Well the evaluation tool offered on the chess.com analysis board is certainly not 3800, but yes you are right. This is why I think Nimzowitsch's ideas are still relevant even if some argue "My System" has been debunked.
"My System" Modern day analysis
Sort:
In order to boost your play you need to know those kinds of concepts, I believe it is necessary in beginners and or intermediate players (like me) to study the classics.
Thanks for your post it was very entertained.
Thanks for your post it was very entertained.
#1
"Nimzowitsch's work presents excellent strategic concepts" ++ True
"his ideas are quite valuable" ++ Former World Champion Petrosian acknowledged Nimzovich as his main source of inspiration
"there are many discrepencies compared to modern day analysis"
++ All books contain errors. It is not because the analysis of an illustrative game contains an error that the concept is erronerous.
Hello chess.com! Today I will be going over some of Aron Nimzowitsch's ideas in "My System" and comparing them with modern day computer analysis.
I have always been a defender of "My System" and the ideas presented by Nimzowitsch throughout the book. However, I am aware that it has received a lot of negative feedback in more recent years. For example players such as Nigel Short went as far as to say the book should be banned.
My doubts started to become more prevalent when one day I was teaching using an example from the Positional Play section, and my student declared that the computer was evaluating the position as equal when Nimzowitsch writes white has a significant advantage. Below is the first example.
From a human's perspective, I agree that this position is easier and more natural to play for white. White has slightly more active pieces, greater control over the center, and more space/flexibilty. It is hard to determine how black will develop the queen since Qe7 will be met by Rhe1 and any kind of maneuver to the queenside seems dubious. If this did go into an endgame, black will have weaknesses such as the backwards c7 pawn and the holes on c6 and a5 for example. Although the computer evaluates this as equal, I think Nimzowitsch has a worthy point here, and for a human this will be better for white.
The next two positions feature the "freeing pawn move" and touch upon the concept of restraint. In the following position, e5 can be considered a freeing pawn move for black, since it opens the somewhat cramped position and prepares to develop the light squared bishop. White can play Re1 here to prevent this. However, Nimzowitsch recommends b4!
In this next opening example, Nimzowitsch and the computer are generally in agreement. I am noticing though that the master really uses his positional concepts as building blocks for his analysis and sometimes is not willing to go outside of this. Here is an example from the Hungarian opening where white is playing to discourage black's f5 pawn break or freeing move.
The more I looked into the possibilities, I realized that Nimzowitsch's work presents excellent strategic concepts which can be applied in many different situations. However, there is likely a higher level of chess knowledge and understanding lurking in these positions. I can see why top players have negatively criticized his work, but I think for the player below master level, his ideas are quite valuable. I believe it would be a mistake though to consider his work as the absolute truth since as we can see there are many discrepencies compared to modern day analysis.
Let me know if you enjoyed this topic on positional ideas vs. computer analysis. Hope you learned something or at least opened your mind to new possibilities!