|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-20-16 | | kevin86: Black will queen the pawn...trust me! |
|
May-20-16
 | | offramp: Nimzowitsch could play like this against Joe Schmos. But his System was a load of hooey and he wasn't a very good player against the World's best. This is a game between a strong A-class player (Nimzowitsch) and a fairly talented amateur. |
|
| May-20-16 | | thegoodanarchist: <Phony Benoni: In case you're wondering, "Why not the obvious <Mannheimer Steamrolled> as a pun, that was used when this was GOTD back in 2004. > Yes, I was wondering. Thank you for the 'splanation |
|
| May-20-16 | | RookFile: <offramp: I really admire White's manoeuvre 30.Ne5-f3-g1.> Had to smile when I saw this. White did play like a dead fish in this game. |
|
| May-20-16 | | morfishine: I thought this was the famous zug-game, but thats this one: Saemisch vs Nimzowitsch, 1923 ***** |
|
| May-20-16 | | morfishine: <offramp> Wow, pretty harsh for you, though very funny and sarcastic initial comment. Tough week? |
|
May-20-16
 | | Domdaniel: <offramp> - "Garbage, amateur, hooey... usw" - Do you *have* to insult Nimzo's opponents like this? Yes, of course, most of them weren't in his class (few players were, other than Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine -- all world champions). You make it look as if Nimzowitsch deliberately published games vs much weaker opponents to make himself look better. But a thorough scrutiny of his books would show that a great number of strong opponents were included. |
|
| May-20-16 | | newhampshireboy: offramp has confused his opinions with facts, a very common mistake humans make. Nimzowitsch was fully capable of beating top class players and he did on several occasions. I have always admired his System as it has helped me a lot and many others. |
|
May-20-16
 | | perfidious: Nimzowitsch employed the amusing touch of rival Alekhine's Gun as a tactical exploitation of his positional advantage |
|
May-20-16
| | offramp: I find Nimzowitsch tiresome. He used his system against much weaker players, but when he beat players his own strength he did so by playing normally. See Kevin Spraggett (kibitz #151). |
|
May-20-16
| | Domdaniel: <offramp> Aha. What, please, is 'normally'? How exactly does one play 'normally'? Have I been playing non-normally ever since I first read Nimzowitsch, almost 40 years ago? And which is better, Normally or Gormally? |
|
| May-21-16 | | RookFile: I think normally means you take advantage of a tactical opportunity and that's it. Chigorin is a good example, it was said that some of his wins were like lightning from a clue blue sky. |
|
May-25-16
| | Domdaniel: <Rokfile> Chigorin is certainly a good example of something, but nobody is sure exactly what. I've been reading about him recently, and looking at some games. Some people saw him as the founder (with Petrov) of the Russian/Soviet school. Others saw him as the last great Romantic, still successfully playing gambits in the Steinitz era. Yet others saw him as a great anti-dogmatic player, who repudiated the notions of Steinitz and Tarrasch in favour of concrete analysis of the position to hand. And so on. |
|
| Nov-07-17 | | Swedish Logician: Nimzo's instructive play for and on the white central squares reminds me of Botvinnki's in one of my favourite games: M Stolberg vs Botvinnik, 1940
e.g. the stunning positions after Black's moves 23, _ Ne4 and 32. _ Rc4. |
|
| Aug-15-19 | | Messiah: Excellent game, mister Nimzo! |
|
Dec-18-22
 | | kingscrusher: An outpost masterclass example |
|
Dec-18-22
| | perfidious: This game also serves as a primer on the exploitation of two weaknesses: tie the enemy to defence of one, then play against the other. |
|
Dec-19-22
 | | fredthebear: Did you read that, or do you actually know what the weaknesses are? Another opportunity to instruct falls short of being useful. |
|
Dec-20-22
| | perfidious: <fredthebore>, there are 'opportunities to instruct' and chances to explain the simplest positions in excruciating detail--as though one were patronising novices at every turn--regrettably, you choose the latter without regard to your audience. Perhaps you should give them credit for having some ability at the game, as I do, not insult their intelligence. |
|
Dec-20-22
 | | moronovich: <perfidious: This game also serves as a primer on the exploitation of two weaknesses: tie the enemy to defence of one, then play against the other.> In all its simplicity, this is actually a very instructive comment. |
|
Dec-20-22
| | fredthebear: Just as I thought. You two don't know what the weaknesses are. |
|
Dec-20-22
| | moronovich: The weakness I see, is a crybear. |
|
Dec-20-22
| | perfidious: <fredthebore> trying to convert the absence of evidence into a conclusion; risible, really. |
|
| Oct-12-23 | | rmdalodado: This is the 9th (last game) of Nimzowitsch chosen by Chernev in his book The Golden Dozen of which he gave the following intro: "Why does chess fascinate us for a lifetime?
A game such as this may provide the answer. We are impressed by Nimzowitsch's iron control of the white squares, by his mysterious 16th move of .. Q-R1 (.. Qh8), by the way he works up a powerful K-side attack, only to have the queen swoop down the other side of the board to snatch up a pawn, and we are amused at the nonchalance of Nimzowitsch's rook pawn as it dances gaily up the board to the queening square while his opponent seems to be too hypnotized to do anything but look on. This sort of game should go far to dispel the notion that chess is no more than a minor art." |
|
Mar-23-25
| | kingscrusher: I think the importance of this game is to provide a great advanced goal for sacrificing - that of blockading. Whilst this game only has a minor "tradeoff sac" of bishop for knight, it demonstrates more the goal of blockade. It is from this basis, that influenced the famous positional blockading exchange sacrifices of Petrosian. If one can't see clearly why the goals are important, then the need for sacrificing for such goals is less clear. And that impoverished chess generally because then all that is left are "Banal sacrifices" for mating that are so obvious and unoriginal that they become uninteresting. Nimzovich shows us that sacrifices can be made for Overprotecting key squares like e5, or for blockading. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 