|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 10 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-06-13 | | PhilFeeley: Spraggett's own words: <His works are very famous, but, in my humble opinion, over-rated. I've read everything he has written (and spent a great deal of time thinking about what he said--I now regret having wasted my time), it is all very interesting and entertaining, but I think that, self-promotion apart, he almost never achieved in his tournament practice (i.e. his games) what he makes you believe he did in his books. It is really hard to find a game played from move 1 to the end where he even followed his own 'system' ! On top of this, his books are filled with many tactical oversights, and simply bad judgement. And a lot of the other stuff he wrote about is just pure 'technique'...and he did not 'invent' it, but he did try to make his readers believe he did... Nimzovich was a great player ! No doubt about this...but his advice given in his books never even worked in his own time...not many players realize that his strength was due primarily due to his ability to play white ! With black he was a pigeon by comparison...and far too much of what he wrote was from the black side (again, he was trying to 'promote' the Nimzo-Indian -type systems). In fact, most of it is pure fantasy.. There are some famous players who will swear by his books, this I acknowledge, but take my word for it, there are many, many more famous players who believe his stuff is second rate 'schillerism'! His name will always be associated with 'hypermodernism' and deservingly. But even most of the variations of the Nimzo-Indian defence that he played are known (and have been known as such for more than 50 years) to be simply bad. There is a famous game of his where he tried to provoke d5 by playing his rook to e6...just garbage ! The truth is that his position was already desparate, and he was willing to try anything... This is not to say that he didn't win some nice games in the Nimzo... in fact he did play two or three really nice games (he was definitely a 2600+ player)...but they had very little to do with his 'system'... and most modern masters can do the same if they get the help that he got from his opponents ! I think that you will find it very difficult to find former 'Soviet' GMs to say anything nice about Nimzo's books; I think they mostly didn't like the very 'commercial' aspect of his books. And I think that maybe 'lack' of objectivity on Nimzovich's part played a role also..> http://canchess.tripod.com/Nonimzo....That sounds like careful analysis to me, not nonsense. |
|
| Jun-06-13 | | PhilFeeley: Lawrence Day adds: <"I don't like Nimzo either.
Many of the ideas are ripped off from Tchigorin.
In those days, when he wrote, the idea was to raise fan money for a world championship purse. Hence 'his' system, but the Soviets (knowing their Tchigorin) see thru the scam, imo".> Maybe it's just Canadians. They seem to like the odd "rat" opening a lot (Duncan Suttles). |
|
Jun-06-13
 | | keypusher: <Phil Feeley>
<.not many players realize that his strength was due primarily due to his ability to play white ! > I'm not qualified to speak to most of what Spraggett says, but this, at least, appears not to be true. I did a comparison of various masters' scores with White and Black. Everyone did better with White than with Black, but Nimzowitsch came very close to scoring equally with Black and White. Apologies for the formatting. The usual caveats about the database apply. <Group I
Nimzowitsch
White 64.5% Black 62.8%
122 47.1% 129 45.2%
47 18.1% 55 19.4%
90 34.7% 100 35.2%
259 284
97.4%
Alekhine
White 73.5% Black 72.4%
747 61.5% 401 57.0%
176 14.5% 86 12.2%
292 24.0% 216 30.7%
1215 703
98.5%
Capablanca
White 73.7% Black 67.8%
188 57.5% 136 45.6%
33 10.1% 30 10.1%
106 32.4% 133 44.3%
327 298
92.0%
Lasker
White 63.1% Black 61.5%
432 51.1% 306 47.4%
211 24.9% 158 24.5%
203 24.0% 182 28.2%
846 646
97.5%
Rubinstein
White 70.2% Black 57.9%
205 54.8% 152 39.4%
54 14.4% 91 23.6%
115 30.7% 143 37.0%
374 386
82.3%
Schlechter
White 65.6% Black 57.3%
177 44.4% 120 31.0%
53 13.3% 64 16.5%
169 42.4% 203 52.5%
339 387
87.3%
Pillsbury
White 70.8% Black 61.9%
131 60.9% 91 48.1%
