|Dec-28-05|| ||Bobak Zahmat: What is the purpose to play 4.Qf3? Instead of it White should develope his pieces first.|
|Dec-28-05|| ||Bobak Zahmat: Spielmann doesn't follow the main principles of chess:
Develope all the pieces in the opening;
Do not move a developed piece twice;
|Jun-01-06|| ||ChessDude33: Wild horsey! A great example of what superior development can do, it's good to know that a way to exploit a lead in development is with a well executed sac!|
|Jun-01-06|| ||Bartleby: Spielmann was an old-fashioned hardline Romantic attacker, the "Last Knight of the King's Gambit," thus dubbed, and threw caution to the wind many times. He's also been known to often play Qf3 in his Vienna Gambit games.|
|Mar-30-08|| ||larsen959: Beautiful!!|
|Mar-30-08|| ||mistreaver: Wow you rarely see such a thing - black's 4-move knight maneouvre and white resigns.
White is totally passive here, black's pieces just dominate the board|
|Mar-30-08|| ||amateur05: Nimzowitzsch's transformation from 1900s to 1920s is truly amazing.|
|Jun-03-08|| ||Xeroxx: think qe2 is better than 4.qf3|
|Jun-03-08|| ||Xeroxx: Nc3 is also better hoho|
|Jan-27-09|| ||Ruy Lopez: < Spielmann doesn't follow the main principles of chess:> And not seeing Nd3+? (Question Mark, not bad move) Isn't that one of those things good players are supposed to be able to see?|
|Jun-10-09|| ||sleepyirv: My favorite pun for the contest was for this game: "Developing Story" and I want to applaud the person who came up with it.|
|Jun-10-11|| ||DrMAL: Interesting opening play on both sides. White could have played 11.c5 but instead trades bishops first thinking he can castle after 12.c5 a bad plan. Move order was critical here. After 13...Qxc5 black is already nearly winning. White should probably try to bail out immediately with 14.Qa3 but played 14.Bxf4 to prepare castling long. |
15...Rd8 seems better but after 15...Bxg2 white should probably go 16.Rf1 Bxf1 Kxf1 18.Rd1 instead of castling because white's c-pawn is also gone. 18.Qf3 was probably better, and after 18.Qc2 Nd5 white position looks lost. Nice combination after 19.Bd2 finishes a great game by Nimzowich!
|Sep-08-11|| ||perfidious: <Xeroxx: think qe2 is better than 4.qf3>|
While 4.Qe2 is stronger than 4.Qf3, it isn't a wonderful move either-I faced this once and played 4....cxd5, ready to meet 5.Qxe5+ with 5....Be7.
The best line for White is 4.Nc3, as I played once (as White) in 1987.
|Oct-11-15|| ||Poisonpawns: This opening is so bad that 7..Bb4+ is almost winning|
|Oct-11-15|| ||cunctatorg: Rudolf Spielmann, a Aron Nimzowitsch's "old comrade in arms"!... Well, he had the right to be once disoriented or whatever...|
|Dec-27-15|| ||PawnSac: < Bartleby: Spielmann was an old-fashioned hardline Romantic attacker, the "Last Knight of the King's Gambit," thus dubbed, and threw caution to the wind many times. He's also been known to often play Qf3 in his Vienna Gambit games. >|
A study of the games between these two is revealing:
Classical games: Aron Nimzowitsch beat Rudolf Spielmann 14 to 7, with 13 draws.
Spielmann had white 19 of 34 games.
in 1905 Rudy and Aron played 4 games. Nimzo lost 3 as black and drew 1 as white.
He was the junior player but improved quickly.
1906-1931 they played 30 more games. This game was Nimzo's first win against Spielmann..
Yes admittedly Spielmann played the opening poorly, but of those 30 games Nimzo won
14 (8 as black, 6 as white) with 12 draws.
The point score is Nimzo 20 Spielmann 10
(of ALL games played, Nimzo 20.5 and Spielmann 13.5)
Spielmann was a great attacking player, but had a proclivity for speculative pawn sacrifices to create complications. He lost several games from overambitious choices rather than solid play that would have drawn. He also played some questionable lines apparently due to the complicated tactical nature of the resulting positions, despite the positional and theoretical drawbacks.
Nimzo countered Spielmann's somewhat overambitious and erratic tendencies with patient careful defense, continuing to pressure his opponent while waiting for him to blunder. His more sensible "system" of play paid him good dividends, especially against impatient opponents. That of course is not to say, giving the opportunity, that Nimzo was not capable of some nice attacking play. He created some beauties! Overall he proved the more accurate player.