|
"Pseudo-Classical School", Verses "Neoromantic School"
|
Alan Dicey
|
Oct 21, 2009 14:54 PDT
|
Hello Fellow USBCA Members,, And other Chess Enthusiasts,
Here is an article I picked up from my R-kives.
I just posted it to show even among Grand Masters, there is no real
agreement on how to play the "Game of Kings", and I suppose there will never
be.
I remember reading a Book called "The Next Best Move"
But the author eludes me after 25 years or so.
That book was one of dozens I have read, all with different and often
conflicting ideas and Philosophies.
All usually by Great Chess Masters!!
In fact, did you know, there have been more Books written on the sport of
Chess than all other Sports Combined?
Here is an article that states, there is no such thing as the very best next
move", among other topics.
Hope you enjoy this article and get something out of it!
With Best Regards,
Alan
Miami, Florida
Alan Dicey, President
United States Braille Chess Association - USBCA
"Yes, Blind or Visually Impaired People Can, and Do, Play Chess!!!"
United States Braille Chess Association Home Page:
http://www.crisscrosstech.com/usbca/
- - -
"pseudo-classical school",
Verses
"Neoromantic School".
Or Hyper Modern School
Aaron Nimzowitsch (1886-1935)
Some Famous Sayings of Aaron Nimzowitsch
About the Center
The center of the board consist of squares, not pawns.
Having the command of the center is a question of restraint; the number of
pawns is not decisive. The leitmotif of true strategy should be to
over-protect the center, instead of the all too frequent habit of swerving
to the flanks.
The expectations for the central player are better than those for the
diversionist.
You should protect your weak points and over-protect the strong ones in the
center.
An immovable center tends to become a weakness.
About Blockading
It is an enigmatic fact that the blockade square tends to become a strong
point for yourself and a weak one for your opponent.
When fighting against a pawn center your motto should be "First restrain,
then block, and finally destroy".
When all is said and done, positional struggle is nothing but a fight
between the mobility of the pawn mass and a restraining tendency on the
opposite side.
An absolutely secure blockade may very well be worth a pawn sacrifice.
Previous theory only recognized the connection between a sacrifice and an
attack.
About Pawns
Beside prophylaxis the simultaneous mobility of the pawn mass is a main
postulate in my positional credo.
A pawn has a natural expansive lust.
To me the passed pawn , as well as many other actors, has a soul, and like
Man he is the bearer of wishes and fears of which he is unaware.
Once upon a time, before 1913, it was firmly believed that a pawn chain has
to remain intact if you are to benefit from it. I must give myself credit
for
having refuted this prejudiced opinion.
About Type Positions
Try to get rid of the slavery under opening variations. Instead, learn a few
type positions and study them thoroughly. Capablanca is a master of type
positions.
In my opinion the isolated d-pawn constitutes a crucial issue in positional
play.
It is no disadvantage to a man to be a limper as long as he remains seated.
Similarly, doubled pawns are healthy as long as they remain in their
position,
crouching like a frog.
capablanca.jpg (5858 bytes) Capablanca
About Positional Play
Positional moves more often than not are neither threats nor defense moves.
There is a widespread belief that you can accumulate small advantages that
may be converted into a win. This belief is strongly overrated. But there is
something called "to transform advantages", meaning that you refrain from
one thing to get another.
Learn to distinguish between true and false freeing moves.
(Blackburne-Nimzowitsch, Petrograd 1914)
There is no such thing as an absolute freeing move.
Dynamics triumphs over matter.
In a sound position there are at least two alternatives that are "the only
move".
About Over-zealous Activism etc. A threat is stronger than its execution.
The amateur always assumes that every move has to achieve something
immediately.
Sometimes it is better to look for a waiting move.
One of these modest little moves that may be more embarrassing to your
opponent then the biggest threat. (Nimzowitsch-Tarrasch, Breslau 1925).
