s bishop’s pawn to arrange the game White, having the first move in exchange for the king’s bishop’s pawn, if he does not want to exchange the queen or arrange his game as above, should arrange it in the following manner. White moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [1.c3]. If Black moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5], White will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [2.d4]. If Black were to advance the king’s pawn one more square [2…e4], White would move the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the king’s bishop [3.Bf4]. a foolish strategy, especially if one side [White] already has a pawn deficit and the move does not include proper compensation” (J. Amador, personal communication, September 23, 2018).



Book IV 247

If Black moves the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [3…d5], White will move the king’s pawn one square [4.e3]. If Black moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [4…c5], White would do better not to capture the opposing queen’s knight with his queen’s bishop [5.Bxb8], because after Black takes the opponent’s bishop with his rook [5…Rxb8], White will give check with his queen from the rook’s fourth square [6.Qa4+]. If Black protects his king with the queen’s bishop [6…Bd7], White will capture the rook’s pawn with his queen [7.Qxa7]. If Black were to take the queen’s pawn with the bishop’s pawn [7…cxd4], White would capture the bishop’s pawn with his queen [8.Qxd4], which would have two benefits: saving the queen from danger and leaving a square open where he could move the king’s knight, so that he can play with all of his pieces. If Black were not to capture the aforementioned pawn with the bishop’s pawn, but first pushed the bishop’s pawn one square [7…c4] to close lines for the opposing queen and the opposing king’s bishop, White would move the queen’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go [8.b4]. If Black were to take the queen’s knight’s pawn en passant with the queen’s bishop’s pawn [8…cxb3], White would capture the queen’s bishop’s pawn with his rook’s pawn [9.axb3], freeing up the queen. If Black did not take the queen’s knight’s pawn with the queen’s bishop’s pawn, but instead moved the queen’s bishop to the bishop’s third square [8…Bc6] to capture the queen if she captures the opposing knight’s pawn [Qxb7], White would move the queen to the rook’s third square [9.Qa3], leaving it free and positioned well. If the game goes another way, you need to know how to play. Based on what I will say, however, it is not good for White to play the aforementioned way. Note. If Black knows how to play, when White advances the queen’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go [8.b4] to create a square for the queen so

248

Book IV

as not to lose her, Black will move the king’s knight to the king’s second square [8…Ne7]. It would be good for White to retreat the queen to the rook’s third square to avoid losing the queen [9.Qa3]. If White does not make this move, he will lose the queen because Black will move the rook, placing it in a position to capture the queen from his own square [9… Rxa7]. If White were to take the knight’s pawn with his queen [10.Qxb7], Black would move the queen’s bishop to the bishop’s third square [10… Bc6]. In this way, White will lose the queen. If White does not take the knight’s pawn with his queen, but, first, moves the queen to the opposing queen’s bishop’s fourth square [9.Qc5], Black will move the queen’s bishop to the bishop’s third square. Then, Black will move the knight to the king’s bishop’s fourth square [9…Nf5], and discovering the king’s bishop to the opposing queen, the queen and the whole game will be lost. But if, as we said, White retreats the queen to the rook’s third square [9.Qa3], Black will move the king’s knight to the fourth square of the king’s bishop on the opposing king’s pawn [9…Nf5]. If White were to come back with the queen to the bishop’s square [10. Qc1], protecting the king’s pawn, Black would give check with his queen from the opposing rook’s fourth square [10…Qh4+]. In this way, Black, knowing how to play, will defeat White. It is for this reason that it is not good to play this way, even though it looked good. Note. If, when Black moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [4…c5], White does not take the knight with the queen’s bishop, but instead seeks to bring out his pieces, giving check first with the king’s bishop from the opposing queen’s knight’s fourth square [5.Bb5], if Black protects the king with the queen’s knight [5…Nd7], White will move the king’s knight to the king’s second square [6.Ne2]. In this way, White will arrange his game, not wishing to exchange his queen.



Book IV 249

Chapter 6

Another way for the player who receives an advantage of the king’s bishop’s pawn for the first move to arrange the game, according to Damiano When giving a pawn advantage, the king’s bishop’s pawn is given because it is the pawn best suited to defend the attack against the king. As stated earlier when we addressed the quality and use of each pawn, it is easier to fight on the kingside than on the queenside, because the kingside has fewer defenses than the queenside. Thus, because the king’s bishop’s pawn is the best of all of the pawns for defending the king, as well as for attacking and disrupting the enemy, it is traded in more often than any other pawn. But whether the player who gives a pawn advantage makes two moves or one, the player who receives it has less of an opportunity to attack. Therefore, the player giving [the pawn] can arrange the game well, as we have shown in the preceding games. But the player receiving the pawn still has a good advantage and, knowing how to play, can arrange the game more comfortably. We will address here how, according to Damiano, a player should arrange the game and break down the enemy. If White gives said pawn and starts the game by moving the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1.e4], Black moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5]. If White moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2.Nf3], Black will move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [2…f5]. If White took the opposing king’s pawn with his knight [3.Nxe5], Black would give check with the queen from the opposing rook’s fourth square [3…Qh4+]. If White protects the king with the knight’s pawn [4.g3], Black will take the king’s pawn with his queen, giving check [4…Qxe4+]. If White protects the king with his queen [5.Qe2], Black will capture the rook with his queen [5…Qxh1]. 250

Book IV

If White were to give discovered check with the queen, moving the king’s knight to the opposing king’s knight’s third square [6.Ng6+], Black would protect the king, moving the bishop to the king’s second square [6…Be7]. If White took the rook with his knight [7.Nxh8], Black would move the queen to the fourth square of the opposing king [7…Qe4], exchanging the queen.34 The knight cannot move and is lost.35 In this way, Black will win the game. Note. If at the beginning Black moves the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go, and White captures the king’s bishop’s pawn with the king’s pawn [3.exf5], and not the king’s pawn with the knight, Black will move the queen’s pawn as far as it could go [3…d5]. If White were to also take the king’s pawn with the knight [4.Nxe5], Black would play as before, giving check with the queen to the fourth square of the opposing rook [4…Qh4+] according to the aforementioned way. If White protects the king with the knight’s pawn [5.g3], Black will capture the king’s pawn with the queen, giving check with the queen [5… Qe5+] and threatening the rook.36 Note. If White does not give the aforementioned check in discovery [6.Ng6+], as we said, but instead gives check with the queen to the opposing rook’s fourth square [7.Qh5+], Black will move the king to the queen’s square [7…Kd8].37 34. After White captures the opposing queen with his queen [Qxe4], Black will capture the queen with his bishop’s pawn [fxe4]. 35. White’s knight, after capturing the rook [Nxh8], is defenseless, because if the knight moves to [g6], the rook’s pawn can capture it [hxg6], and its only other move is to the king’s bishop’s second square [f7], where the king can capture it [Kxf7]. 36. The king is in check because White gave Black his king’s bishop’s pawn as an advantage. Consequently, the king’s knight’s pawn protects the king from check. 37. López returns to move 6. White’s queen is on the king’s second square [e2] and the king’s knight is on the king’s fifth square [e5]. Here, White does not move the king’s knight to the opposing king’s bishop’s third square [g6]. His queen, instead, moves to [h4], where it gives check.



Book IV 251

If White were to give another check with the knight from the second square of the king’s bishop [8.Nf7+], Black would move the king to his own second square [8…Ke7]. If White captures the rook with the aforementioned knight [9.Nxh8], Black will give check with the queen from the opposing king’s fourth square [9…Qe4+]. If White were to protect the king with his bishop [10.Be2], Black would capture the pawn that is on the fourth square of his bishop with the queen [10…Qxf5]. Whether the two sides exchange queens or White does whatever he wants, he will lose the game, because his knight is trapped. In this way, Black will bring out his pieces and win the knight. Note. If, when Black moves the queen’s pawn as far as it can go, White does not capture the opposing king’s pawn with his knight, but instead moves the king’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go to protect the other pawn [4.g4], Black moves the king’s pawn one square forward [4…e4], placing it in position to take the opposing knight. The best move for White is to put the queen on the king’s second square [5.Qe2] so that Black cannot discover.38 Black will move his queen likewise to the king’s second square [5…Qe7] to remove the pin. If White moves the knight to his queen’s fourth square [6.Nd4], which is the best move possible, Black will move the queen’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [6…c5], placing it in position to take the knight. If White were to give check with the queen from the opposing queen’s knight’s fourth square [7.Qb5+], Black would move the king to the bishop’s second square [7…Kf7], making sure to be vigilant of the knight.

38. López is thinking ahead to the next move. After Black moves the queen to [e2], the king’s pawn is unpinned and can move. By doing so, Black discovers his queen.

252

Book IV

White will need to protect his knight [8.Nb3], and Black will give check with the queen from the opposing rook’s fourth square [8…Qh4+], and then it would capture the knight’s pawn and the bishop’s pawn.39 In this way, White has lost. Note. If, instead of giving check with the queen, White protected the knight, moving it to the opposing queen’s knight’s fourth square [7.Nb5], Black would move the queen’s pawn one square forward [7…d4], so that the queen’s knight cannot move where it is most useful. If White moves the king’s bishop to the second square of the king’s knight [8.Bg2], which is a good move, Black will advance the queen’s rook’s pawn one square [8…a6], placing it in position to take the knight. If White moves the king’s knight to the queen’s rook’s third square [9.Na3], Black will move the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [9…Nf6]. If White were to advance the king’s knight’s pawn one square [10.g5], placing it in position to take the knight, Black would move the knight to the queen’s fourth square [10…Nd5]. If White captures the king’s pawn with the king’s bishop [11.Bxe4], Black will move the king’s knight to the fourth square of the opposing king’s bishop [11…Nf4], placing it in position to take the queen. If White moves the queen to the third square of the king’s bishop [12. Qf3], Black will capture the king’s bishop’s pawn with the queen’s bishop [12…Bxf5]. If White took the knight with the queen [13.Qxf4], Black would take the opposing bishop with his bishop [13…Bxe4]. If White were to protect the rook and move it to the knight’s square [14. Rg1], as playing it anywhere else, Black would give discovered check and win the rook. Black will give discovered check with his queen anyway, moving the bishop to the opposing queen’s third square [14…Bd3+].40 39. Black received the bishop’s pawn as an advantage before the game began. 40. The implied reply by White to 14…Bd3+ is 15.Kf2.



