I just don't think he was right about its importance as a strategic concept. As I recall, he seemed to think that it was the key to chess, independently of any tactical problems that might arise if a point isn't protected enough.
After reading about overprotection I tried it out. On my level of chess it works. But not alone. You have to couple it with patience and the idea of 2 weaknesses and dis-co-ordination of enemy pieces. All 3 of them together make quite a formidable weapon. And then its endgame. But with a decisive advantage. In my experience overprotection has lead to winning endgames. Good luck hunting
"... Nimzowitsch's lengthy essay entitled "On the History of the Chess Revolution 1911-1914". This consists of a brief introduction and then a reproduction of his famous article entitled: "Is Dr. Tarrasch's Modern Chess Really a Modern Conception of the Game?", previously published in the Austrian periodical Wiener Schachzeitung. Following that, Nimzowitsch expands upon that with what he calls "the revolutionary practice" of his "revolutionary theory", treating us in two sections to a broad selection of his games ending in a discussion of the "post-revolutionary" years 1914-1926. ... I think that this article is a good example of how Nimzowitsch was often overenthusiastic or simply wrong about particular claims, specifically, about particular positions in the opening, even though he was right about the overall direction that chess theory would take. Here are a few examples from this essay, and there are numerous others in My System and The Blockade. ..." - IM John Watson (2013)
http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/john-watson-book-review-108-of-eplus-books-part-2-nimzowitsch-classics
no its not obsolete. Can I ask anyone over the strength of 2900 bullet(other time controls welcome also) what restriction is based on the diagonal is? and please help me understand it? because i canot still get what situations the method is needed or exactly wich types of placements are a model of the strategy/ thank you
why was there no funding for a match between invincible Capablanca(that's not a bad thing)my guess the war discouraged anyone that cared. this match negotiation is not exactly common knowledge. is it because of the war? "or was Capa afraid of him? I don't think it matters. capa was so good only something shiny would cause one of Nimzo's many traps to go unnoticed.
Alekhine even admitted he was better after winning the world championship. i ask anyone who is interested who followed the thread this far. what did Capablacna say about the "new" school of chess? no answer is needed or expected.
For example, 1. e4 e5, 2. d4 ed4, 3. c3 Bc5?, 4. cd4 Bb4+, 5.Bd2! (Chapter 1, section 5)
The author's point, I believe, is that Bd2 forces black to exchange and loss a tempo. But the computer engine is suggesting Nc3 to be better though it does not achieve the gain of a tempo.
This is not the only example where I found such contradiction and hence my question, How contemporary is the book?
The first chapter about development is somewhat outdated, but the rest of the book is mostly valid (maybe overprotection is outdated too).
The number of relevant and deep ideas/concepts Nimzovich gathered in that book is absolutely incredible. This is a brilliant work, and so many other books were built from this pioneering opus.