Chill. It's been GOTD many times. You haven't noticed, apparently.

Having read OMGP, I would say that this game does not impress Kasparov particularly. The other people <Once> cites wrote some time ago, and a lot of what they published isn't worth the paper it is printed on, frankly.

In this assembling of lists of great games, there is nothing easier than picking something that's already been picked. You don't have to find a great Nimzowitsch game on your own. You don't even have to annotate it. You can copy the old annotations. Kasparov/Plisetsky did a huge amount of that. Don't underestimate the fact that this game is 25 moves long, either. Nimzowitsch's style did not tend to generate short games. So the fact that this game has made a lot of lists of great games means little to me. It was a Saemisch helpmate.

Having said all that, let me say that I respect and admire the man in your avatar. My System was one of my first chess books; probably 90% of my chess style is a semi-retarded, crude imitation of his. He was an artist and a genius. He played miraculous games. This is not one of them.

LOL! I think that's all that needs to be said. Reuben Fine, Irving Chernev, Harry Golombek, Johns Emms, Graham Burgess and John Nunn all dismissed because they wrote some time ago.

In a way I admire you for sticking to your guns when just about the entire chess world thinks differently. I have been known to take a similar position when I believe strongly in something. From experience I find that 99% of the time the majority are right, but there is the odd occasion when the 1% view prevails. Sometimes the emporer does indeed have no clothes.

You are of course welcome to your opinion. I could carry on, finding quotes from more GMs and renowned writers, but I suspect that it won't make any difference. Your mind is made up - you think that this game is overrated. And no matter how much evidence we present to the contrary - including far better chess players and writers than me - you'll no doubt criticise them for perceived lack of authority, or because they wrote some time ago, or (in the case of MGP) because you get the sense that Kasparov didn't really like the game (although he doesn't say so explicitly).

<But seriously, I would certainly agree that the game was over-hyped by Nimzo and his hyperbolic annotations. It is quite possible that Nimzo invented a story that Lasker has praised the game. Saemisch did play weakly at times. There are better examples of zugwang out there. Nimzo did not play the opening as well as he could have done.>

I'm on your side regarding Nimzo ... but why would anyone think that a belief is more likely to be true if it is strongly held? Or that a passionate belief entitles the believer to some kind of respect?

o arme familie aus halberstadt
im D-zug nach binz auf rügen!
ein schachspieler hat es weit besser, der hat
die wahl zwischen mehreren zügen.

--Hansgeorg Stengel

Until move 14. h3, the only criticism of White's play could be that he released tension in the center too soon with 9. cxd5. An alternative to 13. Nxc6 is Nxe4 uncovering an attack on the c6 knight.

With 14. h3, White begins to drift. However, to play e4 would require a preparatory move such as Re1 in order to be successful. It would also have left White with an isolated queen pawn, which Samisch might have decided was too much of a liability. Hence, the waiting move of 14. h3.

The fact that 15. Kh2? is even played suggests that the more active Re1, e4 sequence is a viable alternative. This is the main criticism surrounding this game - the fact that Samisch doesn't play more actively or imaginatively. However, I don't think that should detract from Nimzo's play. He could have played less actively and still won. But, instead, he elevated his play.

After 14. h3, Nimzo makes the decision to play king side rather than take the time to place his knight on c4. A wise choice since it would take him four moves to put it there, and White could foil it by simply playing Qd1 and b3.

15. ... Nh5 is a tactical finesse that allows the powerful 16. ... f5!. This move highlights the fact that White is being pushed steadily back on both sides of the board. 17. ... b4! punishes Samisch's failure to play e4. As a result, his hapless knight has nowhere to go but home and it leaves his bishop with nowhere to go at all.

What makes this game so compelling is that one could make the argument that after 15. Kh2, White is already in a zugzwang. He certainly is in a losing position.

20. e4 is a last gasp at counterplay. White already has very few moves that he can make without obviously hurting his position. Unfortunately for Samisch, Nimzo calculated his response back on move 14. I would be willing to bet Samisch might have thought that Nimzo slipped up with 20. ... fxe4, sacrificing the knight since the implications of this sacrifice are not immediately evident. It is this deep sacrifice which elevates this game.

In particular, I'm amazed at the way some annotators rave about the final move, giving it two exclamation points and calling it the amazing winning move ever played or something equally over the top. I mean, come on... White is so tied up, any reasonable plan should win. For example, when I look at the position after White's 25th move, the plan that occurs to me is a routine (and somewhat boring, I suppose) kingside breakthrough by 25...Qe8, planning ...Qg6 followed by ...Bxg3. Once the g-pawn drops, it's a slaughter. White can't stop this plan by 26. g4 because of 26...R5f3 27. Qg5 Rxh3+ and mates.

As we can see, Golombek has called it "The finest possible example of Zugzwang." In his book My System, Nimzowitsch himself has called his last move "A brilliant move which announces the Zugzwang."

For more than forty years, I have understood Zugzwang to be a position where a player loses or worsens his position because it is his turn to move. If he could pass on the move to his opponent, in other words if it is his opponent's move, he is fine.

The diagrammed position is a simple example of Zugzwang.

click for larger view

Black to play loses, but black doesn't lose if it is white's move. Here black is in Zugzwang.

Here is another example.

click for larger view

Black to play loses, but black doesn't lose if it is white's move. Here too black is in Zugzwang.

For more information on Zugzwang, please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang

In the final position of Samisch-Nimzowitsch game, it is true that white loses no matter what he plays. This is not unusual in a completely lost game. To me, white will be in Zugzwang only if black can't win or improve his position if it is his turn to move, which is not the case here. This can be confirmed by copying this position to a chess engine and letting it analyse with black to play.

It appears to me now that the word Zugzwang is used differently by different chess players and chess writers.

To some, a position where only one player would be at a disadvantage if it was his turn to move is Zugzwang, and a position where both players would be at a disadvantage if it were their turn to move is a Reciprocal or Mutual Zugzwang. For others, the two types of positions are a Squeeze and a Zugzwang respectively.

In short, while most use the word Zugzwang loosely, others will call a position a Zugzwang only if it is a Reciprocal Zugzwang.