Book IV 253

Black will give another check with the queen from the opposing king’s second square [15…Qe2+], and White will be able to move his king only to his knight’s third square [16.Kg3]. Black will move the queen to his king’s third square [16…Qe6]. If White took the bishop with the queen’s bishop’s pawn [17.cxd3], Black would pin the queen with the king’s bishop, moving it to the third square of his queen [17…Bd6]. If White does not take the bishop, but instead moves the queen to the fourth square of the king’s knight [17.Qg4] to exchange the queen, regardless of where he plays, either it will be checkmate or White will lose the queen, because if he moves the king to the rook’s third square, Black will pin the queen with his queen’s bishop from the fourth square of the king’s bishop. If, then, Black gives check with the king’s bishop from the queen’s third square [17…Bd6+], White will move the king to the rook’s fourth square [18.Kh4]. Black will move the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the king’s bishop [18…Bf5], as we said, to capture the queen where White moved it to avoid getting it pinned. Black’s giving check with the king’s bishop to the queen’s third square [Bd6+] before moving the queen’s bishop, as we are saying—all of this Damiano addresses so poorly and confusingly that players who know a great deal will understand little, and beginners, even less.41 But to continue, Damiano says if White moves the queen to the third square of the king’s bishop [19.Qf3], Black will move the rook to the king’s bishop’s square [19…Rf8]. If White moves the queen [20. Qg3], Black will give check with his queen from the king’s fourth square [20…Qe4+], the result of which will be a quick checkmate [21. Kh5 Bg6]. Note. If White moves the queen to a square that defends the check from the opposing queen on the king’s fourth square, Black will move the king’s bishop to his king’s fourth square [Be4], so as to give check with the rook [Rf4+], and White cannot escape mate. 41. López notes in the margin: “Damiano confused.”

254

Book IV

All of the aforementioned is Damiano’s doctrine, although in different words, and it can be found in chapter 4 of his booklet.42 Chapter 7

Which addresses several of the chapter’s errors and the aforementioned method of playing, according to Damiano In the previous chapter, I discussed eloquently the many ways in which Damiano misleads the player who gives a move for the king’s bishop’s pawn in chapter 4 of his booklet. I have not said, however, all that I could because only the most advanced players, particularly those who are able to see many moves ahead, would undersand. Although [Damiano’s mistakes] would not be a reason for me to spill my guts, as they say, and make my [objections] known to all—so that some, whoever they may be, think I’m nitpicking Damiano’s work, which, truly, I have not done—but only for me to warn players, both present and future, not to be deceived in their play by following such false and hopeless ways as Damiano’s to arrange their games. Setting aside this information and returning to the purpose of this chapter, I will mention some mistakes that it would not be right to conceal, and that any average player would notice. Since in this work I have woven together Damiano’s ways of playing with a desire to correct them for the common good of players, and since I passed over the mistakes that I will be discussing, so that it might seem to readers that I approved of this way of playing, they could blame me for it just as much as Damiano, if, as I say, I were to conceal things, without warning about them, that many people would notice immediately and condemn as bad. Moving past all that, in Damiano’s last Note, where he says that if White were to advance the king’s knight’s pawn [10.g5], placing it in position to take the opposing knight, Black would move the knight to the queen’s 42. López frequently refers to Damiano’s treatise as a librico or a librillo, two diminutive terms that López may use to describe the physical size of Damiano’s book or his contempt for it.



Book IV 255

fourth square [10…Nd5], and that White can capture the opposing king’s pawn with the queen [11.Qxe4] or the bishop [11.Bxe4], although it is a much better move to take it with the queen, he has White capture it with the bishop, which is the worst move he can make, because if White were to take the pawn with his queen, Black would take the bishop’s pawn with the queen’s bishop [11…Bxf5].43 White would capture the queen with his queen [12.Qxe7+]. If Black takes the queen with his knight in order not to lose his queen [12…Nxe7], White will take the opposing queen’s knight’s pawn with his bishop [13.Bxb7], placing it in position to capture the rook. In this way, White, who Damiano says was in a hopeless situation, will have won two pawns, and will have a good game and one more pawn than Black. But suppose that the above is not played and that White took the pawn with the bishop [11.Bxe4], and not with the queen. When Black moved the knight to the opposing king’s bishop’s fourth square [11…Nf4], placing it in position to capture the queen, and White moved the queen to the third square [12.Qf3], Black took the pawn with the queen’s bishop [12…Bxf5].44 He says White could take the knight with his queen [13. Qxf4], as if it were, or appeared to be, a good move, when White could move the queen’s pawn one square, protecting his bishop, as well as discovering the queen’s bishop against the opposing knight. But let it be that White takes the knight with his queen: Black captures the bishop with his bishop [13…Bxe4], placing it in position to take the rook, then White moves the rook to the knight’s square [14.Rg1], and Black gives discovered check with his queen, moving the bishop to the third square of the opposing queen [14…Bd3+]. White moves his king to the bishop’s second square [15.Kf2], and Black gives check with his queen from the opposing king’s second square [15… Qe2+].

43. López notes in the margin: “Damiano’s first mistake.” 44. López notes in the margin: “Damiano’s second mistake.”

256

Book IV

White moves his king to the knight’s third square [16.Kg3], and Black moves the queen to the king’s third square [16…Qe6] to cover the king. White, to escape the pin, moves the queen to the fourth square of the king’s knight [17.Qg4]. Black gives check with the king’s bishop from the queen’s third square [17…Bd6+]. White moves the king to the rook’s fourth square [18.Kh4], and Black moves the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the king’s bishop [18… Bf5], placing it in position to capture the opposing queen. White moves the queen to the third square of the king’s bishop [19.Qf3], and Black moves the king’s rook to the bishop’s square [19…Rf8]. Here he makes another mistake.45 White removes the queen so as not to lose it, as if forgetting that the queen’s bishop is in front of the rook, and as if it were not better to move the queen’s pawn one square: in the first place, so that Black could not move to the fourth square of the opponent’s king, with either the bishop or the queen; and in the second place, to create an opening for the queen’s bishop to defend against the rook’s check from the fourth square of the king’s bishop; and finally, so that White would not need to remove the queen from the bishop’s third square, where it is now, for it is the best defender possible in this lost game, as Damiano shows. Let’s suppose White is the better side, as it yields the advantage and makes the worst moves, allowing Black to make the best moves. And let’s give to Damiano that when Black moved the king’s rook to the bishop’s square, White fled with the queen in order not to lose it, as if by then there were a need to flee. He says that when White flees, Black will give check with the queen from the fourth square of his king, which is clearly a mistake, because Black cannot give check from the fourth square of his king; but rather, from the opposing king’s fourth square.46 45. López notes in the margin: “Damiano’s third mistake.” 46. López notes in the margin: “Damiano’s fourth mistake.”



Book IV 257

Damiano further says that White could move his queen, when it flees, to a square from which it could defend against the opposing queen’s check on the king’s fourth square, but he does not say where it moves, there being but two or three squares where the queen can go to defend against that check, namely the second square of the opposing queen’s knight, capturing the queen’s knight’s pawn [20.Qxb7]; the second square of its king’s knight; or the first square of his king’s rook. But supposing White moved the queen to any of these squares, Damiano says that Black will move the king’s bishop to the king’s fourth square [20…Be5] so as to checkmate. This is another serious error, because moving the king’s bishop to the king’s fourth square neither harms White nor allows Black to give check with the rook that Damiano says. So instead Black should move the queen’s bishop to the opposing king’s fourth square [20…Be4], attacking the opponent’s queen. Then, Black will be able to checkmate easily. Therefore, from the many blunders and inaccuracies Damiano displays in this game, it is plainly evident that he must have set it up not with the chessboard in front of him or from memory, but rather, in his sleep. In addition to which, at the beginning of this final way to play, Damiano says that Black could give check with the queen [4…Qh4+] when White captured the opposing king’s pawn with his knight, and that, blocking the check with the knight’s pawn [5.g3], Black would give another check with his queen, forking the rook by taking the king’s pawn, forgetting that the pawn is not there.

258

Book IV

Chapter 8

How the player who receives an advantage of the aforementioned pawn and the first move should arrange the game, according to Damiano White giving the king’s bishop’s pawn and the move, Black will move the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5].47 If White moves the queen’s pawn one square [2.d3], Black will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [2…d5]. If White moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [3.Nf3], Black will move the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [3…Nc6]. If White moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [4.e4], Black will take the king’s pawn with the queen’s pawn [4…dxe4]. If White took the queen’s pawn with his queen’s pawn [5.dxe4], Black would exchange the queen [5…Qxd1+]. White would capture the queen with his king [6.Kxd1], rendering the king unable to leap now. Black would move the king’s bishop to the queen’s third square [6…Bd6]. If White moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [7.c3], Black will move the king’s knight to the king’s second square [7…Nge7]. If White moves the king to the second square of the queen’s bishop [8.Kc2], Black will move the king’s knight to the knight’s third square [8…Ng6]. If White moves the queen’s bishop to the king’s third square [9.Be3], Black will move the king to his second square [9…Ke7]. 47. The stronger player gives an advantage to the weaker player. Black moves first, and White plays without his king’s bishop’s pawn. Today, the player who gives an advantage chooses to play Black because White, by convention, moves first. Since, in López’s game, White has surrendered his first move, the algebraic notation will reflect this by passing over White’s first move, starting with Black (1…), and then continuing with White’s “second” move (2.d3)—White’s first actual move of the game.



