Nimzowitsch's Revenge and Some More Breyer Profundity.
Good afternoon everyone. LOTS of reading here today ( lots of my one finger typing as well, so advance apologies for the inevitable typos!) but it is time I posted some material that I have meant to present for a while.
Recently a blog by @Kahns on Breyer reminded me of the material, so, as they used to say on 'Listen with Mother' ''Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin!!''
There is a line attributed to Teichmann which I have never seen an original source for - 'There is no Hyper - modern school, and Nimzowitsch is it's founder'. Well, that is a cynicism, but there is an element of truth about it. As I always say 'if you want to know the truth, ask a cynic!!
As a chess evolutionist this whole thing is one of my special interests - I could write a a long book on how 'hypermodern chess' was gradually integrated into the general chess thinking over a period of time, straight out of my head. It's a fascinating subject if you are as dull as me!!
The romantic notion of the brave young heroes sweeping away the older generation and their outdated views is just that - a romantic notion. A bit like a teenage girl in her bedroom playing the same song over and over again, believing that her favourite boy band singer really, really loves her.
However, Breyer and Nimzowitsch really believed that was exactly what they were doing, but their motivations for trying to achieve that aim were very, very different!
Breyer had an utterly incredible mind imho - and he desired to think differently and to justify that. I will refer you to one of my own articles. https://www.chess.com/blog/simaginfan/gyula-breyer-a-glimpse-into-the-mind-of-one-of-the-great-chess-thinkers
Nimzowitsch was quite different. The discovery of 'new' concepts and putting them to practical tests was, for him, not an end in itself. He was engaged in a personal 'fight to the death', so to speak. And he was determined to win. A quote from an article he wrote 'The New System' in Wiener Schachzeitung Oct. 1913.
So, let's give the story.
There is a small book published in Russia in 1929 by Nimzowitsch. 'How I Became A Grandmaster'. I have a couple of different translations of it. For ease of getting the material on the page i have used my friends version which you can find in full here :- https://www.chess.com/blog/Spektrowski/aron-nimzowitsch-quothow-i-became-a-grandmasterquot-part-1
The relevant - to this blog - extracts, with thanks.
Which point of view is this book written from?
''Any chess writer taking his work seriously should each time he starts a new book (or rather when he devises a plan for one) ask himself one question: "Can the book I'm going to write be of value to anyone studying it, and if it can, how exactly will it be valuable?" If the answer is negative or "almost negative", then the writer must either abandon the topic altogether or at least change his plan radically.
Something similar happened to me. My initial plan was to tell a story of evolution of a certain chess master (in this case - of myself). And I thought that it was important to observe this evolution from a "psychological" point of view, because psychological factors play a major role in any personal development, and if you deliberately ignore them, it inevitably leads to bland, artificial narration. I also thought that the thorough analysis of question such as "What subjective experience made me disillusioned with magical powers of powerful attacks?" or "Which psychological moment gave the first impetus to my thoughts about the possibility of a system?", can be of some didactic value too.
However, I had my doubts and hesitations, and they ultimately led me to scepticism. You can't wear someone else's clothes without fitting and some reshaping; the same thing can be said of someone else's experience. The process of fascination and disillusionment is also individual and depends on one's personality.
Considering all this, I've decided to use the biographical data of "our" hero for utilitarian reasons, as an outside source of practical advice. Thus, the only goal of this book is to search for objectively useful conclusions.
….......................................................
A curious detail: the master who unknowingly gave me the needed impetus towards my chess strategy revolution that dethroned the pseudoclassical style, was Tarrasch himself - the leader of the very movement that was antiquated by my research; in other words, Tarrasch, with his weighty assertion, dug a hole for himself!
