Jul-28-05
 | | Gypsy: <One of the best games I ever played.> S. Tarrasch, "300 Chessgames" To win Nuremburg 1888, and the prize of 500 mark, Tarrasch had to win this game. It is a classic and Nimzo analyzed the hell out of it. He discovered a tactical fallacy in Tarrasch conception, (Tarrasch thought that 15.Nc3 was not playable) and defeated Tarrasch in another classical game: Nimzowitsch vs Tarrasch, 1912 |
 |
| Aug-04-05 | | molle2006: A pretty stalemate trap in white's last move, but Tarrasch did the right thing. |
|
Jun-08-09
 | | Jonathan Sarfati: <Gypsy>, see Kasparov's "My Great Predecessors" for new analysis on this 1912 game. Tarrasch had good chances for quite a long time, but missed by far the best moves. It's instructive to see Tarrasch's own comments. A most notable one is stressng the importance of 6... cxd4, noting that 6...  d7 gives White a good game after 7. dxc5. Yet most notes to the famous game Nimzowitsch vs Salwe, 1911 claim that Nimzo was playing something revolutionary with that move. |
|
| Jun-08-09 | | chillowack: 1912? Isn't it 1888? |
|
Jun-08-09
| | Jonathan Sarfati: <chillowack> I was referring to the "classical game" cited by <Gypsy> |
|
Oct-18-10
 | | keypusher: Reminds me of this game
H E Atkins vs Capablanca, 1922 |
|
Feb-20-11
 | | 64rutor: Analysis from the book "My System", by Aron Nimzowitsch to the game Paulsen - Tarrasch: 15.Bxd7+?
(15.Nc3! Bxb5+ 16.Nxb5 Nc2 17.Rc1 Nce3+ 18.fxe3 Nxe3+ 19.Ke2 Nxd1 20.Rxc8+ Kd7 21.Rxh8 Nxb2 22.Rc1 White wins.) 18.Nxa7?
(Better 18.Qd3 Nxb5 19.axb5) |
|
Feb-10-12
 | | wwall: Instead of 26.Bxa5, perhaps 26.g4 first, then 26...Nh4+ 27.Nxh4 Bxh4 28.Bxa5. Instead of 28.Bf4, perhaps 28.Bxb4 Rxb4 29.a5 Nxd4 30.Nxd4 Rxd4 31.Rb1 may draw. Instead of 32.Ba3, perhaps 32.Be3 to hold the center pawn. Instead of 35.Rb1, perhaps 35.a5 or 36.h3 and not allow Black to get his rook behind the pawn. 36.g5 may not be sound. Perhaps move the rook back with 36.Ra1 Rc4 37.Kg3, but White will lose the d-pawn. After 36.g5, White was hoping for 36...h5 37.g6 fxg6 38.Ng5 Nxd4 39.Rd1 Rc4? 40.Rxd4 Rxd4 41.Nxe6+, winning for White. Not 44...Nxd4? 45.Nc5, threatening 46.Nxb3, 46.Nxa6+, and 46.Rxd4. Instead of 48...Rc8, Black could error with 48...Ke7 49.Rb7+ Kf8 50.Nc7 a4 51.Rb8+ Kg7?? (51...Ke7) 52.Ne8+ Kg6 53.h5+ Kh7 54.Nf6+ Kg7 55.Rg8 mate. Instead of 51.Nb5, if 51.Kh5 Nf5 52.Nb5?? Rc4, threatening 53...Rxh4 mate. |
|
Apr-01-12
 | | bystander: After 19) Qd3 Qa6, Nimzowitch prefers the endgame for black. So why not avoid the endgame, e.g. 19) Kg2? |
|
Apr-01-12
| | bystander: <wwall; Why not 26)g4, 28) Bb4x and 32) Be3?> Agreed! |
|
Apr-01-12
| | bystander: I do not understand the purpose of 28)...h6? Why not 28)...Bc3, 29) Rd1 Rb4 |
|
| Apr-01-12 | | Dr. Siggy: <bystander>: After 19. Kg2, Black would play 19... Qa6 and double his Rooks on the c-file with a strategically won game. Instead of 28... h6, Tarrasch himself would later recommend 28... Ra2, winning the a-pawn without danger as White's Rook couldn't break in along either the c- or the b-files. |
|
Apr-01-12
| | bystander: <Dr.Siggy> Thanks for your comments. I read your profile with great interest. At the moment I am somewhere in the midle of Nimsowitch' "My system", may be the book of Tarrasch you recommend should be the next book to read. |
|