A beginner is happy if he manages to checkmate his opponent. For the master
it is sufficient to discover the shadow of a weakness of the pawn structure
somewhere on the remote outskirts of the left hand side of the board.
A historical metaphor:
The center of the chess board is like the Balkans - acts of war may burst
out at any moment.
Contents
. . . . . . . . .
My System
Aaron Nimzowitsch is famous for his work "My System" (originally published
in German in 1925-27 by Verlag B. Kagan, Berlin), which he followed up with
"My
System in Practice" (1928) where he comments on his system in more detail.
Both works have, in the course of time, been translated into many other
languages
and are considered to belong to the Classics of chess literature.
Contents
About the Reception of My system
The Elements and Positional Play
The Chess Philosophy of Aaron Nimzowitsch: Prophylaxis and Mobility
The Center
Type Positions
The Neoromantic School
The Conflict between Dr. Tarrasch and Aaron Nimzowitsch
Some Famous Sayings of Aaron Nimzowitsch
Further reading on Positional Play - Past and Present
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reception
About the Reception of My System
Renowned as the work is, still not many chess players have actually read it,
and this fact partly goes back to the circumstance that the earliest
editions
were anything but easy to read. Apart from their very rich contents they
were not up to normal standards as far as printing and layout were
concerned,
and it must be admitted that from a linguistic point of view Nimzowitsch's
usage has a certain idiosyncrasy.
It is however also a fact that anyone who has taken the trouble to read "My
system" carefully has experienced a feeling that in the process they have
become
better chess players. And it is also a unanimous opinion that hard work is
required, and that it is not enough to read it only once.
When you start studying a comprehensive work like "My system" you can either
work yourself through the book from the first page to the last, receptive to
all ideas and details, or you can try
to get yourself an outline of the essentials, which is what we will to do
here.
Contents
. . . . . . . ..
The Elements and Positional Play
The Elements and Positional Play Part I of the book comprises the Part I of
the book comprises the "Elements", and these chapters contain lots of useful
and original ideas and suggestions for the game of chess. It is not
necessary for the understanding of the "system" to read all those chapters
together, but you should at least read the chapters dealing with open files,
outposts, the seventh rank, passed pawns and the chain of pawns, which will
also help you to understand Part II, dealing with Positional Play. And while
the wisdom of Part I is today largely common knowledge, at least among more
experienced chess players, much of the message of Part II is still unknown
to many, and also partly controversial.
. . . . . . . . . . .
The Chess Philosophy of Aaron Nimzowitsch: Prophylaxis and Mobility
As a player, Nimzowitsch favoured an attacking game that was entirely
founded on positional factors. Seldom did he try an attack in a serious game
if his position was not secured, but once he attacked, he struck
meticulously and, if necessary, by a brilliant combination.
To quote Richard Réti, a combination was to Nimzowitsch just a way of
proving strategic superiority in his position on the board. So, the question
arises: What is the criterion of a sound position? Above all, Nimzowitsch
advocates prophylaxis. This concept has two aspects:
1) Try to stop your opponent from liberating himself. Keywords in this
action are restraining (German "Hemmung") and blocking, which latter
expression refers to the stopping of a passed pawn. However, a blockade must
be elastic.
2) Place your own pieces in such a way that they cooperate in perfect
harmony. A famous keyword in this onnection is over-protection (German
"Überdeckung"),
which refers to the strengthening of certain central points, such as a
passed pawn or a blockade field.
As a consequence of such harmony, your pieces, including pawns, will be able
to move forwards in a combined attack, all at the same time. Mobility is the
second key word in Nimzowitsch's philosophy.
Contents
. . . . . . . . . .
