< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 67 OF 69 ·
|Feb-06-12|| ||RookFile: I've been thinking lately that it is a good time to take the family to the circus. My daughter will love to see the clowns.|
|Feb-06-12|| ||ray keene: I thought you might be interested in what i consider to be nimzos 12 best games-his golden dozen:|
spielmann v n stockholm 1920
samisch v n copenhagen 1923
rubinstein v n marienbad 1925
n v alekhine dresden 1926
n v rubinstein dresden 1926
johner v n dresden 1926
n v marshall ny 1927
n v rubinstein berlin 1928
n v spielmann carlsbad 1929
bogolyubov v n san remo 1930
n v maroczy bled 1931
lasker v n zurich 1934
these games show the evolution of his style-they also show that in my opinion nimzowitsch was primarily an artist-even in his best games he often failed to make the most accurate move ( Retis opinion on this somewhat surprises me) -but i agree with reti that nimzo was a born tactician and had to control the beast of tactics in order to become a superb strategic player-the synthesis of the two made hin a great artist.
what he lacked was the will to win of lasker, the sheer dynamism of alekhine and the serene psychological equilibrium of capablanca.
|Feb-06-12|| ||TheFocus: Thank you, GM Raymond Keene. Nice to have a true Nimzowitsch scholar bring in his opinion.|
|Feb-06-12|| ||King Death: <<RookFile>: We sure do. Alekhine finished ahead of Nimzo at the 1927 qualifying tournament. It appears that there was never a period of time when a minimum of at least two guys weren't head and shoulders above Nimzo.>|
You're really something. Probably to hear you tell it you'd have stepped on Nimzo and Bogo like cockroaches.
Make sure your sock puppet comes back to help you pollute this page some more.
|Feb-06-12|| ||ray keene: thanks for those kind words-i was also tempted by his wins v bogolyubov carlsbad 1929 and rubinstein semmering 1926 but altho they are both impressive in many ways i felt that bogo made too many errors in the first and nimzo failed to finish off rubinstein properly in the second.|
|Feb-06-12|| ||ray keene: if i had to pick one game only which showed nimzo the artist at his most typical it wd have to be the rubinstein win from dresden 1926-such games have the power to inspire young talent-they send a frisson down the spine-even tho modern computers have questioned the accuracy of some of nimzos moves it remains an imperishable masterpiece.|
|Feb-06-12|| ||King Death: <ray keene> The ending against Lasker from Zurich is beautiful and deserves all of the praise you gave it back in 1974.|
|Feb-06-12|| ||Gypsy: <As Nimzowitsch had already had quite a few articles printed, and Reti must have known of them, to say that he suddenly "saw the light" after <My System> was printed is kinda ridiculous. I guess Reti just jumped on the bandwagon after that?>|
Well, I have read Nimzo's pamphlet "Blockade" (cover to cover) and I have read those excerpts of Nimzo articles that he re-printed in "System". My view is that, on their own, these are rather minor works. And it really were only the "System" and "Praxis" books where Nimzo, via his synthesis of previously isolated- though intuitively related ideas, transcended to a different plane of chess understanding.
As for Reti's changing view of Nimzo: Reti died while preparing a second edition of "New Ideas", one that were to include an extensive section on Nimzo. That manuscript is now lost. Rudolf Reti transferred all of his brother's writings and correspondence to UJCS (Central Union of Czech Chess-players). During WW2, the secretary of UJCS was arrested by Gestapo and dragged off to a concentration camp from which he never returned. Also the entire pre-WW2 archive of UJCS, including all Reti files, went missing since.
Reti's changed view of Nimzo, however, were known among local chess-enthusiasts (young Sallo Flohr edited for Reti, for instance, while Reti went infirm). It was usually put to young chess adepts in a form a puzzle: What happened in-between? (Answer: My System.)
|Feb-06-12|| ||Gypsy: <ray keene ... -even in his best games he often failed to make the most accurate move ( Retis opinion on this somewhat surprises me) -but i agree with reti that nimzo was a born tactician and had to control the beast of tactics in order to become a superb strategic player- ...>|
Reti talks mainly about one particular instance, Nimzo's move <16...b4> in
Nimzowitsch vs Reti, 1925. Reti considered the move essentially as fishing in muddy tactical waters in worse position, rather than as sound positional play.
