Apr-01-05
 | | samvega: Here is another illustration of the style of writing Kmoch poked fun at in the Game of the Day. I particularly relished "Dr. Krause, it must be admitted, has planned and conducted the game excellently; that no advantage can be obtained from an isolated pawn is clearly not his fault."
Did Nimzovitch, by the way, later change his evaluation of the isolated d-pawn? He played the white side of this opening seven years later against Alekhine (Nimzowitsch vs Alekhine, 1931) |
|
| Jan-07-08 | | DarthStapler: Nimzowitsch is the only one who would ever use the term "defensive threat" |
|
Jan-07-08
 | | Richard Taylor: I am coincidentally studying My System right now - of which one chapter is "The Isolated Queen's Pawn" - there he seems more ambiguous on the isolated pawn. "In general it may be said that the two following cases are worth striving for by White. [player with isolated pawn -QP usuallly]
(i) When White has effected [d5, ex (pawn); a piece x pawn and thereby gets the better as in Rubinstein-Tartakower, Baden Baden, 1925." I think he may mean this game (at Marienbad) where Rubinstein liquidates the Q-P quickly Rubinstein vs Tartakower, 1925
Pachman has a more complex approach to the I.P. in his three vol book on tactics and strategy - I read the strategy books some time ago - there are some interesting games given by Pachman. In simpl terms it is usually a liability in an end game but can be part of a strong attacking system in the middle game. Karpov won a number of games by exchanging Qs early in the Tarrasch var of the French but was held to = by Korchnoi (in their WCS match when the latter played the French) - so I would say opinions would now be divided by modern GMs and Masters on the concept of the IP or IQP |
|
| Jan-07-08 | | apexin: Nowadays black usually choses 5...Nc6 variation if he wants to transpose into an endgame arising after
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Nf3 Bg4 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. Qb3 Bxf3 9. gxf3 e6 10. Qxb7 Nxd4 11. Bb5+ Nxb5 12. Qc6+ Ke7 13. Qxb5 Qd7 14. Nxd5+ Qxd5 15. Qxd5 exd5 16. Be3 Ke6
where whites advantage is at best minimal.
9...Bh5 is a possible improvement for black. |
|
Jan-07-08
| | Richard Taylor: <samvega> and <DarthStapler> yes! Very witty comments!! Nimzovich's comments in his book are often quite amusing - amusing turns of phrase he has! |
|
| Jan-07-08 | | brankat: Despite a somewhat unorthodox phraseology, and even an occasional emotional streaks Nimzowitsch tends to use, I find his comments and remarks very enjoyable to read and reflect upon. |
|
| Jan-07-08 | | D.Observer: Is there something wrong with <27. ♖xc1>? |
|
Jan-07-08
 | | WannaBe: <D.Observer: Is there something wrong with <27. Rxc1>?> No, actually my Shredder gave that a little better eval than what is played, but the game would still be draw. |
|
| Jan-07-08 | | patzer2: This game and Nizovichich's comments reminds me of the Toby Keith song title and lyric "a little less talk and a lot more action." Maybe it's because I expect to see exciting and instructive play here, based on the high quality of previous "Game of the Day" selections. |
|
Jan-07-08
| | WannaBe: <patzer2> Didn't Elvis do that song first?? Think it was Elvis' version that was used in the movie "Ocean's 11" with G. Clooney, B. Pitt, etc... |
|
| Jan-07-08 | | patzer2: <WannaBe> You're thinking of the Elvis song title and lyric that goes "a little less conversation, a little more action please." |
|
| Jan-07-08 | | piever: <Richard Taylor>: Nimzowitsch annotated this game in "The practice of my system" (which was obviously written after "My system"). In that book he explains that, due to the modern defensive means, the IQP is not so dangerous in the middlegame, but it will be a weakness in the endgame. He probably writes so only in order to disagree with Tarrasch (btw, he also said he had refuted 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5?...). Yet I'd like to know what is the opinion of contemporary grandmasters about the IQP (my knowledge of positional chess doesn't go beyond Nimzo's books...) |
|
Jan-07-08
 | | kevin86: There was an old book by Nimzo called "Chess Praxis". It was filled with gems like -"defensive threats". "overprotection" "hypermodern chess" etc. This game seems to show how he could play his way into a whole and then extricate himself. The dsame could not be said of his opposition. Is it true that sometimes Nimzo so entangled his opponents in games that they later developed arthritis as a result? |
|
Jan-07-08
 | | playground player: Is this gracious Nimzovitch the same Nimzovitch who climbed onto the chess table and screamed, "Why must I lose to this idiot?" Guess he had his moods... |
|