The Center
The Center The prime means of achieving the goal of prophylaxis is to take
command of the center
The Center
The prime means of achieving the goal of prophylaxis is to take command of
the center. Here Nimzowitsch was strongly opposed to the "pseudo-classical
school",
represented by Dr. Tarrasch, who argued that the meaning of "command of the
center" is to occupy the center with pawns. The new approach of Nimzowitsch
was to strive for influence in the center by, to quote himself, "firing" at
it, for instance by having your bishops posted on the long diagonals, or by
applying indirect influence, as in the case of one of the openings
introduced by him, the Nimzowitsch-Indian Defense, where Black's bishop on
b4 exerts
pressure on the central square e4. On the other hand it is one of the myths
clinging to Nimzowitsch that he was in favour of "narrow positions". If
necessary,
you must be able to cope with such a position, but mobility is to be
preferred.
Type Positions
Orchestrated with positional lines are certain "type positions", like
doubled pawns, the isolated pawn, hanging pawns or the two bishops, and
Nimzowitsch
goes into deep detail when analyzing such features.
Contents
The Center The prime means of achieving the goal of prophylaxis is to take
command of the center
The Center
The prime means of achieving the goal of prophylaxis is to take command of
the center. Here Nimzowitsch was strongly opposed to the "pseudo-classical
school",
represented by Dr. Tarrasch, who argued that the meaning of "command of the
center" is to occupy the center with pawns. The new approach of Nimzowitsch
was to strive for influence in the center by, to quote himself, "firing" at
it, for instance by having your bishops posted on the long diagonals, or by
applying indirect influence, as in the case of one of the openings
introduced by him, the Nimzowitsch-Indian Defense, where Black's bishop on
b4 exerts
pressure on the central square e4. On the other hand it is one of the myths
clinging to Nimzowitsch that he was in favour of "narrow positions". If
necessary,
you must be able to cope with such a position, but mobility is to be
preferred.
Type Positions
Orchestrated with positional lines are certain "type positions", like
doubled pawns, the isolated pawn, hanging pawns or the two bishops, and
Nimzowitsch
goes into deep detail when analyzing such features.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Neoromantic School The new ideas advocated by Nimzowitsch came to be
called the
The Neoromantic School
The new ideas advocated by Nimzowitsch came to be called the "Neoromantic
School". Other prominent representatives of this school were Breyer,
Grünfeld,
Réti, Rubinstein and Tartakower. The latter, whose verbal gift almost
equalled his chess talent, also coined the term "hypermodern" in his book
Die hypermoderne
Schachpartie (1920), being a witty rejoinder to Tarrasch's Die moderne
Schachpartie (1912). However, it would not be right to give a specified
"list
of members" of the Neoromantic School, and Nimzowitsch sometimes critizised
his colleagues for certain ideas, but no doubt there was a certain tendency
shared to a certain extent by a group of players.
tartakower.jpg (1879 bytes) Tartakower
rubinstein.jpg (1739 bytes) Rubinstein
maroczy.jpg (2374 bytes) Maróczy
Nimzowitsch also referred to Emanuel Lasker and Geza Moróczy as modernists,
although they belonged to an older generation. Lasker, Capablanca, and
Aljechin
did not explicitly take sides in the theoretical dispute between the
"hypermodernists" and the "pseudo-classicals". They were simply very strong
players
and did not bother too much about what constituted a strong move; they just
played it. However, the defense introduced by Aljechin, 1.e4 Nf6, was an
innovation
entirely in the neoromantic style. Rudolf Spielmann in no way rejected
Nimzowitsch's ideas, but he took a more pragmatic view, expressed in his
book Richtig
opfern ("Sacrificing the Right Way "), where he emphasizes the importance of
intuition and calculated risk taking.
lasker.jpg (11374 bytes) Lasker
aljechin.jpg (6027 bytes) Aljechin
Contents
. . . . . . . . . .
The conflict between Dr
The conflict between Dr. Tarrasch and Aaron Nimzowitsch
Both Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch built their positional views on the theories
of Wilhelm Steinitz, the founder (together with Zukertort and others in
London)
of "The Modern School", but they evidently disagreed on the
interpretation.The chemistry obviously did not work very well between the
two masters. For
one thing their personalities were different, but they had one feature in
common: both took very strong views on theoretical issues and they defended
their
opinions stubbornly. Dr. Tarrasch even started a magazine, Tarraschs
Schachzeitung , whose principal aim was to fight against the "hypermodern".