|Feb-06-12|| ||ray keene: i find all of the nimzo v reti games somewhat unsatisfactory and scrappy-i gave less prominence in my book on nimzo to these games than one might have expected from clashes between two leaders of the hypermodern movement-altho nimzo had a minus score against rubinstein many of his masterpieces came precisely against him. Spielmann often brought out the best in him as well.|
|Feb-07-12|| ||gezafan: Petrosian mentioned that he had read both My System and The Art of Sacrifice by Spielman.|
His influence by Nimzovich is obvious. Yet if you go through his games he seems to sacrifice quite a bit. This is contrary to the widely held image of him as a "boring player."
If you view Petrosian's style as a combination of Nimzovich and Spielman it kind of makes sense.
At any rate Petrosian could be said to be one of Nimzovich's "disciples."
|Feb-07-12|| ||ray keene: interesting point!|
|Feb-07-12|| ||King Death: < Gypsy: Reti talks mainly about one particular instance, Nimzo's move <16...b4> in Nimzowitsch vs Reti, 1925. Reti considered the move essentially as fishing in muddy tactical waters in worse position, rather than as sound positional play.>|
After playing through this game I see no reason to disagree with Reti, but White had already gotten himself in trouble positionally and quiet play would have left him with a worse position.
If <ray keene> sees this, he'll understand better than any of us that knowing when and how to fish in troubled waters is part of the strong player's bag of tricks and that (especially at the top) some players do better with it than others. I think John Nunn made a comment to that effect when annotating a game in one of his books.
From my own experiences in playing GMs I understand that just letting them be isn't enough, they'll walk all over you. Objectively in the example given by Reti White's move 16.b4 may not have been best but it's easy to understand why he tried to complicate the position.
|Feb-08-12|| ||Gypsy: <King Death> The point Reti makes is two-fold: (i) that he (Reti) had not been yet able to discern the essence of Nimzo's positional insights, and (ii) that a lot of Nimzo's success can plausibly be explained by Nimzo's excellent tactical- and coffeehouse skills. (And Reti gives a particular example from their latest game.)|
It is good to remind ourselves that all this was written in 1925, before <My System> came out; and recall these immortal words of <general Sun Tzu>:
<All men can see these <tactics> whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the <strategy> out of which victory is evolved.>
|Feb-08-12|| ||TheFocus: <gypsy> <Well, I have read Nimzo's pamphlet "Blockade" (cover to cover) and I have read those excerpts of Nimzo articles that he re-printed in "System". My view is that, on their own, these are rather minor works. And it really were only the "System" and "Praxis" books where Nimzo, via his synthesis of previously isolated- though intuitively related ideas, transcended to a different plane of chess understanding.>|
No one could disagree with that.
<My System> was published in 1925 - 1927 in five parts. <Blockade> also came out in 1925, after <My System>.
I could point out that Nimzowitsch had other articles out besides those in <Blockade> and he also had a regular column in the Latvian magazine <Riga Rundschau> (forgive the misspelling, if any).
It is surprising that Reti could first put him down, but then see <My System> and then suddenly "see the light."
Perhaps Reti did not have the same positional understanding as Nimzowitsch and had to have it spelled out for him. On the other hand, what in <My System> caused Reti to change his opinion of Nimzowitsch?
|Feb-08-12|| ||Gypsy: <...what in <My System> caused Reti to change his opinion of Nimzowitsch?>|
If you allow me to make guesses, I'd say that prophylaxis most of all, and over-protection with smooth transfer to tacking second.
<Perhaps Reti did not have the same positional understanding as Nimzowitsch ...>
Reti/Breyer and Nimzo brands of hypermodernism look different, almost dual. If you allow me over-simplifications: The Reti's brand is based on long distance x-raying of opponent center by bishops, rooks, and sometimes even queens, thus freezing the center in place, and then blasting it with pawns. (The ultimate manifestation of the Reti brand are the various forms of hedgehog.) The Nimzo brand is based on masterful blockading and tying the center up with knights. In Nimzo positions, the center usually freezes up long term and flanks maneuvers decide things. In Reti positions, the center is usually blasted wide open and the long distance pieces that were x-raying it suddenly come to life with decisive effects.