| Jan-07-08 | | Gameoverziggy: Playground player are you sure you are not referring to Alhekine when he lost to Grunfeld and threw his king across the room yelling "How can I lose to this idiot"? |
|
| Jan-07-08 | | morphynoman2: Isolated pawn??? Yes, but in both sides! I think Nimzovich was the James Joyce of Chess. He just talked, and talked, and talked... |
|
| Jan-07-08 | | Shams: <I think Nimzovich was the James Joyce of Chess. He just talked, and talked, and talked...> HUH? Joyce wrote three novels (ok, full-length works of fiction-- let's not go there), a book of short stories, some random verse and an aborted play. In a literary career lasting over 30 years. I'd hardly call that running off at the mouth. |
|
| Jan-07-08 | | gBizzle: < Gameoverziggy: <Playground player> are you sure you are not referring to Alhekine when he lost to Grunfeld and threw his king across the room yelling "How can I lose to this idiot"? > nope he is referencing when Nimzowitsch lost to his nemesis Samisch in the final round (not to mention them playing for first)of a tournament. Nimzowitsch then jumped up on the the table where they played their game and screamed "How can I lose to this idiot?!" |
|
| Jan-07-08 | | gBizzle: <kevin86: There was an old book by Nimzo called "Chess Praxis". It was filled with gems like -"defensive threats". "overprotection" "hypermodern chess" etc.> "Chess Praxis" was a supplement Nimzowitsch wrote for his best and most popular book, "My System." "My System" was the first chess publication to talk about the chess theories of many things, but most importanty "blockading," which is a major theme in chess strategy today. Nimzowitsch also contributed extensively to opening theory. He in invented the Nimzo-Indian Defense (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4), but also the French Winawer variation (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4)(it is called the Nimzowitsch defense in some countries) and the French Advance variation (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5). He invented other openings as well, but they are considered subpar in theory. |
|
| Jan-07-08 | | gBizzle: Another one of Nimzowitsch's was Tarrasch, and you can tell why |
|
| Jan-07-08 | | CapablancaFan: Almost more than any other master, I always find Nimzowitsch's annotations most entertaining. |
|
| Jan-07-08 | | Judah: <samvega: Here is another illustration of the style of writing Kmoch poked fun at in the Game of the Day.> Samvega was referring to Nimzowitsch vs Systemsson, 1927. |
|
Jan-08-08
| | Richard Taylor: <Shams: <I think Nimzovich was the James Joyce of Chess. He just talked, and talked, and talked...> HUH? Joyce wrote three novels (ok, full-length works of fiction-- let's not go there), a book of short stories, some random verse and an aborted play. In a literary career lasting over 30 years. I'd hardly call that running off at the mouth.> Yes (except that his verse was quite considerable - if of a diff. style or 'tone' to his prose and his play was not aborted) but he was pretty garullous (except perhaps when he was with Beckett - hard to be with him) I just read Ellmann's biography of him - and his novels are very long - but, or and, I think <morphynoman2> is alluding to Nimzo's writing so much about Chess - Lasker also wrote a lot... |
|
Jan-08-08
| | Richard Taylor: <piever: <Richard Taylor>: Nimzowitsch annotated this game in "The practice of my system" (which was obviously written after "My system"). In that book he explains that, due to the modern defensive means, the IQP is not so dangerous in the middlegame, but it will be a weakness in the endgame. He probably writes so only in order to disagree with Tarrasch (btw, he also said he had refuted 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5?...). Yet I'd like to know what is the opinion of contemporary grandmasters about the IQP (my knowledge of positional chess doesn't go beyond Nimzo's books..> The annotations are the same as in My System. But I agree with much else - he had a theoretical battle with Tarrasch -something we need these days. Watson who is not a GM (as far as I know) is challenging the idea of "rule governed" chess. I feel he is wrong - but his work at least keeps people alert to the fact that there are dynamic and static features - I feel most books of strategy after Nimzo and also Nimzo's book (somewhat) cover this idea - Pachman's books are great - his views are much more complex on the I.P. and obviously there is a tacit agreement by such as Kasparov and after that the ISP can be an assett... such set ups arise frequently from the QGD etc Also certain "idee fixee's" should be avoided such as whether a B is better than a knight etc - this depends always on the position type. |
|
Kibitzing
Annotations by 