41 19.0% 46 24.3%
44 20.4% 52 27.5%
216 189
87.4%
Group II
Tarrasch
White 71.4% Black 57.3%
286 57.9% 185 42.8%
75 15.2% 122 28.2%
133 26.9% 125 28.9%
494 432
80.3%
Botvinnik
White 72.7% Black 63.9%
335 53.8% 265 43.7%
53 8.5% 96 15.8%
235 37.7% 245 40.4%
623 606
87.9%
Keres
White 73.9% Black 66.8%
581 54.8% 468 45.8%
85 8.0% 125 12.2%
395 37.2% 429 42.0%
1061 1022
90.1%
Reshevsky
White 66.0% Black 49.8%
196 44.6% 106 25.3%
55 12.5% 104 24.8%
188 42.8% 209 49.9%
439 419
75.5% >
keypusher chessforum |
|
| Jun-06-13 | | AgentRgent: <PhilFeeley: That sounds like careful analysis to me, not nonsense.> I fear you may have mistaken analysis with demagoguery. For what it's worth, I suggest you simply read Nimzowitsch and decide for yourself. |
|
Jun-12-13
 | | HeMateMe: Canadian Black Widow jailed:
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-...> |
|
Jun-12-13
 | | perfidious: <HMM>: Another piece of work. |
|
| Jun-18-13 | | PhilFeeley: <AR> Too many books to read. I already have more than I can deal with for the rest of my chess life. Thanks for the discussion. |
|
| Jul-17-13 | | Everett: Well, you play a system and make moves on principle when you are able to. But each position is different, so chess players have to address specific issues in specific ways. Larsen put it best when he said that there is no "System" of play in Nimzo's books, just intriguing and worthwhile concepts to study and utilize at the chessboard when appropriate. |
|
| Aug-23-13 | | kingfu: He's back! Spraggett had a nice attack starting from the English in the first round. It is the 15th Internacional de Sants in Barcelona, Spain. |
|
Nov-10-13
 | | ketchuplover: happy birthday young man |
|
| Nov-10-13 | | Kikoman: <Player of the Day> Happy 59th Birthday GM Kevin Spraggett! :D |
|
Nov-10-13
 | | Penguincw: Happy 59th birthday to Canadian GM: Kevin Spraggett. |
|
| Jan-31-14 | | bravado1: These remarks about "My System" are to say the least unfair. I'm not an expert on chess hisrory, but I think that the work by Nimzowitsch was breakthrough and revolutionary not because of the analyses of specific positions - here obviously Nimzo made mistakes - but in the general "systematic" approach to chess. Before him people either analyzed particular games or limited themselves to laconic observations that 'in this kind of positions white is always better". Seeing chess and a game of chess as based on and imbedded in a general system can be compared to de Saussure's novel view of language as a system of signs. He also committed some obvious mistakes like the lack of relation between the sign and the objective reality, but on the whole he set the foundations for all contemporary linguistic approaches. In other words, de Saussure established language as the object of studies and Nimtzowitsch prepared the ground for the contemporary approach to chess. Chess studies where chess is "science", independent of the actual players at the board and their preferences. |
|
Feb-01-14
 | | Sally Simpson: Hi bravado1:
Nimzovitch's 'My System' is the marmite of the chess world.
You either dot on it like a fanatic or loathe it with a passion. No other chess book can bring forth such mixed reactions. Personally 'My System' (the original English 1930's translation) did nothing for me.
It was cluttered up making it very hard reading. Uninviting, like looking at porridge. Also, as I found out much later, it was poorly translated with much of humour
watered down or simply left out.
That is one thing you must remember when reading a translated book.
These are not the authors original words. These are his words translated. The recent translation of 'My System' by Quality Chess is superb.
What a difference from the original English edition.
Unfortunately 40 years too late to do me any good.
Speaking of translations, Nimzovitch books and his self-promotion. The translated book of the Carlsbad Tournament 1929 written by Nimzovitch
is the strangest tournament book I have ever read.
Even the translator, Jim Marfia, writes in the translator's preface: "...It becomes less of a factual report of a tournament than a tract,
a polemic, or perhaps more accurately something we moderns [this was written in 1981]
might call 'a bit of self-promtion'.