Book IV 259

If White moves the queen’s knight to the queen’s second square [10. Nbd2], Black will move the queen’s bishop to the king’s third square [10… Be6]. If White moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [11.Bb5], placing it in position to capture the knight, Black will move this knight to the queen’s square [11…Nd8]. If White moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square forward [12.c4], Black will move the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [12…c6] so that he can retreat the king’s bishop one square when White advances the pawn. White will be better off first retreating his bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s rook [13.Ba4]. Black would put the queen’s knight to the second square of the king’s bishop [13…Nf7].48 If White advances the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [14.c5] to capture the opponent’s bishop, Black will put his bishop on the second square of the queen’s bishop [14…Bc7]. If White were to move the pawn of the queen’s knight as far as it can go [15.b4], seeking a pawn break, Black would advance the queen’s rook’s pawn one square [15…a6]. If White breaks on the other side of the board, moving the king’s rook’s pawn as far as it can go [16.h4], Black would stop it by first moving the rook’s pawn as far as it can go [16…h5]. If White moves the king’s bishop to the queen’s knight’s third square [17. Bb3], Black will move the queen’s knight to the king’s rook’s third square [17…Nh6], allowing White to capture his queen’s knight [18.Bxh6]. If White captures it with his queen’s bishop so that Black cannot move his knight to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight, Black will take the bishop with his rook [18…Rxh6]. 48. López notes in the margin: “Damiano’s mistake, as the king’s bishop’s pawn occupies this square.”

260

Book IV

If White were to take the other king’s bishop with his king’s bishop [19. Bxe6], Black would capture the king’s bishop with his king [19…Kxe6]. Black will move the knight until it can be placed on the king’s third square [20…Ne6]. If White were to create space by moving the king’s knight’s pawn [21.g4], Black would capture the king’s knight’s pawn with his rook’s pawn [21… hxg4]. If White wanted to double the rooks [20.Rhg1; 23.Rag1] in order to take the king’s knight’s pawn [22.Rxg4], Black would move the queen’s rook to the king’s knight’s square [22…Rg8], putting said aforementioned knight’s pawn on the knight’s third square [23…g6] and the knight on his own king’s bishop’s fourth square to protect the knight’s pawn. [This is a] mistake by Damiano, because the square is not the knight’s own fourth square, but the opponent’s. Black will remove the queen’s rook to the king’s bishop’s square [24…Rf8], separating himself from the bishop’s pawn.49 If White took the bishop’s pawn with the king’s pawn [26.exf5], Black would take the king’s pawn with the knight’s pawn [26…gxf5],50 and will have two pawns that can move and become queens. If White were to give check with the rook, Black would protect his king with the rook,51 and White cannot do Black any harm. Note. White could defend in another way, as follows:

49. López does not state how White moves after 23…g6 and 24…Rf8. One possibility, as Laborde notes, is 24.a3 and 25.Nc4 (López de Segura, Livre de l’ invention liberale et art du jeu d’echecs, 418). 50. Since López does not write that Black makes the 25.f5 move, a pawn does not occupy f5, and therefore, neither move is possible. 51. Jorge Amador observes: “López notes that this check is not possible (there is a pawn on e5, blocking the check, and, in addition, the king is on e6, not e7, so Black’s rook cannot block a check by moving to e6). Or maybe López still thinks that the g1-rook can move to g6—recall that he doubled rooks on what seemed to be a closed file, and so the check he’s talking about is from g6” (J. Amador, personal communication, September 23, 2018).



Book IV 261

If Black moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go, White will move his king’s pawn only one square [2.e3], because if he advanced it more, White would lose the game quickly. If Black moves the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [2…d5], White will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [3.d4]. If Black took the queen’s pawn with the king’s pawn [3…exd4], White would take the king’s pawn with his queen [4.Qxd4]. Black would win a move by moving the queen’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [4…c5], and White would have a badly arranged game. But if White took the queen’s bishop’s pawn with his king’s pawn [4.exd4], Black would give check with the queen from the fourth square of the opposing king’s rook [4…Qh4+]. Black would exchange the queen by force by giving White another check with the same queen from the opposing king’s fourth square [5…Qe4+]. In order not to lose the rook, White will protect the king with his queen [6.Qe2].52 All of the aforementioned information is Damiano’s teaching in chapter 5 of his booklet, although he expresses it in many confusing words. But leaving aside many things I could say about the aforementioned way to play, I will only warn the players that, in addition to Damiano’s confusing and foolish way of playing, and his offering the player many moves without saying which to play, the defender has the advantage. Damiano also says other things that any player will readily see if he picks up the chapter and plays through the game as given by Damiano. In addition, Damiano says a lot of nonsense, as the following example illustrates: Black on the attack moves the queen’s knight to the king’s bishop’s second square, but it is occupied by the bishop’s pawn, of which he says nothing until the end of that way of playing.53

52. The implied reply by White to Black’s Qh4+ is g3. 53. López notes in the margin: “Damiano’s first mistake in this game.”

262

Book IV

Later on, near the end of this way of playing, he says that Black moves the knight to the king’s bishop’s fourth square to protect this same knight’s pawn.54 This presupposes having moved the knight to the same knight’s third square, which is a glaring error because the knight where it is cannot move to the king’s bishop’s fourth square, nor from here could it protect the pawn that is on the same knight’s third square. So he should have said, “from the opposing king’s bishop’s fourth square.”55 Damiano also says that after White exchanges his king’s bishop for the opponent’s queen’s bishop, which is on his king’s third square, White can give check with his rook from the opposing king’s knight’s second square, and Black can block with his rook from the bishop’s second square. These moves are impossible in view of the capture of the opposing bishop on the same king’s third square. If Damiano wants people to believe that the bishops were exchanged without either player making any moves, it is because he does not spell it out. He writes so much other nonsense in this game that he seems to have dictated it in his sleep. Chapter 9

How the player who receives an advantage of a knight for the aforementioned pawn and the first move should defend, according to Damiano In chapters 6 and 7 of his booklet, Damiano describes three ways that the player who receives a knight for the king’s bishop’s pawn and a move can defend. I will discuss them here, so that players can understand them better. For example, White receives the knight for a pawn and a move.56 If Black moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5], White will move the king’s pawn one square [2.e3]. 54. López notes in the margin: “Damiano’s second mistake.” 55. López notes in the margin: “Damiano’s third mistake.” 56. The reader who wishes to follow the moves López discusses in this chapter should remove Black’s queen’s knight and White’s king’s bishop’s pawn from the board.



Book IV 263

If Black moves the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [2…d5], White will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [3.d4]. If Black captures the queen’s pawn with his king’s pawn [3…exd4], White will take the king’s pawn with his king’s pawn [4.exd4]. If Black gives check with the queen from the fourth square of the opposing rook [4…Qh4+], White will protect the king with the knight’s pawn [5.g3]. If Black gives another check with the queen from the king’s fourth square [5…Qe4+], White will protect his king with the queen [6.Qe2] and exchange it by force because it is pinned. Note. If Black were not to capture the queen’s pawn with the king’s pawn, but advanced the king’s pawn one square [3…e4], White would create space for other pieces to move by moving the queen’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [4.c4]. If Black moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [4…c6], White will take the queen’s pawn with the bishop’s pawn [5.cxd5]. If Black took the queen’s pawn with his queen’s bishop’s pawn [5… cxd5], White would move the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [6.Nc3]. If Black moves the king’s bishop to the queen’s third square [6…Bd6], White will capture the queen’s pawn with his knight [7.Nxd5]. If Black were to give check with the queen from the fourth square of the opposing king’s rook [7…Qh4+], White would not protect his king with the knight’s pawn, because he would have a bad game. Instead, White would move the king to the queen’s second square [8.Kd2]. If Black were to take the opposing king’s pawn’s rook with the king’s bishop [8…Bxh2], White would give check with the knight from the second square of the opposing queen’s bishop [9.Nc7+], forking the rook. If Black took the knight with his bishop [9…Bxc7], White would take the queen with the king’s rook [10.Rxh4].

264

Book IV

Note. If, when White moved the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square, Black did not move the king’s bishop to the queen’s third square, but instead moved the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [6…Nf6] or the queen’s bishop to the king’s third square [6…Be6] to protect the queen’s pawn, White would give check with the king’s bishop from the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [7.Bb5+]. If Black were to protect the king with the queen’s bishop [7…Bd7], White would move the queen to the rook’s fourth square [8.Qa4], where he will sacrifice his queen to capture the opponent’s queen or lose the queen’s pawn. If Black does not protect his king with the queen’s bishop, but moves the king to his own second square [7…Ke7], White will move the queen’s knight’s pawn one square [8.b3]. And Black will have arranged his game badly. If Black did move the queen to his rook’s fourth square [8…Qa5] to defend against check from the opposing queen’s bishop from the rook’s third square, White would give this check with the queen’s bishop [9.Ba3+]. Black would move the king [9…Ke6], and White would exchange the opposing king’s bishop [10.Bxf8]. Black’s king would be out in the open. But if Black moved the queen to his rook’s fourth square to defend against the aforementioned check, White would move the queen’s bishop to the queen’s second square [9.Bd2]. If Black were not to move his queen away, White would give check with the knight and capture the queen.57 Regardless, after removing the queen, Black will have a bad game. Note. If Black were to move the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5], White would move the queen’s pawn one square [2.d3]. If Black were to move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [2…f5], White would move the king’s pawn as far as it can go [3.e4]. 57. The progression of the queen’s knight’s moves is as follows: b1 to c3; c3 to d5; and d5 to c7. The knight can fork the queen [a5] and the king [e8].