The main topic was the center, but another one, less well-known today, was
the so called tempo theory.
Dr. Tarrasch argued that in a given position only one move could be the
best, while Nimzowitsch was of opinion that such absoluteness does not
exist,
Whereas Tarrasch criticized "narrow positions" and questioned
"over-protection", Nimzowitsch argued for "elasticity" and pointed to the
emptiness of a term
like German "freies Spiel", literally " free play", roughly "a cushy
number".
Another system introduced by Tarrasch is 3.Nd2 in the French, nowadays a
very important variation. Strangely enough, although the inventor of the
system,
he eventually disapproved of it as giving too little influence in the
center.
The variation 3.e5 (The French Advance) was the object of bitter
discussions. Tarrasch put a ? after it, while Nimzowitsch asserted that the
pawn chain
granted White a clear advantage, because the "wedge pawn" e5 restrains
Black.
In the Rubinstein variation of the French Defense, Tarrasch considered
3. - dxe4 bad, Nimzowitsch on the other hand said it was good and
recommended
b6 to follow. An objective expert like Paul Keres writes that Black will
have certain problems with his development in the Rubinstein variation
(Petrosjan
liked it), and Keres also says that 3.Nc3, 3.Nd2, and 3.e5 are on a level.
Nowadays we no longer discuss strategy in terms of hypermodern features.
Ideas from all periods are continuously being mixed with new ones. Despite
this
fact, the two key words in the philosophy of Nimzowitsch, prophylaxis and
mobility, are still important.
match.mieses-tarrasch
Siegbert Tarrasch (left) and Jacques Mieses at an exciting game surrounded
by spellbound onlookers, including a waiter, and what looks like a
high-ranking
officer.
(Courtesy Ludwig Karl, Ludwig Kamm)
This is the title photo of Dr. Tarrasch´s book Der Schachwettkampf
Tarrasch-Mieses im Herbst 1916
(Verlag von Veit & Comp., Leipzig, 1916)
Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
About the Center
The center of the board consist of squares, not pawns.
Having the command of the center is a question of restraint; the number of
pawns is not decisive.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Further Reading on Positional Play
Further Reading on Positional Play - Past and Present
Emanuel Lasker: Gesunder Menschenverstand im Schach. (1895) Düsseldorf 1961.
Siegbert Tarrasch: Die moderne Schachpartie. (1912) Zürich 1980.
José Capablanca: Chess Fundamentals. (1921) London 1994.
Savielly (Xavier) G. Tartakower: Das neuromantische Schach. (1927) Zürich
1983.
Richard Réti: Neue Idéen im Schachspiel (1921) Düsseldorf 1985.
Alexander Kotov: Play Like a Grandmaster (1978) London 1996.
David Bronstein: Bronsteins Schachlehre. Berlin 1988.
Tigran Petrosjan: Die Schachuniversität. Zürich 1988.
Anatoli Karpow - Anatoli Mazukewitsch: Stellungsbeurteilung und Plan. Berlin
1987.
Mihai Suba: Dynamic Chess Strategy. Oxford 1991.
IGM Suba's book is interesting in that it epitomizes historical developments
from Steinitz to our days. Suba also emphasizes the impact on dynamic
strategies
by such features as "elasticity" and "asymmetry", terms being used by
Nimzowitsch. T. Petrosjan tells us his first chess-book ever was Die Praxis
meines
Systems, and Karpow-Mazukewitsch suggest "prophylaxis" as the number one
rule in chess.
Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Semmering 1926 The last few instalments of My System appeared in 1926
Semmering 1926
In 1926, as Nimzowitsch was preparing the last few instalments of My System,
there was a great tournament at Semmering (Austria), which was won by
Spielmann,
before Aljechin, Vidmar and Nimzowitsch. Then followed Tartakower,
Rubinstein, Tarrasch, Réti, Grünfeld, Janowski, Treybal, Vajda, Yates, Gilg,
Kmoch,
Davidson, Michel, and Rosselli.
olle.ekengren@swipnet
semmer.jpg (34521 bytes)
We can recognize a few players, but who is who on the photo?
Our chess friend Phil Adams proposes the following identification:
"Back row: Spielmann, Kmoch, Treybal, Rosselli, Reti, Vajda, Yates, Gilg,
Tartakower, Davidson, ?
Front row: Nimzowitsch, Alekhine, Gruenfeld, Tarrasch, ?, Tietz, Vidmar,
Rubinstein.
I don't see Janowski. Victor Tietz was a well-known patron of the time."
This picture appears on a postcard dated March 21, 1926 that Dr. Tarrasch
sent home to his wife in Munich.
Courtesy Ludwig Karl and Schachklub Tarrasch 1945 München.
E-mail
Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Semmering 1926 The last few instalments of My System appeared in 1926
Semmering 1926
In 1926, as Nimzowitsch was preparing the last few instalments of My System,
there was a great tournament at Semmering (Austria), which was won by
Spielmann,
before Aljechin, Vidmar and Nimzowitsch. Then followed Tartakower,
Rubinstein, Tarrasch, Réti, Grünfeld, Janowski, Treybal, Vajda, Yates, Gilg,
Kmoch,
Davidson, Michel, and Rosselli.
olle.ekengren@swipnet
semmer.jpg (34521 bytes)
We can recognize a few players, but who is who on the photo?
Our chess friend Phil Adams proposes the following identification:
"Back row: Spielmann, Kmoch, Treybal, Rosselli, Reti, Vajda, Yates, Gilg,
Tartakower, Davidson, ?
Front row: Nimzowitsch, Alekhine, Gruenfeld, Tarrasch, ?, Tietz, Vidmar,
Rubinstein.
I don't see Janowski. Victor Tietz was a well-known patron of the time."
This picture appears on a postcard dated March 21, 1926 that Dr. Tarrasch
sent home to his wife in Munich.
Courtesy Ludwig Karl and Schachklub Tarrasch 1945 München.
E-mail
Contents
. . . . . . . . . . .
alternative spellings
About Alternative Spellings of Names
The Family Name
It is not known which language, or languages, the Nimzowitsch family used at
home, whether Russian, Latvian, Yiddish, or German. Around 1900 there lived
circa 100,000 Germans in Riga, but Latvia still was a part of Tsar Russia
(until 1917).
According to Dr. J. Hannak in Mein System (1965) there were originally
two ways of writing the family name, Nêmcovic and Niemzowitsch. Although
Latvian
is a Slavic language, its alphabet is based on the Latin one, but with a
number of diacritical marks. In the Latvian Slavic form Nêmcovic the first
syllable
was diphtongized, or rather palatalized since the vowel should be short, and
according to Hannak the stress was on the second syllable, thus possibly
pronounced
/niem'tso:vits/, or for the c in a final position, /niem'tso:vitch/, with a
"palato-alveolar fricative", as in "batch". This was written Niemzowitsch
in German, still pronounced with the stress on the penultimate syllable -zo,
according to Hannak. However, it is somewhat surprising that the stress
should
be on that syllable, since the name is of Russian origin, and the normal
place of the stress in Russian would be on the first syllable, /'niem/. And
as
if the confusion was not great enough, the meaning of the word in Russian
is "the son of a German", or "the son of a mute man".
After having left Latvia in 1920 under tumultuous circumstances A.N. had to
use the variation entered into his passport by Latvian authorities,
Nimzowitsch,
and from now on it was definitely pronounced with the stress on the first
syllable, and a short vowel sound instead of the "ie". However, you may find
several instances of the spelling "Niem-" in texts after 1920.
