Nimzo-Larsen attack during 19th century. General trends.

Yigor

I've found 16 games: NLA during 19th century. I indicate main lines and deviations. Engine evaluations are taken from the ChessOK database.

 

Modern Variation:

  • van't Kruijs - de Heer (1851, 1-0): 1. b3 (-0.07) e5 2. Bb2 Nc6 3. g3 double fianchetto (-0.26)
  • Suhle - Anderssen (1859, 0-1): 1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 Nc6 3. e3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bd6 5. d3 Suhle variation (-0.44)
  • Czarnowski - d'André (1867, 0-1): 1. b3 e5 2. Ba3 Barium attack (-0.56)
  • Magnus - Schalopp (1868, 0-1): 1. b3 e5 2. g3 double fianchetto (-0.26)
  • Owen - Blackburne (1870, 1-0): 1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 f6 Blackburne defense (+0.37)
  • Owen - Green (1870, 1-0): 1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 Nc6 3. e3 Nf6 4. Bb5 d6 5. Bxc6 white LSB exchange (-0.15)
  • Owen - de Vere (1872, 0-1): 1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 Nc6 3. e3 f5 de Vere counterattack (+0.26)
  • Skipworth - Burn (1875, 0-1): 1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 f6 Blackburne defense
  • Paulsen - von Bardeleben (1892, 1/2-1/2): 1. b3 e5 2. c4 King's English (-0.11)
  • Delmar - Helms (1894, 0-1): 1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 d5 Helms gambit (+0.15)

Classical Variation:

  • Smith - Fischer (1873, 0-1): 1. b3 d5 (+0.00) 2. Bb2 (-0.04) c5 (+0.04) 3. d4 QPG (-0.15)
  • Paulsen -Tarrasch (1892, 0-1): 1. b3 d5 2. d4 QPG (-0.15)
  • Olly - Delmar (1893, 0-1): 1. b3 d5 2. Bb2 d4 Delmar counterattack (+0.37)
  • Olly - Lee (1893, 0-1): 1. b3 d5 2. Bb2 Nf6 3. e3 e6 (+0.04) 4. Nf3 Be7 (+0.07) 5. c4 O-O 6. Nc3 Olly-Lee main line (+0.07)
  • Olly - Pillsburry (1893, 0-1): 1. b3 d5 2. Bb2 e6 Pillsburry defense (+0.04)
  • Maroszy - Charousek (1896, 0-1): 1. b3 d5 2. f4 Dutch variation (-0.11)
Yigor

 I'll post statistical evaluations here.

Yigor

It's surprising that nobody thought to play the Réti variation 1. b3 d5 2. Nf3. tongue.png

 

P.S. Actually, I have found 2 Albin's games arising as transpositions from the Réti opening. I'll add them to the first post.

Yigor

Oh, I've discovered my own thread LoL (I create so many topics blitz.pnggrin.png) that seems a bit useful for those who like NLApeshka.png

Yigor

Bump, I'll continue to extend this little historical analysis to the beginning of 20th century. peshka.png

DeirdreSkye

    1.b3 d5 2.d4 is not Nimzowitch Larsen , it's actually a no name opening(you can call it irregular queen's pawn opening). 

    Also 1.b3 d5 2.f4 is Bird and the double fianchetto is Benko(1.g3). In Nimzo Larsen White doesn't want to do a double fianchetto while in Benko the early double fianchetto is one of the ways to avoid transposition to Reti and often leads to hippo. 

 

Yigor
DeirdreSkye wrote:

    1.b3 d5 2.d4 is not Nimzowitch Larsen , it's actually a no name opening(you can call it irregular queen's pawn opening). 

    Also 1.b3 d5 2.f4 is Bird and the double fianchetto is Benko(1.g3). In Nimzo Larsen White doesn't want to do a double fianchetto while in Benko the early double fianchetto is one of the ways to avoid transposition to Reti and often leads to hippo.

 

All right, I can agree with your remarks. happy.png

DeirdreSkye
Yigor wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:

    1.b3 d5 2.d4 is not Nimzowitch Larsen , it's actually a no name opening(you can call it irregular queen's pawn opening). 

    Also 1.b3 d5 2.f4 is Bird and the double fianchetto is Benko(1.g3). In Nimzo Larsen White doesn't want to do a double fianchetto while in Benko the early double fianchetto is one of the ways to avoid transposition to Reti and often leads to hippo.

 

All right, I can agree with your remarks. 

Are you trying to make me feel bad?

Yigor
DeirdreSkye wrote:

Are you trying to make me feel bad?

 

LoL Why ?!? tongue.png U made reasonable remarks. I also put the name QPG = Queen's Pawn Game for 2. d4 games as U can see in the first post. peshka.png

DeirdreSkye
Yigor wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:

Are you trying to make me feel bad?

 

LoL Why ?!?  U made reasonable remarks. I also put the name QPG = Queen's Pawn Game for 2. d4 games as U can see in the first post. 

Please don't agree with me. Even when you do , don't say it!

yureesystem

Love it, they were first hyper-modern masters not Reti, Nimzovitch and the rest; 19th century masters are the best and creative and greatest innovators, and the rest are copy-cat "meow".

Yigor
yureesystem wrote:

Love it, they were first hyper-modern masters not Reti, Nimzovitch and the rest; 19th century masters are the best and creative and greatest innovators, and the rest are copy-cat "meow".

 

And, as I tried to show in colors, they played something close to the modern main lines. wink.png

DeirdreSkye

These masters certainly understood chess a lot. I found a game of a guy I never heard before(Max Judd) who played Cozio defense with a hypermodern way that became popular more than 100 years later(about 2 decades ago) and revived Cozio. Quite amazing for an era with no databases and almost no books.