Book IV 265

If Black takes the king’s pawn with the bishop’s pawn [3…fxe4], White will give check with the queen from the fourth square of the opposing king’s rook [4.Qh5+]. If Black were to protect his king with the knight’s pawn [4…g6], White would capture the king’s pawn with the queen, saying check [5.Qxe5+]. Black would block with the queen [5…Qe7], and White can take either the opposing rook [Qxh8] or the king’s bishop’s pawn from his own king’s fourth square [6.Qxe4] and exchange the queen, which is better than capturing the rook, because then Black would win the game. All of the aforementioned is Damiano’s teaching from chapter 6, and the last above from the beginning of chapter 7. These words advise players who arrange their game this way that White, who has an extra knight, should not take the king’s rook [6.Qxh8], but instead capture the other pawn [Qxe4], exchanging the queen, because if White took the king’s rook, it would lose the game. I do not know, however, why Damiano said these words. If he said them because those who know little should be content with winning anything and not try to test their skill against someone who knows more, let him say these words when he wins the other way and the level of skill is suspect, like we said in the general warnings. If he said them, however, not to continue with the game because it is very tiring, with so many different precepts and moves, as he has shown, let him, who professes to be a teacher but tires so quickly, tell such clearly refined and elegant ways to arrange the game, as we said above, and we will discuss the remaining ways, But if Damiano said it because he believed it was correct and conclusive that if White took the rook he would lose the game, it would behoove the teacher to say how or to give some advice to help [players] to understand and to develop the skill, and not to leave it obscure and poorly reasoned; because he [the player] should understand, especially with respect to a subject like this one, which has been completely demonstrated, that it was not on the authority of Damiano’s word alone that the teacher omitted the explanation.

266

Book IV

Because if I fear the discovered check, which Black could give by capturing the queen’s pawn with his own [6…exd3+], it does not help Black greatly in winning the game from White. And if he said it because he thought that if White took the rook it would lose the queen, this, or some move by which one could come to understand, should be shown. The player should capture the rook whenever possible, unless he believes this move would harm his game in any way. Otherwise, the player with the knight advantage, why should he avoid taking it, not seeing such an evident danger? Because when he risked losing the queen for two other pieces, coming out with four pieces for the queen, or even three, is closer to winning the game than to losing it. But if White knows how to play, I do not believe it has lost the game, but, instead, won it. It is my opinion that if the game developed according to what Damiano says, and White would capture the rook with the queen [6.Qxh8], because if Black moves the knight to the bishop’s third square [6…Nf6] to imprison the queen, which is the only way to prevent the queen’s escape, White will move the queen’s bishop to the third square of the opposing king’s rook [7.Bh6], thus by force exchanging the queen and the bishop for the opposing queen and bishop.58 Else, Black will lose the game, because if it captures the opposing queen’s pawn with the pawn of his king’s bishop, which is on the opposing king’s fourth square, giving discovered check with his queen [7…exd3+], White, if it prefers not to move the king, can block with the king’s bishop from his king’s second square [8.Be2]. In this way, White will be safe and without fear and, exchanging all of the above, will be ahead by a rook. But if Black, before moving the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square, first gave the aforementioned discovered check, taking the queen’s pawn 58. Black’s queen is on [e7], and his bishop is on [f1]; White’s queen is on [h8], and his bishop is on [h6]. If Black moves his queen to [g7], White will capture it with his queen [Qxg7]. Then, Black will capture the queen with his bishop [Bxg7], and White will capture the bishop with his bishop [Bxg7].



Book IV 267

with his own pawn, as said, White, if he wishes, could still protect his king with the bishop like we said, continuing as above. If White does not want to lose the bishop by covering the king [8.Be2] when Black takes the pawn [6…exd3+], giving discovered check with his queen, White can move the king to the queen’s square [7.Kd1]. If Black took the opposing queen’s bishop’s pawn with his bishop’s pawn, giving check again [7…dxc2+], White would take the bishop’s pawn with his king [8.Kxc2]; and if Black were to give check with the queen from the opposing king’s fourth square [8…Qe4+], White, if he wants, could return his king to the queen’s square. Or White could protect his king with the king’s bishop from the queen’s third square [9.Bd3], placing it in position to take the opposing queen, and if Black captures the opposing king’s pawn’s knight with his queen [9…Qxg2+], giving check, White would protect his king with the king’s knight [10.Ne2]. If Black were to take the rook with his queen [10… Qxh1], White would capture the opposing king’s knight with his queen [11.Qxg8]. If Black were to take the opposing king’s pawn’s rook with his queen [11…Qxh2]—to protect the rook’s pawn and so that White cannot move the queen’s bishop to the third square of the opposing king’s rook [Bh6] against the king’s bishop, which is pinned—White will take the opposing king’s pawn’s knight with the king’s bishop, giving check [12.Bxg6+]. After Black takes the king’s bishop with the rook’s pawn [12…hxg6], White takes the rook’s pawn with his queen, giving check [13.Qxg6+], and Black moves his king to the queen’s square [13…Kd8], White will give check with the queen’s bishop from the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [14.Bg5+]. When Black blocks with his bishop [14…Be7], White will give mate with the queen on the opposing king’s knight’s square [15. Qg8#]. If the game were not played this way, Black, whatever it does, will lose the game if White knows how to play. Damiano need no longer be afraid that White will lose.

268

Book IV

Chapter 10

Another way the player who receives an advantage of a knight for the king’s bishop’s pawn and the first move should defend, according to Damiano In chapter 7 of his booklet, Damiano presents a third way to defend for the player who has the advantage of a knight for the king’s bishop’s pawn and the move, thus: Black will move the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5]. White will move the queen’s pawn one square [2.d3]. If Black moves the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [2.d5], White will move the king’s knight to his bishop’s third square [3.Nf3]. If Black were to advance the king’s pawn [3…e4], placing it in position to capture the knight, it will not be a good move, because White would take the king’s pawn with his queen’s pawn [4.dxe4] and, after Black captured the queen’s pawn with his queen’s pawn [4…dxe4], White would exchange the queen [5.Qxd8+], and after Black captured the queen with his king [5…Kxd8], White would move the king’s knight to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [6.Ng5] to take the king’s pawn. If Black protected the king’s pawn with whatever it wanted, White would give check with the knight from the second square of the opposing king’s bishop, forking the rook. Note. If Black did not advance the king’s pawn as stated earlier, but instead were to move the king’s bishop to the queen’s third square [3.Bd6], White would move the king’s pawn as far as it can go [4.e4] so that the opposing king’s pawn could no longer attack the knight. If Black were to move the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [4…c6], White would move the pawn of his queen’s bishop as far as it can go [5.c4] so that Black cannot keep those two pawns, that is, the king’s pawn and the queen’s pawn, together.



Book IV 269

If Black were to advance the queen’s pawn [5.d4]—which is better than exchanging it, because if it were exchanged, Black would be left with a badly arranged game and one less knight—if Black were to advance the pawn, White would move the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [6.Bg5], placing it in position to take the queen. If Black moved the king’s bishop’s pawn one square [6…f6], placing it in position to capture the opposing bishop, White would retreat the bishop to his rook’s fourth square [7.Bh4]. If Black moves the king’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go [7…g5], placing it in position to take the bishop, White would put [the bishop] on the third square of his king’s knight [8.Bg3]. If Black breaks with the king’s bishop’s pawn, moving it one square forward [8…f5], White will take it with his king’s pawn [9.exf5]. If Black were to take the king’s pawn with the queen’s bishop [9…Bxf5], White would move the queen’s knight to the queen’s second square [10. Nd2] and then move it to his king’s fourth square [Ne4], never allowing the king’s pawn to advance. In this way, White will have a well-arranged game, and this defense is not bad. Up to this point, the words are Damiano’s, although his are expressed differently and not as clearly. It is still worthwhile, however, to inform players on the defending side. Note. In these last words of Damiano’s defense and doctrine, which say that White should move the queen’s knight to the queen’s second square and then move it to his king’s fourth square, so that the opposing king’s pawn cannot advance, it seems to me that Damiano was careless, or else, when playing the game from memory, he forgot that it was better to move the queen to the king’s second square [10.Qe2], against the opposing king’s pawn, before moving the aforementioned knight, because in this way the player has three pieces [queen, knight, and bishop] attacking the opposing king’s pawn.

270

Book IV

If Black, in order to avoid losing the king’s pawn, or the queen’s pawn by virtue of the pin, moves the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [10…Bg4], placing it in position to take the aforementioned knight, White will not take the opposing king’s pawn with his bishop [11.Bxe5], because Black would then capture the knight with his queen’s bishop [11…Bxf3], placing it in position to take the queen. If White captures the queen’s bishop with his knight’s pawn [12.gxf3], Black will give check with his queen from the fourth square of the queen’s rook [12…Qa5+], winning the bishop. Consequently, White will not capture the aforementioned pawn with the queen’s bishop, but will move the queen’s knight to the queen’s second square, which is a very good move and a timely one, because it defends his king from the aforementioned check and protects the knight, such that he will win the opposing pawn or the whole game. White, if he knows how to play, will in this way leave Black more lost and wrecked than he would were he to play the way Damiano gives. Chapter 11

How the player who receives an advantage of a knight for the first move should play, according to Damiano’s doctrine In chapter 8 of his booklet, Damiano presents a way to play for the player who is given knight advantage, as follows. For example, Black, having given a knight for the move, plays the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5].59 White will move the king’s pawn as far as it can go [2.e4]. If Black moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [2…Nf6], placing it in position to capture the opposing king’s pawn, White will 59. Black gives White his queen’s knight in exchange for the first move.



