|
''Traité des Amateurs'' is the short name of the celebrated book〔("The Café de la Régence" by a Chessplayer in ''Fraser's Magazine'', Vol. XXII, 1840 )〕 ''Traité Théorique et Pratique du jeu des Echecs, par une Société des Amateurs'', published in France〔(Société des Amateurs, ''Traité théorique et pratique du jeu des échecs'', Paris 1786 )〕 in 1786 and subsequently translated into German and English. A reviewer in 1830 wrote that:
==''Le Traité des Amateurs''== ''Le Traité des Amateurs'' is a chess treatise composed by a "Society of Amateurs" who were contemporaries of Philidor and all frequented the Café de la Régence in Paris. Of these, the strongest players were Bernard, Carlier, Leger and Verdoni. Philidor, who lived in London, took no part in writing the ''Traité des Amateurs'' (which embodies many criticisms and comments on his earlier book). George Walker, in his translation of the ''Traité'' for the ''Chess Player's Chronicle'' in 1846,〔(G. Walker, "The Celebrated Traité des Amateurs" in: ''The Chess Player's Chronicle'', London 1846 )〕 states:
The work is divided into six chapters which are in turn subdivided into sections, games and comments. The first three chapters treat entire games, in which odds are supposed to be given; the fourth chapter is devoted to the consideration of "even" games (no handicap); the fifth concerns the endgame and the sixth consists of a selection of critical situations from Stamma,〔(P. Stamma, ''Essai sur le jeu des echecs'', The Hague 1741 )〕 upon which Ponziani〔(D. Ponziani, ''Il giuoco incomparabile degli scacchi'', Venice 1812 (1st edition Modena 1769) )〕 sarcastically remarked:
Another common point with Stamma is the usage of his algebraic chess notation, which was employed in the French editions of the ''Traité''. From the beginning the authors distance themselves from Philidor's ''Analyse du jeu des Échec'',〔(A. D. Philidor, ''Analyse du jeu des Échec'', London, 1749 )〕 arguing that the variations reported by the celebrated French master are more instructive than correct. Nevertheless, the games analyzed in the text can be regarded as typical examples of the understanding of chess during the Enlightenment, and the group was much closer to Philidor than to the Italians Ercole del Rio, Lolli or Ponziani of the Modenese school. The Italians (in contrast to the French) advocated free piece play, gambit openings and tactical complications. Because of its practical orientation, the work was published at the end of the 18th century together with the more theoretical textbook of Philidor. During the Romantic era, the play of amateurs was considered slow and monotonous;〔(Anton Schmid, ''Literatur des Schachspiels'', Wien 1847. )〕 however, the modern point of view gives greater consideration to the game of the Romantic period than of the Enlightenment (a good thing, considering the fact that we have the transcription of many more games from the former period than the latter). The most obvious difference between these two ways of playing chess are the respective focus on the dynamic and static factors of the game (giving to the terms "dynamic" and "static" the meanings popularized by Valery Beim in his books).〔V. Beim, ''Lessons in Chess Strategy'', Gambit Publications, 2003〕〔V. Beim, ''How To Play Dynamic Chess'', Gambit Publications, 2004〕〔V. Beim, ''Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective'', Russell Enterprises, 2006〕 In the introduction to the ''Traité'' and in the notes to the games, however, there are some important considerations that can be defined as modern. The authors, in fact, stress the concept that at the beginning of the game the forces stand in equilibrium. Correct play on both sides maintains this equilibrium, and leads to a drawn game; therefore, a player can win only as a consequence of an error made by the opponent. From this perspective there is no such thing as a winning move, and even the most skilled master can do nothing against these "natural laws" of the game. This point of view was later independently developed by Wilhelm Steinitz; today it represents the basis of modern chess theory, but at the time it was proposed by Steinitz it was in strong contrast with the Romantic concept of chess. According to this concept, it was the stronger player's higher imagination and combinative power (or, in other words, his ''Wille zur Macht'') which decided the outcome of the game; this was explained by Richard Réti.〔R. Réti, ''Modern Ideas In Chess'', 1923〕 ''Traité des Amateurs'', however, also differs from Philidor—not concerning the general idea of the "natural laws" of the game, but on the evaluation of White's move advantage. According to Philidor (as reported in the ''Traité''), White's initial advantage was enough to guarantee, with perfect play, the win of the first player. The authors of the ''Traité'', on the other hand, disagreed and believed that the advantage derived from the first move would only give (with perfect play) a temporary initiative to the first player; a game correctly played by both sides was always destined to be draw. As an example, the introductive section of Chapter IV (Games in which no Odds are given) in G. Walker's translation〔(G. Walker, "The Celebrated Traité des Amateurs" in: ''The Chess Player's Chronicle'', London 1846 )〕 states:
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Traité des Amateurs」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|