THE CAMELOT MIDDLEGAME

 

Until recently, there were few recorded games of Camelot available for study.  Therefore, any thorough analysis of the Camelot middlegame (as well as the opening and the endgame) depends upon an increased level of game play.  The recorded games on this website undoubtedly can provide some middlegame ideas, but much further study is obviously needed.

 

Following are three brief thoughts on the Camelot middlegame; the first, from 1930, is a description of middlegame objectives, the second is a modern example of middlegame complexity from World Championship play, and the third is a discussion of the value of Knight vs. Man.

 

This middlegame advice is from the chapter on Camelot from the 1930 book Games For Two by Mrs. Prescott (Emily Stanley) Warren.

 

The capture of an enemy’s piece does not ordinarily occur until each side has utilized several moves in positioning for attack or strengthening defense.  Positioning is accomplished by a plain move to an adjacent vacant space, or by a canter over a friendly piece or pieces one at a time in order to reach a certain space, which may afford better advantage of location or aid in “filling in.”  Ordinarily, methods of attack include a massed group gradually moving forward toward some portion of the opponent force.  The point of attack selected for this purpose is usually the weaker of the opponent’s wings in case one of the wings is rendered less strong than another by the opponent’s moves.  Such an attack invariably includes either one or two of the player’s Knights, either entirely distinct from a wing reserved in solid formation for resistance although for the moment remaining inactive, or with some connection with the inactive wing, permitting cantering support, or the possibilities of a Knight’s charge through the lines.

 

One illusion which often possesses a player in his first few games is the thought that by gaining the edge of the board he may creep down the side lines towards his opponent’s fortress and accomplish the winning of the game by such a simple, obvious, uninteresting method.  Such tactics never succeed against a capable opponent unless a considerable portion of the enemy has been captured, or so separated as a result of previous attack that the way is open and clear.  The reason that such a method of reaching the goal is not practical is that one or more of the pieces creeping along the edge is susceptible to a compelled jump (by the sacrifice of an enemy piece) into a position where either a plain jump or a Knight’s charge will capture it.  Furthermore, the process of positioning and creeping down the sides requires so many moves that, in the interim, the opponent has ample time for an undisturbed program of attack, thereby enabling him to damage the main body of one’s forces beyond repair.  Outflanking the enemy can rarely be accomplished save by a definite attack and at least partial annihilation of the enemy’s wing.

 

Two things in the course of a game should be carefully watched: the point which an enemy’s Knights may reach, and the possibility (often by a sacrifice of one or more pieces) of the opportunity to break in with a counter attack which will do severe damage.  In fact, before making any move throughout the game, a good player will carefully observe every point which may be reached by an opposing Knight, in order that he may, if possible, avoid incurring risk from an enemy’s Knight’s charge.

 

No beginner can expect, in his first few games, to form more than the briefest conception of the great possibilities for success or hazard which may be incurred.  Beginners, in their first few games, are sure to leave numerous “holes” or vacant places, which if once reached by the enemy will permit capturing of several pieces.  As the player becomes more expert, he leaves such holes with great discrimination.

 

Broadly speaking, the game becomes a campaign of various minor engagements, in which a player’s definite program is varied and changed by his own strategy, influenced always by the type of attack of his opponent.