Book IV 271

move the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [3.Nc3], protecting the pawn. If Black moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3…Bc5], White will move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [4.Bc4]. If Black moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [4…c6], White will move the king’s bishop to the third square of the queen’s knight’s [5.Bb3]. If Black breaks with his queen’s pawn, pushing it as far as it can go [5… d5], White would move the queen’s pawn one square [6.d3]. If Black took the opposing king’s pawn with the queen’s pawn [6…dxe4], White would capture the queen’s pawn with his queen’s pawn [7.dxe4], and it will not make further trades with the king’s pawn. But if Black does not take the king’s pawn with his queen’s pawn, but, first, moves the king’s rook’s pawn one square [6…h6] so that White cannot pin the knight with his queen’s bishop [Bg5], White will move the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [7.Nf3], placing it in position to capture the opposing king’s pawn. If Black moves the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing king’s knight [7…Bg4], placing it in position to take the knight, White will move the rook’s pawn one square [8.h3], attacking Black’s bishop. If Black moves the queen’s bishop to the rook’s fourth square [8…Bh5], White will move the king’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go [9.g4], and will win the king’s pawn. If Black gives the king’s knight for two pawns in order to maintain the pin on White’s knight [9…Nxg4; 10.hxg4 Bxg4], White will move the king’s rook to the knight’s square [11.Rg1], placing it in position to take the bishop. If Black were to protect the bishop with the rook’s pawn [11…h5], it would lose the queen’s pawn and thus the game.

272

Book IV

The aforementioned is Damiano’s teaching, albeit confusing and badly arranged but clarified for the benefit of players. If one were to look at Damiano’s booklet, the confusion and bad organization would be evident to those who wish to learn how to play. Note. In this last game that Damiano composed, he was no more careful to avoid mistakes than in previous games. Indeed, as I will discuss, he is more deserving of blame for these mistakes in the initial moves for both defender and attacker, for when Black moved the queen’s pawn as far as it could go to break against the enemy, and White, as advised by Damiano, moved the queen’s pawn one square, this was not a good move, because White was losing one of his best pawns: after Black captures the king’s pawn with the queen’s pawn [6…dxe4] and White takes the queen’s pawn with his queen’s pawn [7.dxe4], as Damiano says, Black will capture the queen with his queen, giving check [7…Qxd1+]. If White takes the queen with his king [8.Kxd1], Black will capture the opposing king’s bishop’s pawn with his king’s bishop [8…Bxf2]. Black will not be able to leap.60 I say this because Damiano values highly the king’s ability to leap even after the queens are exchanged, as can be observed in chapter 5 of his booklet. I have stated this above, in the game and chapter that I wrote on his teaching, dealing with the advantage of a pawn and a move. If White, so that his king can still leap, should take the opposing queen with the queen’s knight [8.Nxd1], Black will capture the king’s pawn with the king’s knight [8…Nxe4]. So there are two mistakes: The first by White on defense, playing so badly that he loses one of his best pawns; and the other by Black on offense, in not capturing the pawn. Damiano gives no reason for this; everything seems to be done from memory, but he forgets what he plays. Damiano concludes his games here. There are eleven, all told, distributed across eight chapters: three starting with the king’s pawn; one with the queen’s pawn; another for the player who is given pawn advantage for the move; two are about how the player receiving pawn and move should 60. White, not Black, is not able to execute the king’s leap.



Book IV 273

play; three are about how the player who is given knight for pawn and move advantage ought to defend; and one is about how the player who is given knight for move advantage should defend. But how good these are and the benefit they bring to players, each and every one can consider it and judge best with the aid of my discussion of the errors therein as I have put forth. Setting aside all of the aforementioned, as well as a lot that could be said about these games and Damiano’s teachings, some players, whether they have an advantage or not, will not wish to arrange their games so openly to the incursions of more knowledgeable players, fearing that they might easily go astray and lose if they are not well informed about the ways to play. While they are learning them well, I present below one way in which they can defend such that the enemy will not be able to attack easily. Chapter 12

Another way the player who receives an advantage of a knight for the first move can arrange the game Black, giving a knight advantage, moves first the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5], and White will move the king’s pawn one square [2.e3]. If Black moves the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [2…d5], White will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [3.d4]. If Black captures the queen’s pawn with his king’s pawn [3…exd4], the way will remain closed for White to attack the opposing king’s bishop’s pawn with his king’s bishop. This attack thus ruled out, White will be able to arrange comfortably, because the enemy will not be able to bother White much with his moves, as the main avenue of attack is closed off. So long as White keeps that queen’s pawn where it is, that road will remain closed; but if Black moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [4…c5], White, not having the queen’s knight in position, will capture the queen’s bishop’s pawn for two reasons: first, White will be safe from

274

Book IV

attack by Black if it arranges itself as I will describe; and second, to put Black into disarray by isolating his pawn.61 But before taking the bishop’s pawn with his queen’s pawn, he will give check with the king’s bishop from the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [5.Bb5+]. If Black protects his king with the queen’s bishop [5…Bd7], White will move his queen to his king’s second square, giving check again [6.Qe2+]. If Black protects his king with the king’s bishop [6…Be7], White will capture the queen’s bishop’s pawn with his queen’s pawn [7.dxc5]. If Black were to give check with the queen from the rook’s fourth square [7…Qa5+], White will protect his king with the queen’s knight from the bishop’s third square [8.Nc3], protecting the king’s bishop. If Black were to advance the queen’s pawn one square [8…d4], placing it in position to capture the queen’s knight, which protects the king, White will capture the opposing queen’s bishop with his king’s bishop, giving check [9.Bxd7+]. If Black takes the opposing king’s bishop with his king [9…Kxd7], White will give check with his queen from the fourth square of the king’s knight [10.Qg4+]. In this way, White will have won the opposing queen’s pawn and the game. If White does not want to do this, it can give check from the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [10.Qb5+], exchanging the queens by force [10…Qxb5]. White will take the opposing queen with his knight [11.Nxb5], attacking the opposing queen’s pawn. If Black were to take the opposing queen’s pawn, which is on the fourth square of the queen’s bishop, with his king’s bishop [11…Bxc5], protecting the queen’s pawn, White would move the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [12.Nf3], winning the pawn by force. 61. White captures the queen’s bishop’s pawn on his seventh move.



Book IV 275

Or, if White does not want to play this, due to the check that Black may give with his rook [12…Re8+], then instead of moving the king’s knight, as stated, White will leap his king to the queen’s third square [13.Kd3]. If Black moves the queen’s rook to his king’s square [12…Re8] with the intention of moving it to the opponent’s king’s square to hinder him, then White will move the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [13.Nf3] and next capture the queen’s pawn with the queen’s knight. Then White will seek to strengthen his position, moving the queen’s bishop to the king’s third square and the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square. If, in the meantime, Black does not make a move that requires attention, he will be defeated. If, at the beginning, when White moves the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [3.d4], Black does not take but instead advances the king’s pawn another square [3…e4], White will move the queen’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [4.c4], breaking up his enemy. If Black moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [4…c6], White will capture the queen’s pawn with the queen’s bishop’s pawn [5.cxd5], and if Black takes the queen’s bishop’s pawn with the pawn of his queen’s bishop [5…cxd5], White will give check with the king’s bishop from the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [6.Bb5+]. If Black protects his king with the queen’s bishop [6…Bd7] so as not to move the king, White will move his queen to the rook’s fourth square [7.Qa4] to protect his bishop, as well as to exchange the queen and the bishop for the opposing queen and bishop.62 In this way, White will be left with a strong game, and, with the most troublesome pieces exchanged, he will remain a knight ahead. White, knowing how to play, will win the game this way. If Black, in order to avoid these exchanges, moves the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [7…Nf6], White will move the queen’s knight to 62. 7…Bxb5 8.Qb5+ Qd7 9.Qxd7+ Kxd7.

276

Book IV

the bishop’s third square [8.Nc3]. In this way, either the aforementioned exchanges will take place or Black will lose the queen’s pawn. If Black moves the king’s bishop to the queen’s third square [8…Bd6], White will not capture the bishop and then the queen’s pawn with his queen’s knight, because Black would give him a bad game, taking the bishop with his knight [9…Nxd7] and then moving the queen to the fourth square of the king’s knight, placing it in position to capture the knight and the opposing king’s pawn’s knight, to win the pawn and the rook as well.63 Therefore, when Black moves the king’s bishop to the queen’s third square [8…Bd6], White will move the king’s knight to the king’s second square [9.Ne2]. In this way, White will be able safely to capture the bishop [10.Bxd7+] and the pawn [11.Nxd5], because if Black now moves the queen to the fourth square of the king’s knight [11…Qg5], as stated, White will move the queen’s knight to the fourth square of his king’s bishop [12.Ndf4], protecting the king’s knight’s pawn and protected by the king’s knight.64 In this way, White will win the game by force because his enemy will not be able to attack. This is enough for this way of playing. Chapter 13

Another way the player who receives an advantage of a knight for the first move can arrange the game In addition to the aforementioned game, the player who is given knight advantage for the first move can arrange the game the way I discuss below. The opponent does not have the queen’s knight.

63. If White captures the queen’s pawn with his queen’s knight [Nxd5], Black will capture the queen’s knight with the king’s knight [Nxd5]. 64. After [10.Bxd7+], Black moves [10…Nxd7].



