< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 72 OF 72 ·
|Mar-11-14|| ||whiteshark: <Quote of the Day>
" The old dogmas, such as the ossified teaching on the center, the worship of the open game, and in general the whole formalistic conception of the game, who bothers himself today about any of these? "
|Apr-02-14|| ||Karpova: A nice article by Peter Anderberg of Harmstorf called 'Vor 100 Jahren: München 1906 – Nimzowitschs erster Turniersieg' of December 14, 2006 (100 years ago: Munich 1906 - Nimzowitsch's first tournament success): http://de.chessbase.com/post/vor-10...|
The game between Przepiorka and Nimzowitsch featuring the Riga variation has already been submitted.
Additionally, Rod Edwards' page: http://www.edochess.ca/tournaments/...
|Sep-13-14|| ||ljfyffe: The beauty of a chess move lies not in its appearance, but in the thought behind it --
|Oct-08-14|| ||RookFile: Baloney. Beauty is beauty. Reshevsky was a champ at winning ugly. Nobody tries to be like him.|
|Oct-09-14|| ||ljfyffe: Merely a quote from Nimzo...never said l believed in it!|
|Nov-07-14|| ||newhampshireboy: I love Nimzo's games and he really kept my love for chess alive. Thanks Nimzo!|
|Nov-07-14|| ||RookFile: Well, I like North Conway. Looking forward to another visit there someday.|
|Nov-07-14|| ||parisattack: Tempus fugit, Grandmaster. Your works and your ideas live on! Happy birthday to the stormy petrel of chess.|
|Nov-07-14|| ||TheFocus: Happy Birthday, Aron Nimzowitsch!|
|Jan-05-15|| ||Phony Benoni: Nov-07-13 <gars: My favorite Nimzowitsch quote: "why should I lose to such an idiot??"
I do not know who was the idiot and whteher these were the exact words, but this is the spirit.>|
Nov-07-13. <AgentRgent: The "Idiot" in question was Saemisch vs Nimzowitsch, 1925>
So that game marks the origin of the Nimzo-Idiot Defense?
|Jan-05-15|| ||WannaBe: No, that's the beginning of Nimzo-Now-Which Piece defence =))|
|Feb-02-15|| ||sorrowstealer: Tal's foreward to My System at chess.com
|Feb-02-15|| ||keypusher: <sorrowstealer> Funny, perceptive, and written with Tal's characteristic generosity of spirit. Thanks for posting it!|
<The ideas that once seemed extravagant have been recognized and become common. Perhaps that's the role of any bright individual? Once, such concepts as centralization, prophylaxis, overprotection, blockade etc. were just recipes of the eccentric Nimzowitsch. But now they are commonplace, we may even call them platitudes. Back then, those recipes were just peculiarities of Nimzowitsch's chess individuality, but now, they are taught to youngsters. And there's nothing unusual in that, everything is simple. Revelations, dawn-ups, inspirations, discoveries available only to the brightest and most gifted individuals are valuable precisely because they become common and increase the average level. And the next genius begins from this level.>
|Feb-02-15|| ||john barleycorn: <sorrowstealer: Tal's foreward to My System...>|
thanks, rewarding to read about my hero.
|Mar-22-15|| ||offramp: One of my problems with Aron Nimzowitsch is that his defining won games, the wins that most illustrate his "System", are against C-class players. Aron Nimzowitsch was so far ahead of them in strength that he could have played any type of reasonable chess and still won. |
When he plays against his equals he forgets about his "System" and just plays chess, and he does quite well.
Against Alekhine and Capablanca it doesn't matter what he plays - he struggles massively.
|Mar-22-15|| ||cunctatorg: If you don't approve Nimzowitsch's demonstrations of the "My System" concepts in games versus "C-class" players (as Marshall, Teichmann, Tarrasch, Bogoljubov, Rubinstein and some-such) then you may be convinced by the demonstrations of these very concepts in games of Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Fischer and particularly Petrosian, Korchnoi and Karpov against even stronger players! |
Jokes aside, it is true that Aron Nimzowitsch made a lot of experimentation on openings, particularly (imho) with White; he played a lot of games with 1. P-K4 but he opted for 3. N-QB3 instead of the Ruy Lopez or even the Scotch etc. and the Chess Praxis proved that these discoveries required more than one or two generations of strongest Grand-masters and more than two or three decades...
|Mar-22-15|| ||Nerwal: <If you don't approve Nimzowitsch's demonstrations of the "My System" concepts in games versus "C-class" players (as Marshall, Teichmann, Tarrasch, Bogoljubov, Rubinstein and some-such>|
It was probably a reference to games like this one : Von Gottschall vs Nimzowitsch, 1926. Dvoretsky proved that White could equalize at various points and that black's "deep moves" were actually not that strong objectively. A good grandmaster should be able to hold this as White without breaking a sweat, while Gottschall did everything wrong basically.
