|Jul-24-04|| ||meloncio: In spite of this defeat, Nimzo got lastly the first prize of this magnificent tournament, maybe the greatest success of all his chess life.|
A Yates's good game. I like 20.Be4; it stops the Black's attack and starts a winner counter-attack.
|Dec-04-04|| ||Backward Development: Nimzo was shown the great strength of, not doubled, but tripled pawns. Nimzo maneuvers, but the center is overwhelming. |
|Sep-02-05|| ||chessworm: The endgame advantage for Yates despite his pawns, the well positioned bishop which can counter every possible black attack.|
|Jan-23-06|| ||Timothy Glenn Forney: I see 20.e4! as great move which leads to drawing chances for white.20...a6? leads to a bad position by the positional master.Best would be the simple exchange 20...fxe4 21.xg4 .|
|Dec-24-08|| ||WhiteRook48: How did Nimzo lose that one? He doesn't lose a lot of games.
"Nimzowitsch blundered! He blundered! What a blunder! He lost! Oh, everyone should see this!"
I wonder how Nimzo would respond to that.|
|Jan-06-09|| ||WhiteRook48: serious pun potential..."Nimzowitsch loses? Yates!"
P.S. since when have tripled pawns on the c-file (seemingly a disadvantage) win??
|Jan-16-09|| ||WhiteRook48: tripled pawns only win if you are Yates.|
|Feb-01-09|| ||WhiteRook48: nice king moves at the end too|
|Jul-14-09|| ||Ulhumbrus: The move 18...Ng4 concedes the e4 square to White's KB, because if the Black f5 pawn has to defend the N on g4 against the Q on e2, it is not free then to take a B on e4. According to Tartakower the move 20 Be4! introduces a complete change into the position.|
Because of this resource, instead of 17...Nxe5, 17...Qxe5 may be better eg 18 Bxc5 Qxe2 19 Rxe2 bxc5 20 Nb3 Rde8 21 Nxc5 Nd8
|Oct-27-10|| ||GrahamClayton: Nimzowitsch's only loss at Carlsbad in 1929. Excellent video analysis at:|
|Feb-09-12|| ||RookFile: I really don't find a lot of games where Nimzovich showed strong endgame skill, or knowledge of the endgame that would have been useful in the middlegame. He should have taken Capablanca's advice to heart and studied the endgame more.|
|Feb-09-12|| ||King Death: < RookFile: I really don't find a lot of games where Nimzovich showed strong endgame skill...>|
That's probably because you're looking for anything that supports your low opinion of the player so you'd glide right on by if you saw it (if you even understood enough to recognize it) Here, let's shine a little light down your tunnel.....Lasker vs Nimzowitsch, 1934
<...or knowledge of the endgame that would have been useful in the middlegame. He should have taken Capablanca's advice to heart and studied the endgame more...>
If you'd only been around to shine your light on these miserable players of old, they might have won the world championship instead of being fish like they were.
|Feb-09-12|| ||ray keene: nimzos best endgames
v lasker zurich 1934
v spielmann carlsbad 1929
v lundin stockholm 1934
v maroczy bled 1931
v henneberger winterthur 1931
v thomas frankfurt 1930
v sultan khan liege 1930
v marshall berlin 1928
v reti berlin 1928
v alehine ny 1927
v tchigorin carlsbad 1907
and for a joke entry duras v nimzo san sebastian 1912 !!
|Feb-09-12|| ||King Death: <ray keene> It's interesting that all but one of those were in the last phase of his career.|
The "joke entry" was something else.
|Feb-10-12|| ||JoergWalter: Capablanca on San Sebastian 1912:
<Spielmann and Nimzowitsch, who tied for second and third prizes, are today the best two exponents of the brilliance of the old school, under the theory of the modern school. In other words, whilst recognizing the solid points of the modern school, they attack with the determination and brilliance which characterized the old players. Their play is similar in some respects. Both play things which other masters leave to one side, and the continuations they choose, although very brilliant, are not the result of the depth of knowledge which enables them to see certain victory, but are due to the influence of what is called “positional judgment”. That is to say, they do not see a combination through to the end and cannot be certain what is going to happen; but they believe it is good and that the position they will obtain will give them an attack which ought to win one way or another, and they thus embark upon that line, even sacrificing pieces to carry out their plans. It sometimes happens that they were wrong and that they lose; but sometimes also, despite the fact that they have been wrong, the resulting position is so difficult that the opponent does not see the correct course, misses his way and loses.
Despite these similarities, their styles are different in important respects. Spielmann is a purely attacking player. Nimzowitsch is a great positional player and his middle-game tactical skill is, in my view, superior to that of any other competitor at San Sebastián. Spielmann is better in the endgame since the Russian expert, for some reason that I cannot explain, is weak in this phase of the game and he sometimes loses a difficult endgame without any reason.>
|Feb-10-12|| ||Wyatt Gwyon: This must be one of Yates' very best games.|
|Feb-10-12|| ||RookFile: Thanks for the quote. Capablanca was saying Nimzo is weak in the endgame. I guess he must have tightened it up later in his career to produce the strong endgames GM Keene referred to in the late 1920's and early 1930's.|
|Feb-10-12|| ||King Death: Experience and hard work count for something, both Spielmann and Nimzowitsch were in their 20s when Capa's remarks were made. Even a fish like me understood more about endings when I was in my 30s than when I was in my 20s.|