Book IV 277

If Black moves the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5], White will move the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [2.d4] to disturb his enemy. If Black were to advance the king’s pawn one square [2…e4], White would move the queen’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [3.c4]. If Black moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [3…c6], White will move the queen’s bishop to the fourth square of the king’s bishop [4.Bf4]. If Black moves the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [4…d5], White will move the king’s pawn one square [5.e3], creating an opening for the king’s bishop. In this way, White will have freed all of his pieces and will easily be able to attack the enemy. If Black, when White moves the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [2.d4], were to take the queen’s pawn with his king’s pawn [2…exd4], with the idea of gaining a move, White would capture with his queen [3.Qxd4]. If Black moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [3…c5], placing it in position to take the opposing queen, White will give check with the queen from the opposing king’s fourth square [4.Qe5+]. If Black blocked with the queen [4…Qe7], White would capture it [5.Qxe7+]; the queens having been exchanged [5…Bxe7], White can arrange his game well on the attack against the enemy, keeping an extra piece. If Black does not block with his queen, whichever piece does the blocking, he will lose either the queen’s bishop’s pawn [5.Qxc5] if the king’s knight blocks or the king’s knight’s pawn [5.Qxg7] if the bishop blocks. In this way, White, knowing how to play, will win the game more easily. But if Black, instead of moving the queen’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go against the opposing queen, moves the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [3…d5], White will move the king’s pawn as far as it can go [4.e4] to break down the enemy.

278

Book IV

If Black took the king’s pawn with his queen’s pawn [4…dxe4], White would take it with his queen, giving check [5.Qxe4+]. If White preferred to exchange queens or to break down the enemy instead, it would not move the king’s pawn as far as it can go, but, rather, the queen’s bishop’s pawn [4.c4]. If Black took the queen’s bishop’s pawn with his queen’s pawn [4…dxc4], White could take the queen’s pawn, or else the queen [5.Qxd8+], giving check. If Black were to take the opposing queen with his king [5…Kxd8], White would move the king’s pawn as far as it can go [6.e4], discovering the king’s bishop against the opposing queen’s pawn. If Black moves the queen’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go [6…b5] to protect the queen’s pawn, White will move the queen’s rook’s pawn as far as it can go [7.a4]. If Black does not capture the queen’s rook’s pawn with his queen’s knight’s pawn, so as not to ruin his position, and instead moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [4…c6], White will take the queen’s knight’s pawn with his rook’s pawn [5.axb5]. If Black takes the opposing rook’s pawn with his bishop’s pawn [5…cxb5], White will move the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [6.Nc3]. In this way, White, knowing how to play, will win the game. My advice would be not to arrange the game this way so as not to give the enemy (assuming he is more knowledgeable, because, after all, White is giving knight advantage to Black) an opportunity win the game. Instead, as I said before, he [White] would move the king’s pawn as far as it can go [4.e4] to wreck the enemy’s position. This is enough to say about this way of playing.



Book IV 279

Chapter 14

Another way the player who receives an advantage of a knight for the first move can arrange the game If Black, giving king’s knight advantage, moved the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5], White would move the king’s pawn as far as it can go [2.e4].65 If Black moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [2…c6], setting up a break, White will himself break by moving the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [3.d4]. If Black captures the opposing queen’s pawn with his king’s pawn [3… exd4], White will take the king’s pawn with his queen [4.Qxd4], because there is nothing with which to attack her. If Black moves the queen’s bishop’s pawn another square [4…c5], placing it in position to take the opposing queen [d4] and to open up a square for the knight, White will give check with the queen from the opposing king’s fourth square [5.Qe5+]. In this way, the queens can be exchanged, or, if Black blocks with the king’s bishop [5…Be7], White will capture the king’s knight’s pawn with his queen [6.Qxg7], placing it in position to take the rook and preventing Black from castling. This way, White, knowing how to play, will win easily. But if, instead of moving the queen’s bishop’s pawn, Black moved the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [2…Bc5], White would move the queen’s bishop’s pawn one square [3.c3]. If Black moves the queen’s knight to the bishop’s third square [3…Nc6], White will move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the opposing queen’s knight [4.Bb5], placing it in position to take this knight. 65. Black gives his king’s knight to White in exchange for the first move.

280

Book IV

If Black moves the king’s rook to the bishop’s square [4…Rf8], White will move the king’s knight to his bishop’s third square [5.Nf3]. If Black moves the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [5…f5], White will move the queen’s pawn one square [6.d3]. If Black moves the queen’s pawn one square [6…d6], White will take the opposing king’s bishop’s pawn with the king’s pawn [7.exf5]. If Black took the opposing king’s pawn with his queen’s bishop [7…Bxf5], White would move the queen’s bishop to the king’s third square [8.Be3] to exchange it for the opposing king’s bishop. In this way, White, knowing how to play, will defeat Black by removing the pieces that could frustrate White. Chapter 15

Another way the player who receives an advantage of a knight for the first move can arrange the game Black, having given king’s knight advantage, and moving the king’s pawn as far as it can go [1…e5], White will make the same move [2.e4]. If Black moves the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [2…f5], White will capture the king’s bishop’s pawn with his king’s pawn [3.exf5]. If Black moves the king’s bishop to the fourth square of the queen’s bishop [3…Bc5] in order to vacate the bishop’s square for the king, and White wishes to give check with the queen, first he would move the king’s bishop’s pawn as far as it can go [4.f4] to break up the enemy and to play the game we discussed in the chapter on games without advantages, White is able to attack much better in this game, as he is much better placed to go on the offensive, because the other side lacks the knight that was so useful in defending and in driving away the opposing queen from that place where it can attack so much, giving check from the opposing rook’s fourth square.66 66. López discusses games without advantages throughout book 2.



Book IV 281

So if the game went this way, in order not to dwell on it further, I refer players to that aforementioned chapter. And if Black neither takes the bishop’s pawn with his king’s pawn, nor the opposing king’s knight with his bishop [Bxg1], but instead moves the queen’s pawn one square [4…d6] to protect his king’s pawn, discovering the queen’s bishop on the opposing king’s pawn, White will give check with the queen from the fourth square of the opposing king’s rook [5.Qh5+]. If Black moves the king to his bishop’s square [5…Kf8], White will capture the king’s pawn with the bishop’s pawn [6.fxe5]. If Black takes the bishop’s pawn with his queen’s pawn [6…dxe5], White will move the king’s knight to the bishop’s third square [7.Nf3]. If Black moves his queen to the third square of the king’s bishop [7…Qf6], placing it in position to capture the opposing pawn, White will move the king’s bishop to the fourth square of his queen’s bishop [8.Bc4]. If Black took the opposing king’s pawn with the queen’s bishop [8…Bxf5], White would move the king’s rook to the bishop’s square [9.Rf1]. If Black moves the king’s knight’s pawn one square [9…g6], attacking the opposing queen and protecting his bishop, White will give check with his queen from the third square of the opposing king’s rook [10.Qh6+]. If Black protects the king with his queen from the second square of the king’s knight [10…Qg7], White will advance the queen’s pawn as far as it can go [11.d4] against the opposing bishop and allowing the bishop to protect his queen. If Black took the bishop’s pawn with his king’s bishop [11…Bxd4], White would take it with his knight [12.Nxd4] and then move the king’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go, placing it in position to capture the opposing queen’s bishop, winning it because it is pinned. If Black takes the queen’s pawn, not with the bishop but rather with the king’s pawn, which is on the king’s fourth square [11…exd4], White will

282

Book IV

move the king’s knight to his rook’s fourth square [12.Nh4], placing it in a position to capture the opposing queen’s bishop. In this way, White will throw Black’s position into disarray and win the game. If, when White gave check with the queen from the rook’s third square, as we said, Black did not block, but moved the king to his square [10… Ke8], White would move the king’s knight to his rook’s fourth square [11. Nh4], placing it in position to capture the opposing queen’s bishop. If Black moves the king’s bishop to its own square [11…Bf8], believing that it has won the queen [h6], White will capture the queen’s bishop with the rook [12.Rxf5], winning it. If Black captures the rook with the pawn [12…gxf5], it loses the queen; and if Black takes the rook with his queen [12…Qxf5], White will capture it with his knight [13.Nxf5]. If Black captures the opposing queen with his bishop [13…Bxh6], White will take the bishop with his knight [14.Nxh6]. In this way, White will have won two bishops for a rook, in addition to the knight it has received as an advantage. White will be left with five pieces and the opponent with three. Black is hopelessly lost. If Black, instead of moving the king’s bishop to his own square, moved the rook there [11…Rf8], White would move the king’s knight’s pawn as far as it can go [12.g4], placing it in position to capture the opposing bishop. And if Black moves the king’s bishop to the king’s second square [12… Be7], White will capture the bishop with his knight [13.Nxf5] and, after exchanging queens, will have won a pawn. But if Black does not move the bishop, but instead moves his queen to the bishop’s third square [12…Qc6], White will take the bishop with his pawn [13.gxf5].



