Amazing article. I think that reason so many people in his era and even later fell back on the psychological explanation is that they didn’t fuunderstand what was happening in his games.
In most of his games if you take the position after the opening his play is completely modern. His understanding of dynamics and the various trade offs between material structure and activity was at least a generation ahead of his time.
His games feel completely modern in terms of middle and endgame play.
I agree. Compared to most players, his middle game is very modern. The games where he outwits his opponents with sharp counterplay are extremely instructive. It’s unfortunate that the “psychological“ narrative of his style still prevails today because I think that downplays the significance of what he was doing at that time.
Amazing article. I think that reason so many people in his era and even later fell back on the psychological explanation is that they didn’t fuunderstand what was happening in his games.
In most of his games if you take the position after the opening his play is completely modern. His understanding of dynamics and the various trade offs between material structure and activity was at least a generation ahead of his time.
His games feel completely modern in terms of middle and endgame play.
Thanks for reading, William!
I agree. Compared to most players, his middle game is very modern. The games where he outwits his opponents with sharp counterplay are extremely instructive. It’s unfortunate that the “psychological“ narrative of his style still prevails today because I think that downplays the significance of what he was doing at that time.