Contesting for the center is probably the greatest maxim in chess, yet many players don't realize when they control the center, or how to proceed after they do control it. This article is intended for lower-rated players in the hope that it will improve their play.

The classic concept of the center is the four central squares of the chessboard: d4, d5, e4, e5. Some authors expand this to include the 16 central squares of the board, and call it the extended center.

Control of a central square means the player can place his pawn on this square without losing material, or can place a piece there without losing material or being forced into retreat. Sometimes these squares are occupied by pieces or pawns, sometimes pawns and pieces are placed so that the opponent cannot occupy one or more central squares.

When both sides play well, neither side can monopolize the entire center. Some squares cannot be held by either side, while others are under a constant state of siege, with both sides maneuvering to gain control. It's not often that a central square, once controlled, remains that way for the duration of the game, as the opponent will also be maneuvering to wrest control of the square away from its owner or, failing in that, to exchange or at least neutralize the effectiveness of an enemy piece posted there. From this comes Nimzovich's theory of overprotection.

Moving as few pawns as possible to bring the knights, bishops and queen from the back rank on to good squares, then castling to protect the king behind a wall of pawns and join the rooks is called development. Posting these pieces where they occupy and/or influence the battle for the center is called, in Nimzovich's terminology, centralization.

The fight for the center is the underlying theme of all opening theory. Amateurs make the mistake of memorizing these published sequences of moves and know where all the pieces are supposed to go, but they fail to understand why these moves are played, i.e., in terms of control of squares. That is why their positions inevitably collapse when an opponent deviates from "the book." If you are floundering in a sea of MCO or ECO footnotes, I strongly recommend Fine's Ideas Behind the Chess Openings.

Why is the center important? Why must we fight for these squares? Simply stated, they are the shortest route for pieces to flow across the chessboard, for attack or defense. If one side dominates the center, the other side has the dubious choice of defending passively or trying to mount a counter- attack around the perimeters of the board; both require time-consuming maneuvering under cramped conditions and rarely succeed.

The following two games illustrate what happens when Black doesn't fight for his share of the center. The first game (Loveland-Searles) was played in 1977 and white wasn't aware that he controlled the center. The second game (Loveland-Anonymous) was played this past year and White, although fully aware of his dominant center, isn't certain how to take advantage of it. However, as we shall see, he gradually works it out. Notes for the first game are by Irving Kandel from Kandel's Kommentary, a column in the Chess Correspondent that feted the game of the month. Any notes that I add will be followed by (WCL.) Notes to the second game are my own.