The whole book would slip neatly in 'My System' under the heading:
'How Other Players Are Using My System.' |
|
Feb-01-14
| | perfidious: <Sally Simpson.....Nimzovitch's 'My System' is the marmite of the chess world. You either dot on it like a fanatic or loathe it with a passion.> My experience was to neither dote on it nor loathe it and don't understand all this, really. |
|
| Feb-01-14 | | john barleycorn: yes, and the same can be said about tarrasch' writings. however, nobody is forced to read either of the two |
|
Feb-03-14
| | Sally Simpson: "...and don't understand all this, really."
Nowhere near as many chess books knocking about in the 60's/70's as there are now.
So good book discussions were somewhat limited.
I've witnessed a 'My System' argument descend into fisticuffs. Also check any forum where a player has asked for a book to help them improve.
Someone will suggest 'My System' and usually, not far behind, will come someone saying avoid it. Tarrasch was mentioned.
In the same thread I have in the past pointed a reader towards: 'Tarrasch's Best Games' by Reinfeld (Reinfeld's best book). I'd only suggest a book I know that brought me along and gave me a huge lift up.
A book that worked for me. |
|
| Feb-24-14 | | PhilFeeley: A recent game, not here yet. I couldn't find it in TWIC or Chessmix yet either: Spraggett, K – Movsziszian,K
1:0, 22- 2-2014 (Catalan Team Championship, round 5)
1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. f4 Nc6 5. Bb5 a6 6. Bxc6 bxc6 7. Nf3 Nf6 8. O-O O-O 9. Kh1 Rb8 10. Qd3 Nd7 11. b3 c5 12. Be3 cxd4 13. Bxd4 e5 (13… Bh6!) 14. fxe5 Nxe5 15. Bxe5! dxe5 16. Qc4² c6 17. Rad1 Qb6 [17... Qa5 18. Ng5!] 18. Rd6 [18. Na4!? Qb5 19. Qc3] 18… Be6 19. Qd3 Rfe8 [19... Rbd8!] 20. Na4! Qb4 [20... Qc7 21. Nc5! Bf8 22. Rxe6 Bxc5 23. Rf6 Be7 24. Rxf7!] 21. c3 [21. Ng5!] 21… Qb5 22. c4 Qb4 23. Ng5! Bc4 24. Qxc4 1-0 (24...Qxd6 25. Qxf7+ Kh8 26. Qxe8+ Rxe8 27. Nxf7+ and 28. Nxd6) Notes above and commentary on his blog. |
|
| Apr-17-14 | | Wyatt Gwyon: Anyone checked out this dude's site?
https://kevinspraggettonchess.wordp...
https://kevinspraggettonchess.wordp... NSFW -- be warned. |
|
| Apr-17-14 | | john barleycorn: <Wyatt Gwyon: Anyone checked out this dude's site? > the chess diagrams are a bit disturbing. |
|
| Apr-17-14 | | Wyatt Gwyon: <john> Yeah, and I'd say the graphic suicide picture is a close second. |
|
| Apr-17-14 | | Refused: Actually nice to see GM actually understanding how a website is supposed to be. Ok, personally I would remove that rotten pic (aka graphic suicide) with a meme. But well, I would not be too surprised if he picked up a few ideas from 4chan. To those complaining the site is a bit too explicit or something <Welcome to the internet.> |
|
| Apr-17-14 | | Wyatt Gwyon: <Refused> Yeah Spraggett just shot up toward the top of the list of GMs I'd like to have a beer with. |
|
| Jul-18-14 | | docbenway: Mister Spraggett, since you're adroit at heaping criticism on Obama and singing the praise of Putin you're surprising silent on your website about the mass murder in the skies over Ukraine that is being linked to your hero's military support of the separatists. |
|
| May-23-15 | | TheFocus: <The ‘‘Russian School’’ training system and the ‘‘Botvinnik’’ training system are both work intensive programs that often require years of collaboration with the trainer to be effective. This effectiveness is not in doubt, and has been proven over and over again throughout the years. However, the student is required to do much independent work at home, just as if he was taking a university course. Therefore any expectations of even short term gains are pure nonsense> - Kevin Spraggett. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 10 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
