Illustrative Games from My System

In the same spirit as the Logical Chess games, I will be going through the illustrative games in Nimzowitsch, and seeing how well the games stand up to the modern day theory and modern engines.

Before we start, here are a few useful resources relating to this book:

Games annotated by Nimzowitsch: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?annotatedby=10249

My System video series by Gambit Bandit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLrNC9Rskww&list=PLW-ubDuosu7UKDXI6KF7XIMdzaStaVEIL

Opinions of GM Jesse Kraai, IM Kostya Kavutskiy and IM David Pruess on My System and Chess Praxis (1 hour in) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRETstfHyDE

Kostya rates it as his 14th best classic book, but also calls it one of the most overrated books and says if your main goal is to get good at chess to read John Watson's Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy instead. That is a book that I don't have, but I have read at least the first chapter of the book online, in which Watson writes: 

"How many of us learned our general middlegame principles from, say, Lasker or Nimzowitsch, or from the newer, but hardly contemporary, works of Euwe and Kramer, Romanovsky, or Pachman? In the United States, to this day, the most popular of these traditional sources is Nimzowitsch's My System, a book written in 1925! However brilliant, readable, and ahead-of-its-time that book is (and it is all those things), one has to wonder that we don't have any number of more advanced and updated works of its kind. Has the theory of the middlegame gone nowhere in the last 68 years?"

Watson goes on to praise Dvoretsky's 'analytical approach' and answers the question of whether modern chess is less principled by arguing that there are new principles in modern play but they are rarely explicitly stated like the traditional chess principles. Watson asserts that "the modern player derives his perspective and intuition from the detailed analysis of great numbers of positions."

(These arguments remind me of some of the dilemmas that I had while reading Chernev's explicit principles in his Logical Chess book.)

Watson also writes "one could argue (and it has been said) that Nimzowitsch more often won his games by superior calculation and even trickery than by application of his principles. But the enormity of his achievement resides in something else entirely; it is in transforming the underlying, implicit principles of the chess played up to his time into an explicit, conscious part of modern chess-players thought."

Quite a lot of Watson's book focuses on Nimzowitsch, how he affected thinking at the time, and how chess theory has moved on after his death. So it might be a good book to read after My System and I will probably pick it up sometime in the not too distant future. I would not recommend Watson's book to beginners, or to players who have not yet read My System.

All of the following games feature at the end of chapter 3 in the book. The main points made in the book up to this point are (paraphrased in simple language):

• The Center and Development
• A pawns move must be regarded as a developing move, merely as an aid to development
• In the open game, rapidity of development is the supreme principle
• Aim to exchange with a gain of tempo
• Liquidating the board (by exchanges) is often the best idea when behind in development
• Don't waste tempo grabbing pawns in the opening
• Games/examples from chapter 1: https://www.chess.com/library/collections/aron-nimzowitsch-my-system-2hG1bMYLn
  
• Open Files
• Play raiding moves and enveloping maneuvers, especially on the 7th and 8th ranks
  
• Outposts have a lot of value, forming the basis for attacks
• Games/Examples from Chapter 2: https://www.chess.com/library/collections/aron-nimzowitsch-my-system-chapter-2-2mKD4U2wG
• Seventh and Eight Ranks
• Attack with the rook from the rear
  
• There are 5 special cases:
• 1. The absolute 7th rank, with passed pawns
• 2. Doubled rooks giving perpetual check
• 3. The drawing mechanism with rook + knight
• 4. The marauding raid on the 7th rank
• 5. Combined play on the 7th and 8th ranks (enveloping maneuver in the corner)
• Games/Examples from Chapter 3: https://www.chess.com/library/collections/nimzowitsch-my-system-the-elements-chapter-3-2WPupEMRY

Inevitably some context is lost from the above simplified points, so watch the Gambit Bandit videos or read the book, and take a look at the examples if the above doesn't make sense

Game 1
Nimzowitsch - Alapin
Vilnius 1912
French Defense

https://www.chess.com/openings/French-Defense-Classical-Delayed-Exchange-Variation

The analysis engine is not kind on Alapin's play in this game, giving him a CAPS score of 10% to Nimzowitsch's 97%.