Book IV 283

Black will have lost, as it cannot harm his enemy, even if it were to give check with his queen or do what it might. *End of the Game of Chess* Printed in Alcalá de Henares, at the house of Andrés de Angulo in the Year 1561

284

Book IV

Bibliogr aphy

Bibliography

Adams, Jenny. Power Play: The Literature and Politics of Chess in the Late Middle Ages. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. Aristotle. “Magnorum Moralium I.” Opera: 3: Aristoteles latine interpretibus variis. Berlin: Apud Georgium Reimerum, 1831. ———  . Economics. Translated by G. C. Armstrong. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1935. ———  . Aristotle’s Poetics. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908. Bächtold, W. “Macrobius: Comentarius ex Cicerone in Somnium Scipionis.” In Dream Interpretation: Ancient and Modern, by C. G. Jung, edited by John Peck, Lorenz Jung, and Maria Meyer-Glass. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2016. Battles, Ford Lewis, trans. Calvin’s Commentary on Seneca’s De Clementia. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Borges, Jorge Luis. “Chess.” Translated by Alastair Reid. In A Personal Anthology, edited by Anthony Kerrigan, 75–76. New York: Grove Press, 1967. Cassiodorus. The Letters of Cassiodorus. Edited by Thomas Hodgkin. London: Henry Frowde, 1886. ——— . Cassiodorus: Institutions of Divine and Secular Learning and On the Soul. Translated by James W. Halporn and Mark Vessey. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2004. The Catholic Study Bible. Edited by Donald Senior. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Caxton, William. The Game and the Playe of Chesse. Edited by Jenny Adams. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Medieval Institute Publications, 2009. Cervantes, Miguel de. Don Quixote. Translated by Edith Grossman. New York: HarperCollins, 2003. Cessolis, Jacob de. The Book of Chess. Translated and edited by H. L. Williams. New York: Italica Press, 2008. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero. Translated by C. D. Yonge. London: George Bell and Sons, 1903. ——— . Rhetorica ad Herranium. Translated by Harry Caplan. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1954. The Codex of Justinian: A New Annotated Translation, with Parallel Latin and Greek Text. Edited by Bruce W. Frier. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Covarrubias Orozco, Sebastián de. Tesoro de la lengua castellana, o española. Madrid: Melchor Sánchez, 1674. Cuartero, María Pilar, and Francisco Javier Mateu. “Presencia de exempla afortunados en el De ludo scachorum de Jacobo de Cessolis.” In Aragón en la Edad Media.



285

Estudios de Economía y Sociedad, vol. 14-15, 357–73. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza, Facultad de Filosofia y Letras, Departamento de Historia Medieval, 1999. Dahlberg, Leif. Spacing Law and Politics: The Constitution and Representation of the Juridical. New York: Routledge, 2016. Eales, Richard. Chess: The History of a Game. Edinburgh: Hardinge Simpole, 2002. Flórez, Enrique. España sagrada. Vol. 2. Edited by Rafael Lazcano. Madrid: Editorial Revista Agustiana, 2001. Folger, Robert. Writing as Poaching: Interpellation and Self-Fashioning in Colonial Relaciones de Mérito y Servicios. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Gómez Gómez, Juan María. “Rui López de Segura contra el Brocense.” Cuadernos de Filología Clásica. Estudios Latinos 25, no. 1 (2005): 141–55. Gómez Redondo, Fernando. “El ajedrez y la literatura (34). Libro de la invención liberal y arte del juego del axedrez de Ruy López de Segura.” Rinconete. Centro Virtual Cervantes. January 14, 2015. https://cvc.cervantes.es/el_rinconete/anteriores/enero_15/14012015_01.htm. Greenberg, Henry J. The Anti-War Wargame: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Origins of the Game of Chess. Bloomington, Ind.: iUniverse, 2015. Gregory the Great. The Book of Pastoral Rule. Edited by Rev. James Barmby. London: Aeterna Press, 2016. Griffin, Clive. Journeymen Printers, Heresy, and the Inquisition in SixteenthCentury Spain. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Horace. Satires, Epistles and Ars poetica. Edited by H. Rushton Fairclough. London: W. Heinemann, 1926. John of Salisbury. Policratus. Translated by Cary J. Nederman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Juel, Kristin. “Defeating the Devil at Chess: A Struggle between Virtue and Vice in Le Jeu des esches de la dame moralisé.” Chapter 4 in Chess in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Age: A Fundamental Thought, edited by Daniel E. O’Sullivan. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2012. Justinian. The Digest of Justinian. Translated by Alan Watson. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. ——— . The Civil Law. Translated by S. P. Scott. New York: AMS Press, 1973. Kant, Immanuel. The Philosophy of Law. Edited by Samuel Parsons Scott. Clark, N.J.: The Lawbook Exchange, 2001. Linder, Isaak and Vladimir. José Raúl Capablanca: Third World Chess Champion. Milford, Conn.: Russell Enterprises, 2010. López de Segura, Ruy. Livre de l’ invention liberale et art du jeu d’echecs. Edited and translated by Stéphane Laborde. Morrisville, N.C.: Lulu Books, 2015. Martial. The Epigrams of Martial. Edited by Henry George Bohn. London: G. Bell and Sons, 1871. ——— . The Complete Works of Martial. East Sussex: Delphi Publishing, 2014. Mulgan, Geoff. Good and Bad Power: The Ideals and Betrayals of Government. London: Allen Lane, 2006. Murray, H. J. R. A History of Chess. 1913. Reprint, New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2012.

286

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Pandolfini, Bruce. Pandolfini’s Ultimate Guide to Chess. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2003. Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes. Vol. 3. Translated by W. R. M. Lamb. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1967. Protomártir Vaquero, Santos. “Una glosa de Gallardo al Brocense.” Revista de Estudios Extremeños 72, no. 3 (2016): 1595–1602. Sallust. Sallust. Translated by John Carew Rolfe. London: W. Heinemann, 1921. Schaforth, Colleen. The Art of Chess. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2002. Schiesaro, Alessandro. The Passions in Play: Thyestes and the Dynamics of Senecan Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Scott, Helen. “Case Comment: Killing and Causing Death in Roman Law.” Law Quarterly Review 129 (2013): 101–22. Seneca. Controversiae. Translated by Michael Winterbottom. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999. Shenk, David. The Immortal Game: Or How 32 Carved Pieces on a Board Illuminated Our Understanding of War, Art, Science, and the Human Brain. Toronto: Doubleday Canada, 2011. Sobrer, Josep Miquel. “The English Translation of Scachs d’amor.” http://www. scachsdamor.org/. Accessed September 21, 2019. Soltis, Andrew. “Tools of the Trade . . .” Chess Life, July 1995, 14–15. Tracy, James D. Emperor Charles V, Impresario of War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Twiss, Richard. Chess, Volume I. London: G. G. J and J. Robinson, and T. and J. Egerton, 1787. Vegetius. Vegetius: Epitome of Military Science. Translated by N. P. Milner. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2001. Virgil. The Aeneid of Virgil: A Verse Translation. Translated by Allen Mandelbaum. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982. Waisman, Sergio Gabriel. Borges and Translation: The Irreverence of the Periphery. Lewisburg, Penn.: Bucknell University Press, 2005. Walker, George. Chess & Chess-Players: Consisting of Original Stories and Sketches by George Walker. London: Charles J. Skeet, 1850. Wallerand, G. Les œuvres de Siger de Courtrai. Louvain: Institut supérieur de philosophie de l’Université, 1913. Wilkinson, L. P. Ovid Recalled. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Winter, Edward. Chess Facts and Fables. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 2006. Yalom, Marilyn. Birth of the Chess Queen. New York: HarperCollins, 2004.



BIBLIOGRAPHY 287

Index

Index

Adams, Jenny, 3 advantage, 9, 65, 89, 90, 92, 101–6, 109–10, 114–16, 125, 135, 173, 188, 194, 229, 237, 241, 243, 245–47, 250, 251n36, 253n39, 257, 259, 263, 267, 269, 271, 273–74, 277, 279, 280–81, 283 Alcalá de Henares, 15n2, 284 Alexander the Great, 23n3, 32 Alfonso V of Portugal, 5 Alfonso X el Sabio, 2 Amazons, 50, 75 Amel-Marduk, 32, 33, 74 Angulo, Andrés de, 15, 284 Aragon, 5, 7 Aranjuez, 17 Ariosto, Ludovico, 76 Aristotle, 23, 27, 28, 46, 48, 56, 59, 81; Ars Rhetorica, 56; Ethicas, 27, 81; Magnorum moralium, 23; Metaphysica, 81; Oeconomicorum, 48; Politica, 28, 59; Politicorum, 46; Problemata, 81; Rethoricorum, 81 Atalanta, 76 Athens, 47, 69 Atys, 30 Babylon, 32–33, 36–37 Bernardino Caldogno, Francisco, 10–11; “De ludo scachorum,” 11 bishop, xv, xvi, 4n14, 5, 8n23, 11, 16, 40, 45–47, 49, 51–57, 61, 65–66, 69–70, 76, 79, 81–86, 91, 95–100, 104, 113n179, 119–73, 177–237, 241–83 Bishop’s Gambit, 154n19 Boethius, 25–27; De consolatione philosophiae, 26, 27n16; De disciplina scholarium, 25 Boi, Paolo, 8–9 Book of Wisdom, 42 Borges, Jorge Luis, 11; “Pierre Menard Author of the Quixote,” 11



