< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jan-11-07|| ||aazqua: kh2 might be the worst move nimzo ever played. FOr a positional master it really is appaling to think that that was the best move available.|
|Jul-28-08|| ||jerseybob: I wouldn't be so hard on 11.Kh2. By that time white was in serious trouble. The real villain here, in my opinion, is 9.Ng3? White should've followed the logic of his 8th move and opposed the black king bishop with 9.Be3, and if Bxe3, 10.Nxe3 with a great game. 9.Ng3 might be bearable if black just mechanically castled kingside, but with Qd7 and 000 he signals that he's really ready to rumble, and Bxh3 could be a threat. Doesn't necessarily win, but it's scary. That's the reason for 11.Kh2. White might have tried the trappy 11.Nh2,hoping for Bxh3? 12.gxh3, Qxh3 13. Qg4ch!, but black has a strong game with just ordinary moves. White might also try 11.Be3, and if Bxe3 12.fxe3 might be survivable, but white's kingside is loose, much looser than black's queenside.|
|Jul-28-08|| ||jerseybob: Let me add one more 11th move possibility for White: 11.Qe2, eyeing 12.Be3. Of course, white is then gambling that the bishop sac Bxh3 is unsound. Nimzo wasn't willing to take that gamble.|
|Dec-13-08|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: 5... ♗c5 is not so good though, because of ♗e3. Better to play 5... f6, c5, ♗d6, ♘e7-c6 with a nice position, as in P Romanovsky vs Botvinnik, 1935. Lasker's attack was most elegant.|
|Jan-31-12|| ||RookFile: **Cough**. I guess this game is an example of the tactical genius Nimzo showed before the 1920's.|
|Jan-31-12|| ||OhioChessFan: 11. Nh5 is a possibility. 11. c3 doesn't work after Qxd3 12. Qxd3 Rxd3 and White is already crushed.|
click for larger view
|Feb-18-12|| ||RookFile: I think Lasker's best move of the game was when he castled queenside. At that moment, he correctly judged that his kingside pawn storm was going to give him a big edge.|
|Feb-18-12|| ||ray keene: Nh1 not as spectacular as in Nimzo v Rubinstein Dresden 1926-this reminds me somewhat of Nimzo v Mieses Gothenburg 1920-when Nimzo got it wrong he sometimes was slaughtered by such sacrificial attacks. Wonderful game by Ed Lasker of course!|
|Sep-28-18|| ||offramp: I have seen a few good games by Aron Nimzowitsch, always against much weaker opponents.|
Against anyone half way decent he gets beaten like a Cherokee drum.
In this game he plays as if he learnt the moves two weeks ago.
|Sep-28-18|| ||Parachessus: It's just a practice game against a weaker opponent. Everybody plays the occasional sloppy game against weaker players. If ol' Nimzy had known that this game would be posted on a site for all the world to see a century later, I'm sure he would have focused with laser-like intensity on it and NOT played the Ruy. What's a hypermodern doing playing the Ruy Lopez anyway?|
|Sep-28-18|| ||AylerKupp: <Parachessus> Losing.|
|Sep-28-18|| ||JAMESROOK: Wow...it was among the first of my chess books: CHESS FOR FUN AND CHESS FOR BLOOD.
Edward lasker gave his game against Emanuel lasker - a Ruy Lopez. Ed Lasker was black. it lasted for almost 13 hours and I think a 100 moves. It was a draw but Ed Lasker almost won this game.
Great player and teacher.|
|Sep-28-18|| ||dumbgai: Edward Lasker was hardly a "weaker opponent"|
|Sep-28-18|| ||JimNorCal: <offramp>: "... always against much weaker players"|
Maybe they were not "good games", but Nimzo beat Rubinstein, Schlecter, Chigorin, Tarrasch, Bogo, Alekhine, Euwe, Maroczy, Flohr and Lasker among others.
I suspect it's true that Nimzo was not World Champ level. Still, he was not bad.
|Sep-28-18|| ||Atking: dumbgai: Edward Lasker was hardly a "weaker opponent" Sure but Nimzowitsch was of another class. Sometimes you lose against a player with a lower understanding of the game. It must be taken as a lesson of humility.|
|Sep-29-18|| ||Parachessus: <dumbgai> I didn't say Ed Lasker was a WEAK player, just weaker than Nimzovitch. That's a fact. Nobody would expect Ed Lasker to come out ahead of Nimzovitch in a serious march.|
|Sep-29-18|| ||Parachessus: Match.|
|Sep-29-18|| ||keypusher: For whatever itís worth, Edward Lasker wrote about showing Nimzowitsch a strategy book he was working on (this was in the 20s I think) and Nimzowitsch said it was good, but a master would need more, and he went on to expound on his own ideas. Lasker then said he realized the gulf between himself and a master of Nimzowitschís class.|
|Sep-29-18|| ||keypusher: Playing over this game, I remember seeing 21.Qf3 and thinking itís just what I would do, but wondering if ....Rg3 was ďon.Ē Well....it probably didnít matter what White did by then.|
|Sep-30-18|| ||keypusher: <What's a hypermodern doing playing the Ruy Lopez anyway?>|
He wasn't really a hypermodern in 1910. Anyway, though he didn't play the Ruy Lopez much, he played the Four Knights all the time.
<offramp: I have seen a few good games by Aron Nimzowitsch, always against much weaker opponents.
Against anyone half way decent he gets beaten like a Cherokee drum.>
Nimzowitsch vs Rubinstein, 1926
|Oct-04-18|| ||Parachessus: <keypusher> Your knowledge of chess history is truly impressive. I appreciate your ongoing never-ending falsehood and fallacy debunking efforts.|
|Oct-06-18|| ||keypusher: <Parachessus: <keypusher> Your knowledge of chess history is truly impressive. I appreciate your ongoing never-ending falsehood and fallacy debunking efforts.>|
Well thanks! I used to believe I was very knowledgable, but there's many here who know more, do more, or both: phony benoni, tabanus, zanzibar, MissScarlett, and lots of others.
<keypusher: Playing over this game, I remember seeing 21.Qf3 and thinking itís just what I would do, but wondering if ....Rg3 was ďon.Ē Well....it probably didnít matter what White did by then.>
This is quite wrong. After 21.Rg1 White should beat off the attack and win -- good thing that knight in the corner has f2 covered....
The people jeering at Nimzowitsch's handling of the opening were right, though. Lasker had the right idea sacrificing the bishop, but messed up the execution: instead of 18...f5, 18....Bxg4 19.hxg4 Rxg4 20.Rg1 Rg3!! 21.Qf1 Qg4! and White can't do anything about the threat of ...f4-f3 followed by ...Qg4-f4 (SF). Not so easy for a carbon-based chessplayer to see that.
|Oct-06-18|| ||Olavi: <keypusher: instead of 18...f5, 18....Bxg4 19.hxg4 Rxg4 20.Rg1 Rg3!! 21.Qf1 Qg4! and White can't do anything about the threat of ...f4-f3 followed by ...Qg4-f4 (SF). Not so easy for a carbon-based chessplayer to see that.>|
Ed. Lasker gave that exact line in Chess Secrets I Learned from the Masters.
|Oct-06-18|| ||keypusher: <Olavi> I'm impressed! But I remember also reading <Chess for Fun and Chess for Blood> and being impressed by the depth and complexity of variations he calculated over the board in Lasker vs Ed. Lasker, 1924.|
|Nov-18-18|| ||priyadarshan: What about 20. f3 ? Please elucidate. Does it save the king?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·