While I did sense at the time that Tarrasch was my opponent, I haven't seen my "mortal enemy" in him. But our relationship soured shortly afterwards. A couple of months after the Rh6 episode, Tarrasch honoured me with a serious game (see Game 3 in the appendix). I've played the opening quite strangely, as usual, both because I, as mentioned before, was a very weak positional player then, and because I was consciously avoiding well-known variants and took the dominating chess doctrine with a pinch of salt. There was a lot of spectators (even though our game was casual), because, knowing of my rich combinational fantasy and ignorantly identifying it with real playing strength, the public expected, if not an even struggle (Tarrasch was at his peak then), but at least an interesting game.
After move 10, Tarrasch, his arms folded, suddenly uttered the phrase, "Never before in my life did I have such a won position at move 10 as in this game!" I, nevertheless, managed to draw the game. But I couldn't forgive Tarrasch for this public "humiliation" for a long time.
Soon this game was published, to Tarrasch's obvious displeasure; he thought that I have almost committed a crime by publishing it. However, the game wasn't published by me, but rather by one von Parisch, against my will. But the fact was that we have become enemies until 1907. I'll tell of a curious (and very characteristic for Tarrasch) episode of our reconciliation later. Right now I'd like to say that if I didn't feel that enmity against Tarrasch, I wouldn't have really learned to play chess. To play stronger than Tarrasch - that was my desire during 1904-1906. And here's an advice for my readers: "If you wish to achieve results, choose a mortal enemy for yourself and try to dethrone him".
Though I think it's necessary to add: while my hostility towards Tarrasch was caused by personal motives, it wasn't fuelled by them (we have never quarrelled again since 1904), but rather by a deep ideological antagonism that I felt ever since we first met. I've always considered Tarrasch mediocre; yes, he was a very strong player, but all his views, sympathies and antipathies, and inability to create new thoughts - all that obviously proved the mediocrity of his personality. I've always loved genius, and I couldn't put up with the fact that the leader of a dominating school was a mediocre man! That fact exasperated me!
…...........................................................................
In the beginning of 1907, I took part in the masters' tournament in Ostend. Tarrasch played in the main tournament. We met frequently in the cafe, but despite all my efforts, he refused to notice me, just ignoring my existence. And I continued my victorious streak: in the first two weeks, I scored 7.5/9. And suddenly, a miracle happened: Tarrasch saw the light! I beat W. Cohn that day; then I came to the cafe, and Tarrasch was already there. As soon as I came in, Tarrasch quickly ran up to me, smiling joyously and extending his hand: "At last, I met you! I'm so glad to see your success! Can you show me some of your games? Ah, I'm so glad to see your success!!" So opportunistic: he would fling mud onto the weak and act all complaisant before the strong! In this minute, I very clearly saw the mediocrity of Tarrasch's nature.
The search for new ways that already began in Barmen and Coburg has found a more solid base after I improved my playing technique. While the opening experiments I've tried in Barmen (like in the game Caro-Nimzowitsch below) ended with failures because of my lack of technique, in the subsequent years there were no such failures.
In 1907, I've started to play 1. Nf3 d5 2. d3 as White, and if 2... Nc6, then 3. d4, with a stupid position of the Black Knight that hinders c7-c5. In 1910, boldly challenging Tarrasch, I've started to favour closed systems, like Hanham variation etc.
The challenge was accepted, and since that time, Tarrasch started to mercilessly persecute me in the press. His favourite epithets towards me were "h舖slich", "bizarr" (ugly, strange, bizarre playing methods!) etc. Now I just laugh at that, but back then, it annoyed me greatly!
In 1912, I've almost won the San Sebastian Grandmaster tournament (due to my nervousness, I've lost a decisive game to Rubinstein and had to share 2nd/3rd places with Spielmann). Tarrasch didn't miss a chance to gloat: "That would be scandalous if such an unaesthetic playing would win him the 1st prize!"
I've continued to dig under Tarrasch's "solid" (?) position: the variant 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6!, the effort to rejuvenate an old variant 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 - this slowly, but surely weakened the position of the Nuremberg champion. By returning the 3. e5 variant into practice, I wanted to carry the old concept of the center to the point of absurdity. In 1912, I've published my games against Salwe (1911) and Tarrasch (San Sebastian 1912), trying to prove that the old Tarrasch's understanding of the center was outdated.
