Was Tarrasch dogmatic?

Justs99171
mickynj wrote:

Modern players hold opinions about the value of space and piece mobility that are much closer to Tarrasch's.  "I must also point out that on every single point of contention, Nimzo was correct and Tarrasch was wrong." is simply quite wrong

 

Space and mobility were not points of contention.

One clear example: Tarrasch claimed the center should be occupied by pawns. Nimzo said it was better to occupy the center with pieces.

Tarrasch was wrong. Nimzo was right.

It's very clear to me that no body here has read the entire body of work by both authors. It seems like no body here has even read 1 book by each, so I'm done with this.

One more point: The Nimzo-Indian is a better opening than the Tarrasch variation of QGD.

However, isolated queen pawn structures were certainly NOT A POINT OF CONTENTION between the two; as they were in near complete agreement.

In fact, in one head to head contest, Nimzo played Tarrasch's defense against Tarrasch and saddled him with hanging pawns instead of an isolated queen pawn, then restrained this pawn center; winning the game.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1272089

I'm not going to follow this anymore. Too many people that don't now what they are talking about have too much to say.

O-Ren-Ishii-Gambit

One clear example: Tarrasch claimed the center should be occupied by pawns. Nimzo said it was better to occupy the center with pieces.

Tarrasch was wrong. Nimzo was right.

 

Actually... Tarrasch stated that it was preferable to control the center by occupying the center with pawns OR pieces. The keywords are "control " and "occupy". To the best of my knowledge, Nimzowitsch never said it was "better to occupy the center with pieces". His argument was that it was "control of the center" that actually mattered and not necessarily "occupying it with pawns", and that this could be accomplished by using pieces. Anyone who has read "My System", will know that Nimzowitsch did concede that a strong pawn center can be dangerous if it becomes mobile, so it was important that it be "restrained". He didn't say a pawn center was weak.  

 

"It is permissible to relinquish a pawn's command of the center in order to occupy it with a piece" - Dr. Tarrasch, Game of Chess.

 

"These are, in essentials, the main principles of a straightforward strategy, based on my own experience. EXCEPTIONS to these rules are FREQUENT, and often one rule will conflict with another" - Dr. Tarrasch, Game of Chess.

 

That last quote from Dr. Tarrasch doesn't seem to make him very "dogmatic"...

 

"It's very clear to me that no body here has read the entire body of work by both authors. It seems like no body here has even read 1 book by each, so I'm done with this."

 

I just want to let everyone know that is interested in this thread, that I for one, have read the entire body of works from Tarrasch, "Game of Chess" and "300 Games of Chess". Game of Chess I've studied twice, 300 games I've been thru 3 times. I have also read "My System" and "Chess Praxis" twice, and read "Blockade" several times because it's so short and easy to study.  

 

In my opinion, I don't believe in drawing a division of chess ideas with "schools of thought" in our modern day of chess. Saying you belong to a particular school of thought, or have a certain style, is saying you have limitations and weaknesses.

 

With that being said...I'd like to point out that it is very significant that the strongest players of the time when Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch were actively playing chess, namely: Dr. Alekhine, Capablanca, Dr. Lasker (all former world champions) and Bogoljubow - did not belong to the so-called "hyper modern school". Yes, the hyper modern school did have strong players also. I'll also point out that Capablanca is arguably the greatest player of the game, and regarded by some as the strongest constituent of the so-called "classical school"...and Nimzowitsch was never able to beat him in a game. 

 

"In fact, in one head to head contest, Nimzo played Tarrasch's defense against Tarrasch and saddled him with hanging pawns instead of an isolated queen pawn, then restrained this pawn center; winning the game."

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1272089

 

I'm actually familiar with this game. It's a good one, and instructive. However, I would like to point out that it wasn't a serious tournament game. It was an informal skittles game they played. 

 

 

 

SeniorPatzer
mickynj wrote:

Take that! You annoying young whippersnapper

 

 

Oh my gosh!!  That was a kick-arse game!  I really liked Nimzo's bishop on b2 slicing through Tarrasch's king side, but then the double bishop sacrifice by Tarrasch was simply incredible!!

 

What must that have been like to actually play those moves over the board in tournament play?  Good Lord, Nimzo had to frog march his king in shame and embarrassment across the board to face his ignominious fate.  What a game!

Ziggy_Zugzwang

I think it's impossible to be a good teacher or parent without being seen as dogmatic at times. We use language to communicate things as best as we can, including chess. Language often falls short of reality, but that doesn't mean we should avoid it.

I think Tarrasch once said that a rook belongs behind both his own pawns and also those of the opponent. A 'non-dogmatic' teacher might just say something like : Grasshopper. All you need do is analyse the position. Then collect his teaching fee and never be seen again...

Rules and maxims equip an individual in life. It is for the individual to appreciate exceptions, just as its beyond any teacher to qualify ad nauseam everything he or she says.