 

~~~~~~~~~

 

The combination displayed below, taken from the third match game of the WCF 2002-2003 World Championship, with its 26 variations, clearly illustrates Camelot's tactically complex middlegame phase.

       

 

       Black

       White

 

 

WCF Camelot World Championship 2002-2003

3rd Match Game

Michael Nolan vs. Dan Troyka

 

Position after:

1.E6-E8       H11-F9

2.H6-F8       E11-E9

 3.G6-G8       C11-E11

 4.C6-E6       J11-H11

5.G8-H8       G11-G9

 6.I6-G8       Ill-G11

7.E6-G6-I8-I6 F11-H9

 8.J6-H6       D11-F11

9.E8-E6       F11-D9

 

White to move.

 

10.E7-G5!

 

Variation 1

10......               G9xE7xC7xE5xE7

11.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9     F9xH9

12.H8xH10xH12          G11xI13

13.I6-G6-E6xE8xC10     E11-C9xC11

14.G7-G9               D10-F8xH10

15.G5-I7-G7-G9

(In the actual game, Black resigned here)

15......               F10xH8xF8

16.F7xF9xD9xF11xH9xH11 Wins 2M

 

Variation 2

10......                G9xE7xC7xE5xE7

11.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9      F9xH9

12.H8xH10xH12           G11xI13

13.I6-G6-E6xE8xC10      E11-C9xC11

14.G7-G9                D10-F8xH10

15.G5-I7-G7-G9          H10xF8xH8

16.H7xH9xF11xF9xD11xB11 Wins 1K+1M

 

Variation 3

10......                G9xE7xC7xE5xE7

11.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9      F9xH9

12.H8xH10xH12           G11xI13

13.I6-G6-E6xE8xC10      E11-C9xC11

14.G7-G9                D10-F8xH8

15.H7xH9xF11xF9xD11xB11 Wins 1K+3M

 

Variation 4

10......               G9xE7xC7xE5xE7

11.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9     F9xH9

12.H8xH10xH12          G11xI13

13.I6-G6-E6xE8xC10     E11-C9xC11

14.G7-G9               F10xH8xF8

15.F7xF9xD9xD11xF9xH11 Wins 3M

 

Variation 5

10......            G9xE7xC7xE5xE7

11.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9  F9xH9

12.H8xH10xH12       G11xI13

13.I6-G6-E6xE8xC10  D10xB10

14.G7-G9            F10xH8xF8

15.F7xF9xD9xF11xD11 Wins 2M

 

Variation 6

10......                   G9xE7xC7xE5xE7

11.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9         F9xH9

12.H8xH10xH12              G11xI13

13.I6-G6-E6xE8xC10         D10-F8xH8

14.H7xH9xF11xF9xD9xF11xD11 Wins 2K+4M

 

Variation 7

10......                    G9xE7xC7xE5xE7

11.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9          F9xH9

12.H8xH10xH12               D10-F8xH8

13.H7xH9xF11xD11xF9xF11xH11 Wins 2K+3M

 

Variation 8

10......           G9xE7xC7xE5xE7

11.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9 D10-F8xH10

12.F6xD8xD10xF12   H11-F11xF13

13.G7-I9           H10xJ8

14.G5-I7-G9        F9xH9

15.H8xH10xF12xF14 Wins 1K

 

Variation 9

10......           G9xE7xC7xE5xE7

11.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9 D10-F8xH10

12.F6xD8xD10xF12   G11xE13

13.I6-I7           G10-G11

14.I7-G9xI11       H11xJ11

15.G8-G9           F9xH9

16.H8xH10xF12xD14 Wins 2M

 

Variation 10 (Analysis by Chaxx 1.12)

10......           G9xE7xC7xE5xE7

11.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9 D10-F8xH10

12.F6xD8xD10xF12   G11xE13

13.I6-I7           H11-G11

14.I7-G9xE11       E10xE12

15.H6-F8xF10xH12 Wins 2M

 

Variation 11

10......                 G9xE7xC7xE5xE7

11.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9       D10-F12-H10xF8

12.F6xD8xD10xF12xH10xH12 F8xF6xH4

13.G7-I5                 H4xJ6

14.I6xK6 Wins 2K for 1M

 

Variation 12 (Analysis by Paul Yearout)

10......                 G9xE7xC7xE5xE7

11.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9       D10-F12-H10xF8

12.F6xD8xD10xF12xH10xH12 F8xF6xH4

13.H6-F8xD10             E10xC10

14.G8xE10                F10xD10

15.I6-I7                 G10-F11

16.H7-H9 Wins 1M

 

Variation 13

10......                 G9xE7xC5

11.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9       D10-D8xD6

12.E6xC6xC4              F9xH9

13.H6-F8xD10xF12xH10xH12 Wins 2K+3M

 

Variation 14

10......           G9xE7xC5

11.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9 F9xH9

12.H8xH10xH12      D10-D8xD6

13.E6xC6xC4        G11xI13

14.H6-F8xD10xF12 Wins 2K+2M

 

Variation 15

10......                    G9xE7xC5

11.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9          F9xH9

12.H8xH10xH12               D10-F8xH8

13.H7xH9xF11xD11xF9xF11xH11 Wins 3K+4M

 

Variation 16

10......                G9xE7xC5

11.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9      F9xH9

12.H8xH10xH12           G11xI13

13.G7-G9                D10-F8xH8

14.H7xH9xF11xD11xF9xF11 Wins 3K+2M

 

Variation 17

10......                G9xE7xC5

11.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9      F9xH9

12.H8xH10xH12           G11xI13

13.G7-G9                D10-F8xH10

14.G5-I7-G7-G9          F10xH8xF8

15.F7xF9xD11xF11xH9xH11 Wins 3K

 

Variation 18

10......                G9xE7xC5

11.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9      F9xH9

12.H8xH10xH12           G11xI13

13.G7-G9                D10-F8xH10

14.G5-I7-G7-G9          H10xF8xH8

15.H7xH9xF11xD11xF9xF11 Wins 3K

 

Variation 19

10......            G9xE7xC5

11.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9  F9xH9

12.H8xH10xH12       G11xI13

13.G7-G9            D10-D8xD6

14.E6xC6xC4         F10xH8xF8

15.F7xF9xD11xF11xH9 Wins 2K+2M

 

Variation 20

10......            G9xE7xC5

11.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9  F9xH9

12.H8xH10xH12       G11xI13

13.G7-G9            F10xH8xF8

14.F7xF9xD11xF11xH9 Wins 2K+1M

 

Variation 21

10......           G9xE7xC5

11.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9 D10-F12-H10xF8

12.G8xE8xC10       E11-G9xI7xI5

13.D7-F5-H5xJ5     E9-D9

14.C10xE8          F9xD7xF5xH5

15.H6xH4 Wins 1K for 1M

 

Variation 22

10......           G9xE7xC5

11.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9 D10-F8xH10

12.H6-F8xD10xF12   H11-F11xF13

13.G7-I9           H10xJ8

14.G5-E7-G7-G9     F9xH9

15.H8xH10xF12xF14 Wins 1K+1M

 

Variation 23

10......           G9xE7xC5

11.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9 D10-F8xH10

12.H6-F8xD10xF12   G11xE13

13.H8-I9           H11-H9xJ9

14.G8-G6-I8        J9-J8 (Best)

15.D7-F5-H5-J7xJ9 Wins 1K

 

Variation 24

10......           G9xE7xC5

11.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9 D10-F8xH10

12.H6-F8xD10xF12   G11xE13

13.H8-I9           H10xJ8

14.D7-F5-H5-J7xJ9 Wins 1K

 

Variation 25 (Analysis by Chaxx 1.12)

10......                     G9xE7xC5

11.E6-G6-E8-C6               D10-D8xD6xB6

12.H6-F8xD10xF12             H11-F11xF13

13.I7-G9xE11xE9xG9xI11xI9xG9 Wins 3M

 

Variation 26 (Analysis by Chaxx 1.12)

10......           G9xE7xC5

11.E6-G6-E8-C6     C5xC7xE7

12.I7-G9xI11xI9xG9 D10-F8xH10

13.F6xD8xD10xF12   G11xE13

14.I6-I7           H11-G11

15.I7-G9xE11       E10xE12

16.H6-F8xF10xH12 Wins 2M

 