Fighting alone against the whole chess world, I've created a new understanding of the game, a new school, a new game.
In 1913, I've discovered a game plan that since became popular: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 - without d7-d5; or 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 - also without d7-d5, and this completely destroyed Tarrasch's position as a universally recognized chess wisdom teacher.
…..................................................................
After the war, the correctness of my revolutionary chess views was recognized universally. The seemingly strange and bizarre variants have gradually earned their rightful place.
On the other hand, Tarrasch's theory (about arithmetic center, quick development etc.) now only brings smiles on people's faces.''
So there you have it! As a side note, see Breyer's note along the lines of that last sentence in the game notes which follow.
O.K. Part 2 of this epic blog is more what my regular readers would expect of me - some games and pictures. Most reading this will have read 'My System'. Many will also have 'My System In Practice' aka 'Chess Praxis' whilst a few might have Nimzowitsh's first work 'Blockade'
His opponent was this, slightly obscure, chess figure, Jacob Bernstein.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6611968
The notes are pure Nimzowitsch!! All the heroes and villains soap opera stuff which he was so well aware of, and which make his writings so popular - he even uses that direct analogy himself in them.
Another picture of Jacob Bernstein - sourced via Winter's chessnotes site.
And some Breyer
The picture from @Kahns blog can be found in various sources - he doesn't say which one he has used - I guess Winter's site. Breyer's opponent is Istvan Abonyi. Apart from it's intrinsic value as a picture of those two players, there is also an historical chess point of interest! The two have the start position of the Budapest Gambit on the board. Breyer may well be the first to have used that defence in a significant tournament game, whilst in one of my blogs I give Vidmar's account of how he introduced it at the highest lever, in a game against rubinstein, having been shown the idea minutes before by Abonyi.
- always a joy for me, even if the typing is a bit laborious!! This is one that I have had on the back burner for quite while. Lots of reasons for posting it.
It's a game against the great Carl Schlechter - my long time readers will know of my love for him and his chess -in his last tournament as I understand it. Contrary to what you may read, malnutrition was not the primary cause of his death - although it was quite probably a contributory factor - Goldman's book on him has the details.
I first studied the game with Breyer's notes in Hungarian - fortunately Jimmy Adams in his wonderful book on Breyer has the translation, which I use here - from Magyar Sakkvilag. Such a fascinating game! It shows Breyer ahead of his time in the opening - he goes into a 'Hanham Formation' - also used - if you have read the above - by Nimzowitsch, and then we get a King's Indian position much explored 3 decades later by Bronstein and Boleslavsky. The chain of chess thinking!! Hanham - Breyer - the post war Soviet - in particular Ukrainian school who explored the KID. And you get Breyer as the true hyper-modern. No agenda, just thinking differently and explaining his ideas. There is also another reason for including it that I will come to.
Enjoy the game!
And to explain the last reason for posting that game. a quite extraordinary find by Olimpiu G Urcan, which he posted on winter's site. https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/breyer.html
Unlike the pathetic charlatons who post whatever they find on the internet with a quick cut and paste and no credit to the original sources who try to take credit for material without doing the slightest proper, primary source, research, Urcan puts his primary sources online and credits them. No kidding. It's called integrity!! Using his reference I managed to find the original online and downloaded it at the cost of 8 Euros.
Breyer and Schlechter, plus Abonyi, Havasi and the tournament director, I think, one 'Paul' - I don't speak Hungarian, as said, so hopefully someone will enlighten me.
It seems to have been taken the day before Schlechter's death - I can not verify that. A really magnificent, and historically important discovery. My respects and gratitude to Mr. Urcan.
i have cleaned up the original a little - all the images on the relevant site have the iodine brown appearance - to try to make it resemble the monochrome original. what a wonderful piece of history.
If you stayed the whole journey on this ride, well done!!! Perhaps next time I will do something shorter and easier to fight your way through! Take care guys.
