< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Mar-26-07|| ||Plato: <Jonathan> Thank you for that fascinating tidbit, it certainly casts things in a different light! If you don't mind my asking, where did you read about this? A modern book, or do you own the work in which Tarrasch published his analysis?|
|Mar-27-07|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <Plato> now I understand what you asked on the Capa forum, so my answer there does work :) I bought the Russian translation of Dreihundert Schachpartien in Moscow in 1988, and snapped up the English translation when it came out, but it seems to be out of print :( It's interesting to read his own words; there is some of the quaint dogmatism he is overly famous for, but a lot of concrete thinking the defies many of the stereotypes, and even advocates some Nimzovichian ideas.|
|Jul-19-07|| ||Gerenense: <patzer2> 8...Qc7 seems also good, with the idea of encircling the advanced e-pawn with further ...Nge7-g6. Another advantage of this move is that allows the black bishop to retire to b6 after a hypothetical b4 by white.|
|Aug-09-07|| ||sanyas: 18...♗xe5 was a strategic error.|
|Sep-19-07|| ||euripides: This is often discussed as one of the great pioneering games of hypermodernism. But like Nimzowitsch vs Tarrasch, 1912, it is also a nice victory for the two bishops.|
|Sep-19-07|| ||keypusher: Or even Nimzowitsch vs Tarrasch, 1914?|
|Sep-19-07|| ||euripides: <key> yes, but it was never any secret Siggy liked his bishops. Nimzo kept this well-hidden.|
|Sep-19-07|| ||Shams: Nimzowitsch is full of it. Double exclam for 7.dxc5, right.|
|Apr-12-08|| ||stupidiot21: now thats what i call a slugfest|
|May-27-09|| ||shalgo: Both Nimzowitsch and Pachman suggest that 15.Qe2 is a strong move and that 15.Bd4 would have been a mistake, because of 15...Qc7 16.Qe2 Ng4! 17.h3 e5!|
Yet both also pass over Salwe's 15...Rac8 in silence. Isn't this move a mistake, as it loses a tempo in the fight over the d4- and e5-squares?
Black would probably have done better to play 15...Bxe5 16.Nxe5 Be8, intending Nd7.
For example, 17.Rfe1 Nd7 18.Nxd7 Bxd7 and Black's f-file play looks as valuable as White's on the e-file. I don't think White has more than a perpetual after 19.Qh5.
If instead of exchanging on d7 White plays 18.Nf3, then 18...Bh5 19.Qxe6+ Qxe6 20.Rxe6 Bxf3 21.gxf3 Rxf3 and Black should be okay in the ending, as White has a lot of pawn weaknesses.
|Oct-18-10|| ||kingscrusher: There is an element of overprotection in this game, but I think it vividly demonstrates swapping occupation of the center of pawns, with piece outposts instead.|
|Oct-18-10|| ||kingscrusher: Jonathan Sarfati: How do you equate Tarrasch's variation with dxc5 with the deep Nimzovich idea of giving up the center pawns for piece outposts?! |
You don't think Nimzovich's My system was a key instrument used by the Hypermodern School to teach findings about useful exceptions to the theories of Steinitz and Tarrasch?! You don't believe in the Hypermodern School?! Is this really the case?
|Oct-18-10|| ||keypusher: <kingscrusher: Jonathan Sarfati: How do you equate Tarrasch's variation with dxc5 with the deep Nimzovich idea of giving up the center pawns for piece outposts?! >|
How do you distinguish them? Why does Tarrasch suggest dxc5?
|Oct-18-10|| ||kingscrusher: keypusher: Well cxd4 fixes White's weakness on d4, and maybe even forcibly wins a pawn in certain positions. So dxc5 might in some positions be a forced move, otherwise cxd4 would be winning material basically. |
However, Tarrasch was I think not really "dogmatic" - he was trying to simplify Stienitz's concepts, and although he may have come across as dogmatic, I think systems like the Tarrasch defence where black accepts the IQP for strong counterplay are anything but dogmatic - more dynamic.
