| Jul-04-04 | | uzeromay: Why did white feel the need to sacrifice his Rook on move 27? |
 |
| Jul-04-04 | | caballos2: It looks like desperation to me. Sometimes, when black has fianchettoed his bishop on g7, white can sacrifice a rook for a horse on h5 or f5 to open lines, but not here. |
|
| Aug-02-04 | | RonB52734: <Calchexas> Wonderful game collection - I've wanted to create this myself. |
|
Apr-24-05
 | | MrSpock: I think, that white wanted to win, but the position is totaly blocked and there is no clear plan for him. Instead of waiting he tried 27. Txf5? |
|
| May-24-05 | | Calchexas: <Ron>: Thanks. |
|
| Jun-23-06 | | James Demery: On move 15 for Black Nimzo moves the Knight to h5 and talks about the completely "paralyzed enemy double complex". At the risk of sounding like a total patzer ( which I am ) what does that phrase mean? |
|
Jun-23-06
 | | Gregor Samsa Mendel: From one total patzer to another: it probably refers to white's doubled, immobilized f-pawns. I was never a fan of Nimzowitsch's pompous, long-winded, obscure style of writing. For a good parody of Nimzo's annotations, see the following (made-up, joke) game: Nimzowitsch vs Systemsson, 1927. Perhaps "Schinkmann" is a combination of "Brinckmann" and "Systemsson." |
|
| Jun-24-06 | | James Demery: Thanks Gregor. It would have been so much easier had he just said doubled, immobilized f pawns. Isn`t chess complicated enough? |
|
| Jan-07-08 | | mpl: Nimzowitsch suggests that Brinckmann should have accepted the bishop sacrifice with 22.  xh5, because that would have led to a draw by 22...  c4 23.  c2 xa3 24. d2 c4.But I think that black's attack is stronger than Nimzowitsch thought! Let's see: 25. c2 xb2! 23.  g3 a3 24.  d2 b4! 25. c1 a4 26. a1 xd4+ 27. xd4 b4+ 28. c3 xc3 29. xc3 d4 30. g4 (30. e2 Txc3 31. a4 b2+ 32. e1 c2  ) dxc3+ 32. e3 c5+ 33. f3 (33. e3 b8  b4+) d8 d2 This is a long line, so there might be better defences for white. Maybe there are alternatives to 23. g3 or 25. c1? |
|
| Jan-07-08 | | mpl: Also interesting are the consecences of accepting the knight sacrifice as well. After 22. xh5 c4 23. c2 xa3 24. bxa3 !? xa3+ 25. d2 xc3 26. xc3 b2+ 27. d3 b3 28. xb3 xb3+  . It looks like black can capture the white center pawns and due to its passed pawns and the bad posed white pieces he can try to win this position.Even in the actual game it seems to me that black could exploit his attacking chances better with 22... a4 23. xh5 (23. h3 xf4!) xc3 24. bxc3 xa3. |
|
Jan-08-08
 | | Pawn and Two: As Nimzowitsch stated, <He should have accepted the sacrifice, e.g. 22.Bxh5 Nc4 23.Qc2 Nxa3 24.Qd2 Nc4, with a drawn game.> Any other move leads to considerable disadvantage for White. The move actually played, 22.Kd1, gave White a clearly lost position. After 22.Kd1, Black should have played: 22...Na4! (-3.53) (21 ply) 23.Rh3 Nxf4 24.Rf3 Qxh4 25.Rxf4 Qh2 26.Rfg4 Nxc3+ 27.bxc3 Rb1+ 28.Kc2 Rxg1 29.Qf4 Qxf4 30.Rxf4, or (-4.55) (21 ply) 23.Bxh5 Nxc3+ 24.bxc3 Qxa3 25.Ke1 Rb1+ 26.Bd1 Rxc3, with a clearly winning position for Black. White could have put up a better resistance after the move, 22...Nc4?. Fritz confirms that White has an equal game after 22.Bxh5. If Brinckmann had accepted the sacrifice, after 22.Bxh5 Nc4 23.Qc2 (.00) (22 ply) 23...Nxa3 (23...Nxb2 is also equal) 24.Qd2 Nc4 is equal. Also, 22.Bxh5 Nc4 23.Qc2 Nxa3 24.Qd3 Nc4 25.Rg3 Nxb2 26.Qc2 Nc4 is an equal position. |
|
Jan-09-08
| | Pawn and Two: <mpl> Your suggestion of: 22.Bxh5 Nc4 23.Qc2 Nxb2 24.Rg3 Qxa3 25.Kd2 Rb4 26.Rc1 Na4 is very interesting. Instead of 27.Ra1, White should now play 27.Be2. Fritz then indicates an equal position: (.04) (22 ply) 27...Rb3 28.Ra1 Rbxb3 29.Rxc3 Qxc3+ 30.Qxc3 Nxc3 31.Bd3 Ne4+ 32.Bxe4 dxe4 33.Rxa5. |
|
| May-05-10 | | dartking: once one gets over nimzovichs'writing style his book my system is a must for every serious player.even though written in 1927 it division of the game into 8 elements ,isolated pawn,open files, the seventh rank etc. and the games used to illustrate these ideas is a masterpiece. |
|
| Mar-05-13 | | wachter123680: I think maybe white lost at 25. a maybe keeping rooks connected on the back rank would have led to a different exchange? |
|
Annotations by 