The First Name
There are two current spellings of the first name, Aron and Aaron. The
latter one was introduced by Hannak in the 1958 one-volume edition of Mein
System,
and the version with only one 'A' is widely used in English translations of
texts by A.N. and in English texts about him, with exceptions such as
Raymond
Keene in Aaron Nimzowitsch - A Reappraisal (1974), and Arpad E. Elo in
The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and Present (1978). Dr. Elo, who was a
Hungarian-American,
uses the version "Nimzovitch" for the family name, thus with a kind of
English phonetic spelling. On the other hand, we find the "Anglo-Saxon"
version
with just one "A" in Aron Nimcovic , by Dr. Slavko Petrovic (Zagreb 1973).
Chess friend Phil Hughes has found a document signed "Aron Niemzowitsch" in
handwriting. That was in 1907, when A.N., aged about 20, was admitted into
the
University of Zürich for studies in mathematics. AN's articles in Sydsvenska
Dagbladet 1913 are just signed with the initial, thus "A. Niemzowisch", and
this seems to be his usual way of representing his first name afterwards in
magazines etc., as in A. Nimzowitsch: Mein System,1. Lieferung, (Berlin
1925).
In contemporary texts he is mostly referred to as "Herr Nimzowitsch".
Index
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The conflict between Dr
The conflict between Dr. Tarrasch and Aaron Nimzowitsch
Both Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch built their positional views on the theories
of Wilhelm Steinitz, the founder (together with Zukertort and others in
London)
of "The Modern School", but they evidently disagreed on the
interpretation.The chemistry obviously did not work very well between the
two masters. For
one thing their personalities were different, but they had one feature in
common: both took very strong views on theoretical issues and they defended
their
opinions stubbornly. Dr. Tarrasch even started a magazine, Tarraschs
Schachzeitung , whose principal aim was to fight against the "hypermodern".
The main topic was the center, but another one, less well-known today, was
the so called tempo theory.
Dr. Tarrasch argued that in a given position only one move could be the
best, while Nimzowitsch was of opinion that such absoluteness does not
exist,
Whereas Tarrasch criticized "narrow positions" and questioned
"over-protection", Nimzowitsch argued for "elasticity" and pointed to the
emptiness of a term
like German "freies Spiel", literally " free play", roughly "a cushy
number".
Another system introduced by Tarrasch is 3.Nd2 in the French, nowadays a
very important variation. Strangely enough, although the inventor of the
system,
he eventually disapproved of it as giving too little influence in the
center.
The variation 3.e5 (The French Advance) was the object of bitter
discussions. Tarrasch put a ? after it, while Nimzowitsch asserted that the
pawn chain
granted White a clear advantage, because the "wedge pawn" e5 restrains
Black.
In the Rubinstein variation of the French Defense, Tarrasch considered
3. - dxe4 bad, Nimzowitsch on the other hand said it was good and
recommended
b6 to follow. An objective expert like Paul Keres writes that Black will
have certain problems with his development in the Rubinstein variation
(Petrosjan
liked it), and Keres also says that 3.Nc3, 3.Nd2, and 3.e5 are on a level.
Nowadays we no longer discuss strategy in terms of hypermodern features.
Ideas from all periods are continuously being mixed with new ones. Despite
this
fact, the two key words in the philosophy of Nimzowitsch, prophylaxis and
mobility, are still important.
match.mieses-tarrasch
Siegbert Tarrasch (left) and Jacques Mieses at an exciting game surrounded
by spellbound onlookers, including a waiter, and what looks like a
high-ranking
officer.
(Courtesy Ludwig Karl, Ludwig Kamm)
This is the title photo of Dr. Tarrasch´s book Der Schachwettkampf
Tarrasch-Mieses im Herbst 1916
(Verlag von Veit & Comp., Leipzig, 1916)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
|
|
 |
|
