Eugene Znosko-Borovsky 
Middle Game in Chess 

Whilst the greatest effort has been made to ensure the quality of this text, due to the historical nature of this content, in some rare cases there may be minor issues with legibility. Such an abnormal state of affairs has induced me to occupy myself for a long time with the theoretical study Of the middle game. There was no question for me, IS such a study possible? Why, I should like to know, Should that question arise? TO me the study seemed not only very desirable, but also quite necessary. My only doubt was how to begin it and how best to carry it out. Everything had to be created. There was not even a classification, which is the basis of all science; and the mass Of raw material – the endless number of annotated games – alarmed me by its immensity. AS I pursued my study, I saw very clearly that the middle game in chess is chess itself. Chess is neither the ending, which may Often be reduced to a mere arithmetical calcula tion, nor the opening, which, starting from a constant set position, develops the forces by an involuntary following of beaten paths. The middle game, I repeat, is chess itself; chess, with all its possibilities, its attacks, defences, sacrifices, etc. If, therefore, there is a theory of the game, not as a conglomeration Of different variations, but as a system of general concrete realities based on objective facts, then the theory of the middle game will present no special difficulties. Up to now no such theory has existed. The discussions with regard to the middle game were still in the air. The theory which was right for one position might be quite wrong for another. Where could be found the basis of agreement, to compel assent? Thus I came to the conclusion that it was first of all necessary to study the game of chess in general, the game founded on objective facts.