<... and had to have it spelled out for him>
As <general Sun Tze> pointed out already some 700 years BC, reverse-engineering strategical concepts is not easy. (cf my previous post)
|Feb-08-12|| ||TheFocus: <gypsy> Thank you. Nice way to point out the differences.|
So, even within the hypermodern school, we can see radical differences. Tartakower would be said to have a different brand of hypermodernism from Reti or Nimzo, also.
|Feb-08-12|| ||chancho: <Gypsy> Thanks for elucidating the Hypermodern methods used by Reti and Nimzo. |
|Feb-08-12|| ||ray keene: <gypsy> just requoted your brilliant Sun Tzu comment on my twitter feed @times_chess-thanks for making it public!|
|Feb-08-12|| ||Gypsy: Pleasure.|
|Feb-12-12|| ||brankat: A few days ago it was stated here that New York 1927 was a qualifying tournament which was to determine Capablanca's challenger.|
Capablanca and Alekhine did have a deal already, at least two months prior the New York event. AAA had met all the necessary requirements, most importantly the $10,000 clause. Which he secured in Argentina in the fall of '26.
When, about a month before the tourney, Capa "announced" (in an interview, I think) the qualifying aspect of the event, Alekhine immediately cabled Capablanca demanding a clarification and a conformation of their deal. Otherwise he was to withdraw from the tournament.
Capablanca replied confirming AAA as the official challenger regardless of the outcome of New York tournament.
There were objections from Nimzowitch, but Capa reminded him of the London Rules which Nimzo also signed.
I think that the "qualifications" thing was used mainly to market the event.
At the time there were some speculations though, that, perhaps, Capa tried to wiggle his way out of the obligations to Alekhine. Although Capablanca was very confident, he knew that one Nimzo (if qualified) was not going to be able to raise the funds, while Dr.Vidmar was not interested in the match. Marshal and Spielmann, for all intents and purposes, were non-starters.
Capablanca would have been quite content to keep on sitting on his hands like he'd had in the previous 6 years.
But, things went "wrong.
|Feb-13-12|| ||TheFocus: <brankat> is correct. New York 1927 was not a qualifying tournament.|
|Feb-13-12|| ||Benzol: See the introduction in Game Collection: New York 1927 also.|
|Feb-13-12|| ||chancho: <Letter to the chairman of Dansk Skak Union G. A. K. Nielsen>|
<Øster Farimagsgade 11,2
Dear Mr. Director Nielsen.
The fifth and last instalment (there were 5 in total) of my book was published in February 1927, but due to ever lasting tournament travel, I was unfortunately not able to ship before, enforced by the summer months due to Club holidays could not come into considerations. I hope you will excuse this long delay.
Allow me to use the opportunity to congratulate you with the unique brilliant success in London. It must be a pleasure to be chairman for an association, which are able to raise so many talents.
It has been a great pleasure for me to see, how very well the Danish players have been doing. Norman-Hansen played in the finest way, you could wish. The others also played well.
I haven’t been on a tour for a long time. It is – especially with regard to the small salaries you get – very difficult to decide to start one. I will not start on a tour, but on the other hand I would like to visit some specific Clubs, which I know are interested in my evenings and where I have felt well. (Which I haven’t everywhere).
The price will be 100 Kr. for one evening, travel and accommodation on my own expenses. You are kindly requested to inform me, if you think an arrangement can be made in November in your pleasant Club?
I will send the 18 instalments no. 5 Monday September 19.
Looking forward to your kind reply, I remain with kind regards
< Answer from G. A. K. Nielsen to Nimzowitsch.>
Grandmaster in Chess Mr. A.Nimzowitsch, Øster Farimagsgade 11, København
Thank you for your letter of September 16, and for your congratulations with regard to the Danish teams fine play in the London tournament.
With regard to your proposal for coming to Sønderborg to give a lecture and a simul play, it would be a pleasure for us to receive you on a Thursday evening in November, and I am consent to pay you the requested salary of 100 Kr.
Could you please bring some suggestions on subjects, which you prefer to give in your lecture, so I can forward these for selection in the board?
With kind regards I remain, yours sincerely >
Original scanned letters in Danish:
|Feb-29-12|| ||whiteshark: "He has a profound liking for ugly opening moves."
~ Siegbert Tarrasch (on Nimzowitsch)
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 67 OF 69 ·