< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
|Jul-23-10|| ||ashvalkyrie: good game, really, but still.. giving yourself !!!!!! is kinda lame ;p
nicely played by nimzo anyhow|
|Aug-08-10|| ||Grantchamp: h6!! OMG|
|Aug-13-10|| ||sevenseaman: ..20. fxe4 and 21. Qxh5 nullifies White's light squared bishop, a big plus. The N here is not quite the nonchalant sacrifice it is being made out to be. Samisch has stayed focused on his theme and these two moves push it logically only forward.|
The only question I need the answer to is;
At what stage did Samisch visualize that this full-board Zugswangish monster was going to be the denouement of this beautiful game. Obviously, I need help.
|Oct-29-10|| ||Domdaniel: <sevenseaman> Samisch saw it too late. But you're on the right track -- ask yourself just how far in advance *Nimzowitsch* visualized the finale.|
His plan was clearly underway by 17...b4, when it is clear that e4 offers White his only chance to break out, to which Nimzo has prepared a positional piece sac. Perhaps he'd seen the idea earlier, when playing 15...Nh5 -- although it was just the ghost of a possibility at that point as he cannot have been sure that White would return the Queen to d1.
|Dec-17-10|| ||misha1992: I think Nim saw this game in his sleep...|
|Jul-18-11|| ||DrMAL: Would b3 be a Ghostbuster? Rule 15: When in doubt move your king. Rule 17: When opponent writes a exclamation mark on their score sheet for no apparent reason do something even more unremarkable. Rule 19: Undeveloped rooks should be further undeveloped. Rule 20: Open the position when behind in development. Rule 21: Always move your queen twice. Rule 22: See rule 15. More evidence for Nimzowitch's outburst at the end of Saemisch vs Nimzowitsch, 1925|
|Jul-23-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: Guess-the-Move Final Score:
Saemisch vs Nimzowitsch, 1923.
YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF NIMZOWITSCH.
Your score: 38 (par = 31)
|Aug-05-12|| ||andyatchess: What if Saemisch played 25. Be1?|
|Aug-05-12|| ||Sastre: 25.Be1 Re2 wins.|
|Aug-13-12|| ||Tigranny: Nice game by Nimzo, but I've seen better games from him. By the way, this is not so immortal in zugzwang as this game which should be the 'true' immortal zugzwang - Nimzowitsch vs Capablanca, 1927.|
|Aug-13-12|| ||Phony Benoni: <Tigranny> Maybe so, but this game had a better press agent. Nimzowitsch was a more vivid writer than Capablanca.|
|Aug-17-12|| ||Tigranny: Sorry Phony Benoni. Still brilliant game, pardon what I said.|
|Aug-17-12|| ||Phony Benoni: <Tigranny> No problem; in fact, I rather agree with you. I was just speculating on why this game gets more notice than Nimzowitsch vs Capablanca, 1927.|
|Dec-09-12|| ||ajile: |
click for larger view
Analysis by Rybka 3 32-bit : 18 ply
1. (-1.34): 1...fxe4 2.Qxh5 Rxf2 3.b3 Raf8 4.Kh1
2. (-0.11): 1...Nxg3 2.fxg3 fxe4 3.Qe1 a5 4.Be3 Rac8 5.Rxc8 Rxc8 6.Bf1 h5 7.Bxb5 Qxb5 8.Rg2 Qd3 9.Nd2 a4 10.Nf1
|Jan-03-13|| ||erniecohen: As Keene properly points out, what makes this game special - and far more memorable than the Other Immortal Zugzwang Game - is that White army is almost whole. In addition, the game is much shorter.|
|Jan-03-13|| ||RookFile: He also pointed out that white's play was feeble. The queen on b3 looked pretty ridiculous. It's one thing to overlook a tactic like Tartakower did, it's quite another to develop your army with the cannons on the front line and the foot soldiers in the rear.|
|Jan-03-13|| ||DanielBryant: I'm having a hard time understanding Nimzo's note at move 15, namely, given that Qe7 is impossible because his bishop already occupies that square.|
|Jan-03-13|| ||JimNorCal: My DN version of My System says Q-Kt2 (iow Qb7) so it is probably a typo or mis-translation.|
|Jan-04-13|| ||DanielBryant: <JimNorCal> Thanks; that makes perfect sense.|
|Jan-04-13|| ||RookFile: Instead of 10. Bf4, I may have preferred 10. Bg5, cheerfully answering 10.....h6 with 11. Bxf6 Bxf6 12. f4. This would amount to white playing a sort of Dutch Defense, colors reversed, where he got rid of his bad bishop. I think that white could be optimistic about his prospects.|
|Jan-04-13|| ||RookFile: From what I understand, 12....Nc6 in the game may even be dubious, since white it granted white the tactical shot 13. Nxd5!! and he emerges with the advantage.|
|Jan-04-13|| ||JimNorCal: Looks like PB or another admin has corrected the comment at move 15, thanks!|
|Jan-04-13|| ||perfidious: <RookFile: Instead of 10. Bf4, I may have preferred 10. Bg5, cheerfully answering 10.....h6 with 11. Bxf6 Bxf6 12. f4....I think that white could be optimistic about his prospects.>|
In 1986, Walter Shipman played your suggested manoeuvre against me in an analogous Catalan-type position after essaying his favourite 1.d4 Nf6 2.g3. He got nothing at all in the middlegame after playing Bxf6 and we agreed a draw, round about move 22, at his proposal.
Don't remember exactly what Walter's plan was in that game, except that he did not play f2-f4. This might offer White some chances, but it is difficult to open the game in his favour-Black's bishop pair might well prove a long-term asset and White lacks useful pawn breaks. Keeping a Reverse Stonewall looks the best option, with a lot of manoeuvring ahead.
|Jan-04-13|| ||RookFile: Sounds right to me. It may be that after white's somewhat questionable choice of 9. cxd5 in this game that he should be happy with a draw and do what is necessary to steer the game towards it. He couldn't know at that point that Nimzo would err and give him a chance for advantage with 13. Nxd5.|
|Mar-06-13|| ||wachter123680: Maybe Qb5 after 25 closes it improper.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·