Calepino, 30–31, 39 Capablanca, José Raúl, 11 Cassiodorus, 19, 28, 42–43, 45, 52, 58–59, 105–7, 110; De anima, 45; Varia epistolae, 19, 28, 42–43, 52, 58–59, 105 Castellví i de Vic, Francí de, 6 Castile, 7–8, 15–16, 31, 62, 80, 104 castling, 45, 65, 128, 214, 225, 280 Cato, 72 Center Counter Game. See Scandinavian Defense Cerón, Alfonso de, 9 Cervantes, Miguel de, 4, 11–12, 15 Cessolis, Jacobus de, 10, 31, 36–37, 41, 51, 53, 58–59, 67, 74–75, 81; Liber de moribus hominum et officiis nobilium super ludo scacchorum, 3, 31n34, 41n56 Charles, eldest son of Philip II, 13, 15, 17 Charles I, king of Spain, 16n4 check, 3n6, 7, 44, 46, 54, 57, 60–62, 65, 78–79, 98, 104, 109–11, 119–32, 134–36, 138, 140–44, 146–47, 149–50. 152–53, 156–57, 159–73, 178–80, 182, 185, 187, 189–91, 193–200, 202–3, 205–9, 211, 217–19, 224–25, 229–32, 234–35, 242–46, 248–54, 256–58, 261–66, 268–69, 271, 273, 275, 276, 278–84. See also discovered check; double check checkmate, xviii, 6, 59–60, 78–80, 97–101, 104, 110–12, 123, 130, 135, 157, 169, 191, 193–200, 206, 208, 213, 223, 235, 254, 258 Cicero, Marcus Tullius, 18–19, 24–25, 43, 52, 63, 106, 114; De inventione, 52, 114n182; De naturum deorum, 24; De Officiis, 52, 106; Oratio in L. Catilinam Prima, 18–19; Rhetorica ad Herennium, 25, 88n159, 114n182; Timaeus, 63; Tusculanae disputationes, 18 Columella, 72

289

Curtius Rufus, Quintus, 89, 95; Historiae Alexandri Magni, 89, 95 Cutri, Giovanni Leonardo da, 8–9 Cyrus, king of the Persians, 49

Horace, 19, 107, 114; Ars poetica, 19, 114 Hugh of Saint Victor, 24; Didascalicon de studio legendi, 24n4

Damiano, Pedro, xv–xix, 9–10, 30, 45n77, 62–63, 76, 92, 110, 116, 173–74, 177, 179–82, 185–94, 200–204, 209–10, 214, 217, 221, 223, 230–33, 250, 254–59, 260n48, 261–63, 266–74; Questo libro e da imparare giocare a scachi et de li partii, xv, 30n28 Damiano Defense, xvi, 4n14 Damiano’s Gambit Game, 192, 200 Damião, Pedro. See Damiano, Pedro Darius, king of Persia, 50 discovered attack. See discovery discovered check, 129, 148, 150, 161, 169, 177, 191, 194–96, 198, 251, 253, 256, 267–68 discovery, 78, 79, 122, 251 Don Quixote, 4n13, 11–12 double check, 78–79, 191, 195–96 doubled pawns, 187, 214 doubled rooks, 159, 261n51 Eales, Richard, 5 Ecclesiasticus, 36, 42, 47, 51–52 en passant, 62n127, 146n14, 148n17, 196, 248 Facetus, 28 Fenollar, Bernat, 6–7 Filelfo, Francesco, 31 fork, 124n6, 144n13, 167n22, 178, 242, 258, 264, 265n57, 269 From’s Gambit, xv

Ibn Ezrah, Abraham, 2 Isabella I, queen of Castile, 5, 7, 104n68 Isidore of Seville, St., 31n34, 35, 52; Chronica maiora, 31n34; Sinonima soliloquies, 35, 52 Italy, xvi, 3, 8–10, 30, 31n33, 45, 61–62, 80, 96–101, 110, 146, 192 Jeconiah, 32 John of Salisbury, 44; Policraticus, 44 John of Wales, 2; Quaedam moralitas de scaccario, 2–3 Justinian I, emperor, 18n14; Corpus juris civilis, 18n14, 29n24, 48n87, 92n162; Digesta, 18n14, 29n24, 45, 48n87, 52, 60, 61n126, 92n162; Institutiones, 18n14, 48n87, 92n162; Lex authentica, 48–49; Novellae constitutiones, 18n14, 48, 92n162 Keres Attack, xv king, xvi, 1–3, 5, 8n23, 11n31, 37, 40–67, 69, 71, 74–86, 91–92, 92–104, 109–11, 115, 119–73, 177–237, 241–83 King’s Gambit Declined, 169n23 king’s leap, 121n1, 125, 128n5, 151n18, 184n5, 214n21, 273n60 knight, xvi, 11, 40, 45–47, 50, 53–58, 61, 65–66, 71, 76–77, 79, 82–86, 95–104, 119–73, 177–237, 241–46, 248–83

Gorschen, Fritz C., 5 Göttingen manuscript, 5 Greece, 69 Gregory the Great, pope, St., 43; Regula Pastoralis, 43 Gutmayer, Franz, xvii

Linder, Isaak, 11 López, Ruy: Libro de la invencion liberal y arte del juego de axedrez, xvi–xvii, 9, 10n25, 11, 12n34; Ruy López Opening, xv, xviii–xix, 4n14, 5, 11, 203 Lucena, Luis Ramírez de, xv, 4–5, 10, 44n73; Repetición de amores y arte de ajedrez con 150 juegos de partido, xv, 4–5 Luke, St., 58 Lydus, 30

Harpalyce, 76 Hippocrates, 69

Macrobius, 23–24, 35, 37, 92; Somnium Scipionis, 23–24

290

INDEX

Martial, 27, 30n26, 31, 40–41, 75; Epigrams, 27, 31, 40–41, 75 Martin of Braga, St., 29n23; De formula honestae vitae, 29n23 Matthew of Vendôme (Matheus Vindocinensis), 114 Max Lange Attack, xv Moors, 8, 25, 30, 50, 54, 75, 104n168 Murray, H. J. R., 2–3, 4n11, 5, 7n19, 8n23, 10, 12n35, 36n47, 44n73, 62n129 Nebrija, Antonio de, 48; Quinquagena, 48 Nebuchadnezzer II, 32 Ovid, 27–28, 34, 40–41, 73, 75; Epistulae ex Ponto, 28 Palamedes, 30, 32, 50 Palladio, Andrea, 72 passar bataglia, 62, 146 Paul, St., 47; Epistola ad Corinthios, 47 pawn, xvi–xviii, 4n14, 6–7, 11, 33, 38, 41, 44–46, 49, 51, 53–57, 59–74, 78–80, 82–84, 86, 89–97, 99–103, 105, 108–12, 113n179, 115, 119–73, 177–237, 241–83. See also doubled pawns Persia, 1, 20n21, 49–50, 75, 95; Persians, 49 Petrov, Alexander, xviii; Petrov Defense, xviii, 4, 177 Philidor, François-André, xvii; Philidor Defense, 4 Philip II, king of Spain, 8–9, 13, 15, 16n4, 17n9 Philo of Alexandria, 42 Philometor, 31 pinned, 133, 161, 199, 209, 254, 264, 268, 282; unpinned, 133, 252n38 Pius IV, pope, 8, 190 Plato, 47, 63n130; Meno, 47 Pliny, 35, 72, 91; Naturalis Historia, 35 Ponziani Opening, xv, 4n14 Portugal, 5, 31, 62, 80, 100, 110 queen, xv, xvi, 4–7, 11–12, 33, 40–41, 45–56, 58–61, 64–66, 68–73, 75–77, 79–86, 91, 95–97, 99–101, 104, 112,



113n179, 115, 119–73, 177–87, 189–237, 241–54, 256–84 Queen’s Gambit, 4, 11 Quintilian, 20, 25, 34, 59; Declamationes, 20, 34, 59; Instituto oratoria, 20n19, 25n10 Réti, Richard, xvii Rome, xv, xvi, 9, 26n13, 28n21, 32, 190 rook, xvi–xvi, xviii, 3, 4n14, 8n23, 41, 45, 49, 53–59, 61, 65n133, 66, 71–73, 76–80, 82–86, 97–101, 103–4, 110, 119–26, 128–30, 132, 134–57, 159–73, 178–79, 182, 184, 186–87, 189–91, 193–200, 205–8, 212, 214–16, 219, 222, 224–35, 242–46, 248–54, 256–58, 260–69, 271–72, 275–77, 279–83. See also doubled rooks Russian Game. See Petrov Defense Sallust, 24, 43, 49, 52 “Scachs d’amor,” 6 Scaevola, 29 Scandinavian Defense, 173n26 Scipio Africanus, 107 Seneca, 26, 28–29, 34–35, 87, 105–6; Controversiae, 34n40; De Ira, 87; De tranquilitate animi, 28; Epistulae morales ad Lucillium, 26, 36, 105–6; Thyestes, 42 Servius Honoratus, Maurus, 30–31; In tria Virgillii opera expositio, 31n31 Shenk, David, 1, 2n4, 4 Solomon, 43–44, 51, 59 Spain, 2, 6–10, 12, 13, 15n2, 16n4–5, 20n19, 26n13, 45, 50, 54, 62n128, 71, 73, 80, 96n165, 97–101, 104n168, 110, 192 stalemate, 78–80, 96–101 Terence, 26 Toledo Osorio, García de, 13, 15 Trojan War, 32 Troy, 30, 32, 50 Tyrrhenus, 30 Valencia, University of, 6 Valerius Maximus, 20, 29,69,107; Amore et dilectione, 20; Sapienter dicta aut facta, 107

INDEX 291

Varro, 72 Vázquez de Molina, Juan, 17 Vegetius, 25, 35, 37–38, 63, 66, 74, 77, 87–91, 93–96, 100, 115 Vinosalvo, Gaufridus de, 26; Poetria nova, 26n12 Vinyoles, Narcís, 6 Virgil, 30, 31n31, 39, 49–50, 72; Aeneid, 39n53, 49, 50n94

292

Waisman, Sergio Gabriel, 11 Xenophon, 49 Xerxes, 20, 31–33, 35, 36n48, 39, 41, 50, 58, 63, 95 Yalom, Marilyn, 7, 104n168 Zafra, 8, 15–16, 113

index

The Art of the Game of Chess was designed in Garamond Premier with Quadraat Sans and composed by Kachergis Book Design of Pittsboro, North Carolina. It was printed on 60-pound House Natural Smooth and bound by Sheridan Books of Chelsea, Michigan.