ment ▁( a ▁good ▁thing , ▁considering ▁the ▁fact ▁that ▁we ▁have ▁the ▁trans cription ▁of ▁many ▁more ▁games ▁from ▁the ▁former ▁period ▁than ▁the ▁latter ). ▁The ▁most ▁obvious ▁difference ▁between ▁these ▁two ▁ways ▁of ▁playing ▁ch ess ▁are ▁the ▁respective ▁focus ▁on ▁the ▁dynamic ▁and ▁static ▁factors ▁of ▁the ▁game ▁( g iving ▁to ▁the ▁terms ▁" dynamic " ▁and ▁" static " ▁the ▁mean ings ▁popular ized ▁by ▁Val ery ▁Be im ▁in ▁his ▁books ). ▁In ▁the ▁introduction ▁to ▁the ▁Tra ité ▁and ▁in ▁the ▁notes ▁to ▁the ▁games , ▁however , ▁there ▁are ▁some ▁important ▁consider ations ▁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 ▁maintain s ▁this ▁equilibrium , ▁and ▁leads ▁to ▁a ▁drawn ▁game ; ▁therefore , ▁a ▁player ▁can ▁win ▁only ▁as ▁a ▁consequence ▁of ▁an ▁error ▁made ▁by ▁the ▁oppon ent . ▁From ▁this ▁perspective ▁there ▁is ▁no ▁such ▁thing ▁as ▁a ▁winning ▁move , ▁and ▁even ▁the ▁most ▁sk illed ▁master ▁can ▁do ▁nothing ▁against ▁these ▁" natural ▁laws " ▁of ▁the ▁game . ▁This ▁point ▁of ▁view ▁was ▁later ▁independently ▁developed ▁by ▁Wilhelm ▁Ste init z ; ▁today ▁it ▁represents ▁the ▁basis ▁of ▁modern ▁ch ess ▁theory , ▁but ▁at ▁the ▁time ▁it ▁was ▁proposed ▁by ▁Ste init z ▁it ▁was ▁in ▁strong ▁contrast ▁with ▁the ▁Rom antic ▁concept ▁of ▁ch ess . ▁According ▁to ▁this