| Jan-12-05 | | MidnightDuffer: Covered as the Chess Movie "Pawn One, Pawn None" in I.A. Horowitz's "How to win in the Chess Openings" (which he himself says in the book right away is a misnomer). Levenfisch may have come up short on a move or two himself; but I am sure Rubinstein would still win in a dynamic way. Note: the Horowitz book starts out 1. e4 NOT 1.d4 but this is the way it is in the Horowitz book, if anyone has it. This game, analysed by Nimzovitch has the d4 start. Black comes up with a clever idea and sac on move 16. but overall, it seemed to weaken the Queenside; and subsequently somewhat responsible for the loss. |
|
May-06-05
 | | tamar: Amusing notes by Nimzovitch, taking Rubinstein to task for winning by a scintillating combination rather the pure bishop ending. "It would have pleased me even better if the decision had been
brought about in a bishop ending instead of through the somewhat
"tacked on" action of the passed pawn at c7; for instance from
such a position as White: King at e5, bishop at h3, pawns
at a2, c3, f4, h2. Black: King at e7, Bishop atf7, pawns at
a6, d5, e6, h7; with the continuation f5, ...exf5, Bxf5 and white
wins the d-pawn and the game. We should then have the general
idea more markedly broughtout, namely first to keep the e-pawn
and the d-pawn under restraint, then to blockade them and
only at the end to destroy them. But as played the game was
instructive enough! (e.g., moves 13, 16, and 18). " |
|
| May-06-05 | | aw1988: Yes, Nimzowitsch certainly was a man of taste. |
|
| May-06-05 | | fgh: Nimzowitsch, as usual writtes great notes about a great game :-) |
|
| May-07-05 | | OverDjinn: 13…Nb6 seems like a bad plan. b5 or perhaps exchanging in the center and occupying c5 with the knight seems to hold better. 21…g5 also seems like a mistake since retaining queens would both help black with defense and with consolidation since he is behind in development. 21…Qf5 perhaps, anything but the text. What is even more startling is that after such an aggressive, risky move as 21…g5, black chooses a plan to just flick his bishop out on a quiet developing move with 23...Bd7. The initiative is really tough to understand and play to, that's for sure. |
|
| Dec-07-07 | | Karpova: <OverDjinn: 13…Nb6 seems like a bad plan. b5 or perhaps exchanging in the center and occupying c5 with the knight seems to hold better.> Hans Kmoch on 13...Nb6:
<Why not 13...b5, which appears even stronger? Because thereafter a neat combination would be decisive: 14.dxc5 Nxc5 15.Nxd5 exd5 16.Qxd5+ Qe6 17.Ng5!> |
|
| Apr-03-08 | | Ulhumbrus: 18 Nd4, in occupying the central point d4, obstructs the Black Queen on the long diagonal and after Black captures the Nc3 with his pawn instead, that blocks the long diagonal for Black. Nimzovich says <It would have pleased me even better if the decision had been brought about in a bishop ending instead of through the somewhat "tacked on" action of the passed pawn at c7; for instance from such a position as White: King at e5, bishop at h3, pawns at a2, c3, f4, h2. Black: King at e7, Bishop atf7, pawns at a6, d5, e6, h7; with the continuation f5, ...exf5, Bxf5 and white wins the d-pawn and the game. We should then have the general idea more markedly broughtout, namely first to keep the e-pawn and the d-pawn under restraint, then to blockade them and only at the end to destroy them. But as played the game was instructive enough! (e.g., moves 13, 16, and 18). > If we imagine what Lasker or Capablanca's view on this might be, it might be that the value of the c5 pawn after the pawn capture dxc5 must count as a part of the value of White's position, it will affect the evaluation, and it may change the resource which White can use to win the game the most quickly or easily. I don't believe that either Lasker or Capablanca would hold as sacred any preconceived method of winning, if some choice on the opponent's part were to present them with a quicker or easier method of winning. |
|
Oct-08-11
 | | Richard Taylor: Nimzovich also appreciates Rubinstein's game (or he wouldn't have put it in "My System" he had it in his book (according to Hans Kmoch in my old book of Rubinstein's games). under the caption "First to restrain, then to blockade, and finally to destroy." so his comment is only that it would have illustrated that better with a different scenario (position). He doesn't say Rubinstein's method is "against" his system. He is clearly being somewhat "wry". |
|
| Apr-22-12 | | bystander: Very well played by Rubinstein. For me it is very difficult to find any improvement for black, other than not playing 9..f6 and 12...a6? (I would play cd4x on move 9 or 12 and 12...a6 in combination with Nb6 does not make so much sense to me). |
|
| Jun-26-15 | | bharat123: 21.Re5 appears to be strong, denying any counterplay for black. White can liesurely pick up the c3 pawn and pound on e6 with all pieces. also whites c pawn can march while black is burdened with defending the weak e pawn. |
|
| Oct-04-17 | | Strelets: You know you're in for some fun when you see the words, "Notes by Aron Nimzowitsch." |
|
| Oct-05-17 | | kevin86: nice finish! |
|
| Apr-05-20 | | jenspetersson: Anybody here that could check a thing for me in your copy of "My System?". Annotations here at Chessgames, after move 13, have a sentence including the words "after exf6". The Swedish translation (1997) of the book has this as "after cxd4". Both make some sense, but Nimzo probably meant one of them. |
|
| Apr-05-20 | | Retireborn: <jenspetersson> The English translation I have writes "after KPxBP" ie exf6. The sense I take from it is that after 10.exf6, g3 and Bg2 is the "necessary element" to hold up the freeing ...e5. Although I have to say I see no chance of Black playing ...e5 anyway. |
|
| Apr-05-20 | | jenspetersson: @retireborn Thanks for the help and I agree with your view. |
|
| Apr-05-20 | | SChesshevsky: After 12...cxd4 the CG computer continues to liquidate with N exchange then Q exchange. Do more robust computers agree? Can they also hold the hanging pawns endgame? |
|
| Feb-23-21 | | nezhmet: In the translated Levenfish autobiography, "Soviet Outcast", he awards 16...Nxb2 a "??" quite rightly and points out black is thrown entirely back after white's simple response that occurred in the game. Instead, Levenfish points out the simple 16...b4! 17. Na4 Bd7! and opines that black has a very strong attack with no clear way for white to defend. Could it be true? Unfortunately no. The very calm computer engine though points out a very hidden defense to this dangerous idea: 18. Nd2!! N6a5 19.Ne4!! Qe7 20.c6 Bxc6 21.Nec5 and white is much better, or 18. Nd2!! N6e5! (relatively best) 19. Qe2! Bxa4 20.Nxc4 Nxc4 21.Qxe6+ Qxe6 22.Rxe6 Rac8 23.b3 Bb5 24.bxc4 Bxc4 25.Bxd5 Rxc5 26.Bxc4 Rxc4 27.Rxa6 and white has a big edge. It is an open question as to whether Rubinstein could spot all this. |
|
Mar-20-23
 | | kingscrusher: Nimzovich in his notes sounds a bit like a modern day streamer trying to make games instructive or fun as opposed to just winning them in any way possible. He said "But as played the game was instructive enough!" - maybe this is why Nimzovich games actually often seem very instructive - he is maybe going out of his way to illustrate his "My system" quite a bit more than perhaps one thinks. The choice of winning games vs winning games and providing examples for "My system" surely is a bit risky to have the goal of also being instructive. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
Annotations by 