Dec-28-04
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: Fine play, with excellent annotations, by Nimzowitsch in this game which can be classified as a Nimzo-Bogo hybrid. One curiosity about the N-Man is that he played a number of good games with Bishops of opposite color, showing how they can help the attacking player. The position looks completely placid after ten moves; the manner in which Nimzo conjures an attack out of nothing is quite good. |
|
| Dec-28-04 | | fgh: Nimzowitsch at his best! |
|
| Dec-28-04 | | Leviathan: I don't fully understand the following annotation (on move 6. .. d6):
<Black is still at the crossroads between Dutch (b6 and Bb7)
and Indian (c5 or e5 with Nc6)>
Shouldn't it be the other way round? (Dutch = c5/e5/Nc6 ; Indian = b6/Bb7) |
|
Dec-28-04
| | An Englishman: Good Evening: And good question, Leviathan. In his books, Nimzowitsch strongly advocated that players not commit too soon to one plan, and to leave opponents guessing. So when he says he's at the "crossroads," he means that Vidmar still does not know what Black will do. In fact, Nimzowitsch manages to play the Nimzo, Bogo, and Queen's Indian Defenses, all in this one game! Regarding the formations he describes, remember that he's referring to contemporary theory, i.e., 1927. The Dutch was commonly played in conjunction with ...b6, which we now know is too risky, thanks to the possible d4-d5 advance. You could argue that Nimzo played a fourth defense in this game, the Dutch! The Indian to which he refers could be either the Samisch Variation, where Black sometimes tries ...c5, ...Nc6, ...d6 and ...e5, or the Milner-Barry (or Zurich) Variation, 4.Qc2,Nc6, followed eventually by ...d6 and ...e5. Note that a lot of these variations are now obsolete. The Dutch Stonewall is not c5/e5/Nc6, it's c6/d5/e6/f5, while the Old Dutch is d6/e6/f5, and the Leningrad is d6/e7/f5/g6. However, you are correct that the ...e6 Indian systems today do resort to b6/Bb7. Nimzowitsch's note gives us a good idea of how theory has changed. |
|
| Dec-29-04 | | Leviathan: Thanks for the explanation, <An Englishman>. Now everything is clear ;) |
|
| Feb-29-08 | | gambitfan: Opening of the day OPOD Fri 13/04/2007
|
|
| Apr-05-08 | | Marmot PFL: 17...g5! is indeed a bold hypermodern idea. A player of the Tarrasch school would probably go for a draw with rook trades on the d file. |
|
| Apr-06-08 | | norcist: i'm not sure g5 is in complete violation of steintz's laws. The d file is closed to rooks, and as our first world champ says, this is the best time to launch a wing attack...of course having the skill (not to mention boldness) to play this over the board is a completely different matter |
|
Aug-17-19
 | | plang: 4..Qe7 which is now the main line had been introduced by Nimzovich a year earlier against the same opponent at Semmering. 5 g3 is considered to be a more ambitious line. Again 6 g3 or 6 Qc2 would have been more active. Both Dvoretsky and Nunn were critical of 18 Bf2?! as c3 was a more active square for the bishop and the plan of doubling rooks on the d-file proved ineffective as the entry squares were covered. Bondarevsky recommended 18 Qd3..Rad8 19 Qd6..Qxd6 20 Rxd6..Nb8 21 Rxd8..Rxd8 22 Bc3..Nc6 23 Kf2 when White should be OK. 22 Bf1? was too passive; better was 22 Be1..g4 23 fxg..Bxg4 24 Bxg4..Qxg4 25 Qc2 with some advantage for Black. 23 fxe..Nxe4 24 Rd7..Qxb2 25 Be1..f4 26 exf..Qf6 would also have been strong for Black. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
Annotations by 