There was though I believe a fiece competitive personal rivalry between Nimzovich and Tarrasch, and I think Nimzo did really want to radically depart and challenge Tarrasch's ideas.
|Oct-18-10|| ||kingscrusher: I have video annotated this game:
It will form part of the Evolution of Style video series I am working on as a long term project:
|Oct-18-10|| ||keypusher: <kingscrusher>
dxc5 and exf6 by Tarrasch:
Tarrasch vs M Kuerschner, 1890
|Oct-19-10|| ||kingscrusher: keypusher: Yes, I think that in order to play against black's backward e-pawn exf6 is necessary - and maybe that was really the focus of Tarrasch's strategy. Also Black's kingside is a bit more exposed. |
In this game, there was a very controlled substitution of the pawn chain by blockading pieces.
But I admit the two games do seem to have very similar events - like the Qc2 and Bh7's.
Maybe a lot of Nimzovich's "My system" is repackaging of existing example games, in such a way to make the concepts more reusable. I think for example Staunton used Overprotection and fianchettoed bishops a long time before Nimzovich. A lot of the structural weaknesses were identified a long time before by Philidor.
What "My system" represented and why it was so influencial on the evolution of chess style, is the bringing together of all the aspects of "element management" - and nice new interesting terms like:
"Rook on the 7th"
So that players later could re-use these concepts quite easily.
|Oct-19-10|| ||keypusher: <kingscrusher>
<In this game, there was a very controlled substitution of the pawn chain by blockading pieces. >
You're right. Presumably Nimzo would have been horrified by Tarrasch's Ng5. (Note, though, that even Nimzowitsch eventually gives up his blockade.) I certainly wouldn't say Tarrasch-Kuerschner undermines any claim this game has to originality.
But there are some Steinitz games that seem to anticipate this one more closely, e.g. Steinitz vs Max Weiss, 1882. And I suspect, if you really looked, you'd find examples of White trading off his pawns and putting pieces on blockading squares against the French that are older than this game. One critical discovery we all make very early in our chess careers is that pawns don't capture straight ahead, after all. That makes putting a piece directly in front of a pawn a very natural thing to do.
|Mar-27-12|| ||bystander: 18) Rae1? limits the space of the Rook on f1 and makes 18...Ne4! possible. My silicon monster suggests:
a)19) Be4x de4x 20) Qe4x Bb5 (attacks the rook on f1) 21) c4 Bc4x 22) Nc4x Qe4x 23) Qe6x+ Qe6x 25) Re6x Bb4x
b) 19) Qg4 Be5x 20)Qe6x+ Bf7 21) Qe5x Qe5x 22) Be5x Nd2.
After 18) Rfe1 Ne4? 19) Be4x de4x 20) Qe4x with better play for white
My computer prefers 18) f4 and I understand that white blockades e5 very firm, but I cannot see how white and black should continue after 18) f4.|
|May-11-12|| ||Octavia: <niklas> In my German book N omits 38 Kf1 Bc6 but in my American "Blockade" trans Joseph Platz, they're included.|
In My system N talks quite clearly about where Salwe went wrong: He had to play 6...cd !
|May-11-12|| ||Octavia: Hi <kingscrusher> could you remove your utube link, please? It doesn't work & made my comp crush twice.|
|Oct-30-12|| ||Naniwazu: It seems that 27. Qe2 wins instantly..exd4 28. Qxe7 Qxe7 29. Rxe7 Rxc3 |
|May-23-13|| ||Emmykarpov: Please I am in Nigeria, how do these materials reach this axis?|
|Nov-06-13|| ||davide2013: 15.Bd4 is NOT a mistake, Nimzowitsch's analysis in this case is wrong, because after 15...Qc7; white would play 16.Re1, not Qe2.
If Pachman just copied and paste Nimzowitsch's analysis, then there is a case for understanding Petrosian's words when he said that Nimzowitsch went often too far to demonstrate his point, but his analysis were not correct.
However it would be interesting to know the year in which Nimzowitsch wrote the analysis, because Nimzowitsch vs Tarrasch 1912, one year after this game still has Nimzowitsch playing 6.Bd3, instead of Be2 which should protect more the Pd4 in his words.|
|Mar-22-15|| ||tpstar: Planning In Segments:
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·