|Mar-23-15|| ||RookFile: Nimzo was good at marketing his books. They sold well. Good for him. Today's players are much more interested in cold hard, computer generated analysis than they are in trying to learn a system.|
|Mar-23-15|| ||cunctatorg: Point taken; however I had mostly in mind such games AS the famous Nimzowitsch-Rubinstein (Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack; Semmering, 1926) compared to the also famous Fischer-Mecking (Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack; Palma de Mallorka IZ, 1970) or his games versus Grigory Levenfish and the one versus Siegbert Tarrasch in the Advance Variation of the French etc. etc. After all, Nimzowitsch most famous victories against "C-class" players are his games (as Black) against Paul F. Johner of Switzerland (Dresden, 1926) and against Friedrich Saemisch (Copenhagen, 1923) and I wonder: where are the blunders of Johner and Saemisch?!? Of course these players committed errors (or mistakes?) and that was a necessary condition for their defeat, however these ... errors weren't the sufficient condition also, Nimzowitsch's superb, profound, lovely and original play was the sufficient condition!... Of course too, his win against Em. Lasker (Zurich, 1934) isn't about a game versus some "C-class" player. |
By the way two more comments:
a) Bobby Fischer deliberately payed homage to the Hypermoderns and particularly to Nimzowitsch during his celebrated parade through the Chess World from 1970 to 1972, he played twice the Alekhine, once the Benoni and once the Pirc Defence and his very game with Mecking speaks for itself...
b) Kevin Spraggett is a truly great Grand-master of the game, however it is possible that he envies the incredible success of Nimzowitsch's teachings...
|Mar-23-15|| ||cunctatorg: Three corrections: i) ... Nimzowitsch's most famous victories against "C-class" players ..., ii) ... he played twice the Alekhine, once the Benoni and once the Pirc Defence during his 1972 WC match against Boris Spassky and his very game with Mecking speaks for itself... iii) ... the incredible success of Nimzowitsch's teachings ... but this isn't Fischer's way; Bobby Fischer chose to pay homage instead of launch projectiles of envy!...|
|Mar-23-15|| ||RookFile: Bobby Fischer chose to win the game. If he could have done with the Tarrasch, he would have. He was just thinking about what he needed to do to beat Spassky.|
|Mar-23-15|| ||keypusher: <and against Friedrich Saemisch (Copenhagen, 1923) and I wonder: where are the blunders of Johner and Saemisch?!? Of course these players committed errors (or mistakes?)>|
They sure did. Here's Johner-Nimzowitch after 8 moves.
click for larger view
Here is the same game after 15 moves.
click for larger view
How did that happen? A whole series of stupid decisions from White.
P F Johner vs Nimzowitsch, 1926
As for the Saemisch game, I'll quote myself and Kasparov.
<keypusher: The "ghost" is the threat of the knight coming to c4.
Instead of the miserable 13. Nxc6, Saemisch could have met 12...Nc6? with 13. Nxd5: 13....Nxd4 14. Nxe7+ Qxe7 15. Qe3 Bxg2 16. Kxg2 Qb7+ 17. f3 Nf5 18. Qf2 Nh5 19. Bd2 Qd5 20. Bc3 b4 21. e4 Qb5 22. a4!? Qxa4 23. Bd2 Ne7 24. Qf5 <and Black does not have clear equality.> Kasparov.
Earlier, White could have gotten a clear advantage with 9. e4.
It has a lot of competition, but this is still my pick for the most overrated game in the history of chess. There are games where "one player plays, the other applauds." Here, though, not satisfied with clapping, Saemisch actively assists his opponent. >
Saemisch vs Nimzowitsch, 1923
Incidentally, Nimzo's score against Saemisch was +9-1=0 and against Johner +4-0=1. Compared to him, they were indeed C-class players.
|Mar-24-15|| ||cunctatorg: Bobby Fischer deliberately paid homage to the Hypermoderns and particularly to Nimzowitsch during his celebrated campaign/parade through the Chess World from 1970 to 1972; he picked up the Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack against a ... "C-class" player (!!) as Henrique Meching -compared to him- was and it worked fine 45 years after the original Nimzowitsch's game; however he didn't chose this shallow Opening against such players as Petrosian and Spassky; he just made use of the "Black version" of this set up, the Nimzo-Indian against them...
And still, Nimzowitsch's play against Saemisch AFTER the the miserable 13th move of White speaks for his deep understanding of the position! I just also wonder how many of nowadays Grand-Masters would conduct with the superb Nimzowitsch's way his very game against Johner after White's 15th move... Of course these players committed errors but..|
|Mar-24-15|| ||cunctatorg: Another victory of Nimzowitsch against a C-class player (one game that I find really charming and didactic) is Asztalos-Nimzowitsch (Caro-Kann Defence; Bled, 1931) in a variation of the Caro-Kann which should be credited to Nimzowitsch too; anyways, when I firstly saw this game, I was so impressed!...|
|Mar-25-15|| ||cunctatorg: I just wanted to state that it's not a quite naive and shallow business for some nowadays Super-Grandmaster to defeat some nowadays International Master of a rating between 2,400 and 2,500 as many chess enthusiasts of this bright site tend to imagine; sure, Paul F. Johner, Lajos Asztalos, Hermann von Gottschall onjectively were C-class players and even -compared to our Aron- Friedrich Saemish ("this idiot"!...) was, therefore these "zeros" (!!) played passively and with cowardice the opening phase of these games, however (I insist about that) Aron Nimzowitsch had to conduct brilliantly and in some extremely didactic way the rest of the game in order to defeat them! Am I wrong about that?!?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 72 OF 72 ·