~~~~~~~~~

 

The most important yet-to-be-determined tactical issue in Camelot is the relative value of a Knight compared to a Man.  A discussion of the theoretical implications of such a valuation on the development of a Camelot computer program can be found here.

 

It is clear that at the beginning of the game, a Knight is worth more than a Man.  Just as obvious is the fact that as the game progresses and pieces are removed from the board, the value of a Knight decreases relative to the value of a Man.  The ultimate expression of this is that a solitary Knight, without supporting pieces, is worth exactly as much as a Man.  Let's set the (constant) value of a Man at 1.00.  So, if for instance we set the value of a Knight equal to three Men at the beginning of the game, we can say that as the number of supporting pieces decreases, the value of a Knight, in terms of a Man, decreases from 3.00 to 1.00.

 

Following is the latest attempt to accurately quantify the changing Knight/Man ratio in a formula that takes into account the number of remaining friendly pieces.

 

Assume:

constant value of Man = 1

 

Let:

P = total number of friendly uncastled Pieces after move

N = value of Knight after move

 

Then:

                           (2.1100384 - P)

 
N = 2.30688036 – 1.27266278
 
 

 

This formula calculates N (the variable value of one Knight in terms of the constant value of one Man) as a function of P (the number of friendly pieces).  Here is a table of different N values as determined by different P values:

  

 P     N
 1 1.00000000
 2 1.27999376
 3 1.50000000
 4 1.67287081
 5 1.80870475
 6 1.91543683
 7 1.99930200
 8 2.06519940
 9 2.11697856
10 2.15766424
11 2.18963318
12 2.21475291
13 2.23449084
14 2.25000000

 

Naturally, all of this theory depends upon the correctness of the formula's derivation, both from a mathematical statistical standpoint as well as from a mathematical conceptual standpoint.  That is, 1.) Is the formula in the correct form? and 2.) Are the coefficients used in the formula correct?

 

To put all of this in perspective, the correct value of Knight vs. Man will determine how, in some cases, the opening should be played, and in many or even most cases, how the middlegame should be played.

 

In Chess, a player who wins a Rook for a Bishop or a Rook for a Knight is said to have "won the exchange."  To borrow Chess terminology, and coin a new Camelot term, we will define winning the exchange in Camelot as the winning of a Knight for a Man.  In Chess, given an otherwise even position, winning the exchange will usually win the game.  Will winning the exchange in Camelot win the game?