|Dec-04-04|| ||Backward Development: Of interest:
on the nimzo-
"Aron Nimzovich, who invented this defense, could hardly have thought that thirty years later the masters of chess still wuold not have solved the basic problem: whether putting the question to Black's bishop with an immediate 4.a3 is good or bad. Naturally, if we knew it to be good, that would render all other tries pointless, to say the least....[after6....d5]Nimzovich never used to advance his c-pawn to c5 without need; he hoped that, after he gave white doubled pawns by means of the exchange at c3, sooner or later he could induce white to play d4-d5, after which he could establish his knight at c5. A lot of water has gone under the bridge wince, and the modern master puts no great stock in that far-off prospect of capitalizing on the doubled c-pawns. Instead, the immediate counterattack on the center with every means available has become one of the standard ideas for black in the nimzo-indian."
the draw was agreed by Reshevsky in time trouble. he obviously did not wish to calculate further.
|Nov-24-10|| ||Fusilli: <BD> You forgot to specify the source, David Bronstein's book on the Zurich 1953 tournament. In his comments on this game, he also explains that Reshevsky strategically outplayed Najdorf. Najdorf should have played for e4, e5, displacing the knight from f6 and trying to create attack. Instead, the development of his bishop to a3 is unfortunate. Reshevsky skillfully exploited the a-pawn weakness, but erred with his last move, which allows Najdorf to get various versions of perpetual check (the variations are laid out in the book). Instead, he should have simply played 24...Bxa4, saving the knight for kingside defense. He was indeed under time pressure and that's why he offered the draw.|
|Nov-24-10|| ||nescio: "The traditional move. My old move, 11. PQR4, was refuted by Reshevsky, and 11. BN5 is very artificial."|
- Najdorf in the tournament book of the second Piatigorsky Cup, on 11.Bd3 in Najdorf vs Unzicker, 1966
|Nov-25-10|| ||AnalyzeThis: Nimzovich did not invent this defense, of course. It predated him. As it was, Alekhine played the "Nimzo" far more successfully, and in a more modern manner than Nimzovich did.|
|Oct-14-13|| ||zydeco: The main line is 25.Ng4 Nxa4 (if 25....e5 then 26.Qc2) 26.Nxf6+ gxf6 (if 26....Kh8 then 27.Qe5) 27.Qxf6 Nxb2 28.Bg4 Qg7 29.Bxe6+ Kh8 30.Rd8+ Rxd8 31.Qxd8+ Qg8 32.Qf6+ draw. |
Bronstein suggests 25....Nd4 26.exd4 Nxa4 although after 27.Qe3 Nxb2 27.Qxe6+ Kh8 28.Rd2 cxd4 29.Rxd4 the game looks roughly equal.