|Nov-08-04|| ||Leviathan: A young Nimzowitsch using successfully the Tarrasch variation against Tarrasch himself.|
It is interesting to see Nimzo playing such a good game using an opening that he will harshly criticize a few years after.
|Nov-08-04|| ||who: Fritz thinks 15.gxf3 was a big mistake because 15...Nfd5! 16.Qe4 (not 16.cxd5 Qg5+ 17.Kh1 Qf4 and white must sacrifice a queen to stop mate) Qg5+ 17.Qg4 Qh6 18.h4 Rxc4 |
|Dec-11-04|| ||Calli: Tarrasch missed 29.Bb1! |
|Dec-11-04|| ||drukenknight: maybe so but they are playing an end game and Tarrasch is messing up. Look at moves 52/53. What is he doing with the K? The K is the primary blockader, we see this over and over. 52 a4? great, open up another hole. |
|Dec-12-04|| ||Calli: Dr T plays a4 because Black is preparing b5 which would break up Whites's pawns at c4-d5 and win the game. He is lost becuase he can't allow b4, but if he plays as in the game, the K-side pawns march in. |
|Dec-12-04|| ||drukenknight: the K is supposed to be right in front of blacks pawns, why he moved him (move 52) I dont know. Why cant he cover the b pawn with the B? 53 a4 looks wrong also but maye the position is lost at that pt. What does your pc say? can he move the B on move 53. |
|Dec-12-04|| ||Calli: Put the Black king on c5 and the knight on d6. Put the a-pawn back on a3 and the B where ever you want, the K blocking the pawns on e3/d3. Then b5 breaks down any defenses, so a4 is forced. |
|Dec-12-04|| ||drukenknight: I got a better idea. Let's go back to move 51 and I play 51 BxN.|
Is it any clearer now?
|Dec-12-04|| ||Chessical: <drukenknight> I believe that Tarrasch's <51.fxe5+> was the best move in the position:|
<51.Bxh5> gxh5 52.a4 Kc5 53.Kd2 a6 54.Ke2 b5 55.cxb5 (55.axb5 a5) 55...axb5 56.axb5 (56.a5 Kxd5 57.a6 Kc6 58.a7 Kb7) 56...Kxb5 57.d6 Kc6 58.Ke3 Kxd6 59.Kf3
|Dec-12-04|| ||drukenknight: well that's a lot to digest, before I get to your line, why logically is 51 fxe5+ best? To me, there is no logical imperative to take that pawn, since if there is no danger that black will take him (that would triple pawns)|
so may be that little battle can be forestalled for a moment. It seems a positional problem here...what is your reasoning?
|Dec-12-04|| ||drukenknight: chessical: do you want to continue this? |
|Dec-12-04|| ||Chessical: <drukenknight> Yes, I do - but please remember that not only am I in a different time zone to you, but that I do have a life away from here!|
I do not agree that: <there is no logical imperative to take that pawn>.
1. Black is poised to take the <f> pawn with his N which is an easy win.
2. White cannot protect the <f> pawn.
3. Taking with the B leads to a lost K+P ending (as above)
|Dec-12-04|| ||drukenknight: lost? I disagree. you placed white K on the wrong square to start this :|
GO AHEAD SHOW ME YOUR WINNING LINE.
|Dec-12-04|| ||Calli: <chessical> Its useless and a waste of time. SHOW ME YOUR IGNORE LIST :-) |
|Dec-13-04|| ||Chessical: <drukenknight> The winning line is:|
<53.Ke2> Kxc4 54.d6 Nf6 55.Bc2 e4 56.Ke3 Kd5 57.Kf4 Kxd6
Unless I am shown analysis to indicate otherwise, I believe that this exhausts the matter.
|Dec-13-04|| ||drukenknight: chessical, you are working the wrong line. My 53 Ke2 was in response to your proposed line: 52 Bxh5 gxh5 52.a4 Kc5 53..|
I was not very clear when I typed that, I meant that you had put my K on the wrong square in that line we were discussing.
It's very clear I wanted to swap B for N at the outset; but then you thought I was starting over at move 53. No, I think it is messed up there.
sorry about that. Shall we start this over?
|Dec-13-04|| ||Chessical: <drukenknight> Tarrasch cannot deal with both the <a> and the <e> pawns any better by exchanging off the N:|
<51.Bxh5> gxh5 52.a4 Kc5 <53.Ke2> e4 54.Kd2 a6 55.Kc3 b5 56.axb5 a5: then either,
(a) <57.d6> Kxd6 58.b6 a4 59.b7 Kc7 60.Kb4 e3; or
(b) <57.b6> Kxb6 58.Kd4 a4 59.c5+ Kc7 60.Kc4 a3 61.Kb3 e3
which are equally hopeless for White.
|Dec-13-04|| ||drukenknight: a different K move and it lasts a few moves longer but you are right, it is lost. |
So where is the losing move, move 29??
|Jan-16-05|| ||aw1988: drukenknight, you need to rephrase that.
SHOW ME THE LOSING MOVE.
|Jul-30-05|| ||Koster: Where is the game where Tarrasch said after 10 moves "Never have a had such a won position"? I think it ended in a draw but Nimzovich never forgave the insult.|
|Jul-30-05|| ||paulalbert: The game you mention was played in Nuremberg 1904, but it was an informal game at a club, not a tournament game. The game can be found in Raymond Keene's excellent book, "Aron Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal". It doesn't seem to be on the site games, probably because it was not from a formal tournament.Your correct that the final result was a draw. Paul Albert|
|Jul-30-05|| ||Koster: Paul- Thank you. I think I still have that book (which is excellent) but haven't unpacked all my books since moving. Instead I seem to keep acquiring more.|
|Aug-01-08|| ||fictionist: <A young Nimzowitsch using successfully the Tarrasch variation against Tarrasch himself.>|
And defeating the man who criticized his unusual style of play. :)
|Aug-02-08|| ||whiteshark: <who>
If <15...Nh5!!> White is completely lost. After <16.f4 Nxf4 17.Qf3 Qh4 18.Rfe1 Rxc4 > Black is already two pawns up.
click for larger view
Your line <15...Nfd5! 16.Qe4 Qg5+ 17.Qg4 Qh6 18.h4 Rxc4> is , too, but only one pawn up.
click for larger view
|Sep-18-08|| ||Tacticstudent: It's very interesting to see <<Tarrasch x Nimzowitsch>>, because their ideas about chess were completely different and they were often talking bad about each other's way to look at chess. This game is for sure special, because it shows Nimzowitsch winning Tarrasch, but using his <opponent's> ideas! Quite fantastic.|