< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 73 OF 73 ·
|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?!?|
|Mar-30-15|| ||TheFocus: <The beauty of a move lies not in its appearance but in the thought behind it> - Aron Nimzowitsch.|
|Mar-30-15|| ||offramp: <cunctatorg: Bobby Fischer deliberately paid homage to the Hypermoderns...>|
I think Fischer was <at one> with the hypermoderns, when playing black. He loved attacking a load of white pawns in the centre! And even as white he tried to put as few pawns in the centre as possible.
|May-09-15|| ||TheFocus: <The great mobility of the King forms one of the chief characteristics of all endgame strategy. In the middle game the King is a mere 'super', in the endgame on the other hand - one of the 'principals'. We must therefore develop him, bring him nearer to the fighting line> - Aron Nimzowitsch.|
|May-09-15|| ||TheFocus: <It is a well known phenomenon that the same amateur who can conduct the middlegame quite creditably, is usually perfectly helpless in the endgame. One of the principal requisites of good chess is the ability to treat both the middlegame and endgame equally well> - Aron Nimzowitsch.|
|May-10-15|| ||TheFocus: <The knight of QB3 is under obligation, the moment the enemy gives him the chance, of undertaking an invasion of the center by N-Q5> - Aron Nimzowitsch.|
|May-11-15|| ||TheFocus: <The passed Pawn is a criminal, who should be kept under lock and key. Mild measures, such as police surveillance are not sufficient> - Aron Nimzowitsch.|
|May-11-15|| ||TheFocus: <No pawn exchanges, no file-opening, no attack> - Aron Nimzowitsch.|
|May-11-15|| ||TheFocus: <The isolated pawn casts gloom over the entire chessboard> - Aron Nimzowitsch.|
|May-15-15|| ||TheFocus: <First restrain, next blockade, lastly destroy> - Aron Nimzowitsch.|
|May-15-15|| ||TheFocus: <Strategically important points should be overprotected. If the pieces are so engaged, they get their regard in the fact that they will then find themselves well posted in every respect> - Aron Nimzowitsch.|
|May-15-15|| ||TheFocus: <If in a battle, I seize a bit of debatable land with a handful of soldiers, without having done anything to prevent an enemy bombardment of the position, would it ever occur to me to speak of a conquest of the terrain in question? Obviously not. Then why should I do so in chess?> - Aron Nimzowitsch.|
|May-15-15|| ||TheFocus: <When I today ask myself whence I got the moral courage, for it takes moral courage to make a move (or form a plan) running counter to all tradition, I think I may say in answer, that it was only my intense preoccupation with the problem of the blockade which helped me to do so> - Aron Nimzowitsch.|
|May-15-15|| ||TheFocus: <Chess strategy as such today is still in its diapers, despite Tarrasch's statement 'We live today in a beautiful time of progress in all fields'. Not even the slightest attempt has been made to explore and formulate the laws of chess strategy> - Aron Nimzowitsch.|
|May-17-15|| ||TheFocus: <Many men, many styles; what is chess but the intangible expression of the will to win> - Aron Nimzowitsch.|
|May-17-15|| ||TheFocus: <The defensive power of a pinned piece is but imaginary> Aron Nimzowitsch.|
|May-17-15|| ||TheFocus: <Even the laziest King flees wildly in the face of double check> - Aron Nimzowitsch.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 73 OF 73 ·