However different moves are highlighted as mistakes. Whereas Nimzowitsch criticizes the pawn grab on move 9, the computer rates this as an excellent move, an it is move 10 that the computer says is a mistake. 10...Qh3 is calculated to be more than a pawn's worth better, and nearly equalizes (+0.55) whereas 10...Qg6 gives White a +2.31 advantage.

The engine also highlights Black's moves 12 and 13 as mistakes, with the best alternatives 12...Nd7 and 13...Be7

14...Qxf6 is a blunder and Nimzowitsch missed an even faster checkmate 15...bxc616.Rhe1+Be617.Qd7#

Game 2
Teichmann - Nimzowitsch
Kalabad 1911
Philidor Defense

https://www.chess.com/openings/Philidor-Defense-Hanham-Lion-Variation...6.O-O-O-O-7.Qe2-c6-8.a4

Nimzowitsch made a mistake followed by blunder which turned an even game into a losing one for him.

55...Ke7 is a mistake and 5...Kg8 should have been played instead.

Then 57...c5 is a blunder, with 57...Be2 the best alternative. However, the White pawn is almost certainly going to promote anyway so the evaluations scores here are not so relevant.

Teichmann played an excellent game here, making no mistakes or inaccuracies.

Gonna pay attention to this thread

This same game is covered in Logical Chess. It is Game 23 in that book.

Game analysis:

White Black

CAPS 86.5% 98.5%
Best 18 25
Mistakes 2 1

See this video by Pallabi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkaTxK9gcHU

Game analysis:

White Black

CAPS 86.4% 96.0%
Best 27 32
Inaccuracies 5 4
Mistakes 1 0

A high quality game, with only a single mistake made by the losing side.

42.Bb6 is a mistake. The best move is 42.h4
43.Bd4 is an inaccuracy. The best move is 43.Kg1

There was probably no hope for White after move 43.

Nimzowitsch played a great game, but instead of trading rooks with 26...Rd1+ it would have been more precise to play 26...Nd5. 40...Kg6 is also inferior to 40...f4.

Game analysis:

White Black

CAPS 86.7% 94.5%
Best 16 18
Inaccuracies 1 2
Mistakes 3 1

The mistakes made in this game were:

21.Nd2 (-2.28, best is c4 -0.36)

23...Rae8 (-0.62, best is Rf8 -2.54)

31.Bxe4 (-0.491, best is Rd1 -1.93)

33.Qc1 (-8.64, best is Rxe5 -3.67)

White Black

CAPS 97.2% 98.2%
Best 46 48
Inaccuracies 0 1
Mistakes 3 3

In the book Nimzowitsch ends the analysis at move 36 concluding "And White won the pawn ending with his 'distant' passed pawn."

After the forced move 36...Kxf8 the evaluation engine reads +1.2 so White is winning but Black still has some chance. By the end of move 46 the advantage is down to +0.36 but Black makes three endgame mistakes 50...Ke5, 58...Kc6, and 70...Kd8

Nimzovich vs Hakonsson (from the book My System) is one of the best... and best known... of Nimzovich's illustrative games.

Aron Nimzowitsch vs Arthur Hakansson (1922) Women's Prison (chessgames.com)

White Black

CAPS 88.6% 95.8%
Best 21 26
Inaccuracies 4 3
Mistakes 2 1

I'm not familiar with this opening so looked it up on Hanging Pawn's which says "The Kasparov variation can easily transpose to many different variations or even into a Nimzo, if black wishes to do so, or if white decides to transpose to the Spassky system, the Petrosian, or the main lines of the QID. That makes this variation a great nerve strengthening battleground in which both sides have to know and understand a lot. Not only about the Queen’s Indian, but about the Nimzo too."

Stjepan discusses Kasparov Variation with 5.Bg5 starting 9 minutes 40 seconds in, and he says always play 5...h6 6.Bh4 (as Nimzo and Rabinovich did) then there are two playable moves 6...g5 or 6...Be7 (Nimzo played the latter, which is now known as the Botvinnik attack).

Stjepan says 6...Be7 is sounder and more positional than 6...g5

7.e3 is discussed 16 minutes 20 seconds into the video. Stjepan recommends 7...Nd4 instead of the 7...d6 that was played here.

Nimzowitsch's move 7...d6 is rated as excellent by the engine but Nd4 is calculated about one fifth of a pawn better than d6 (+0.18 vs +0.43), and the engine says O-O is the best (-0.01)

10...e5 is significantly worse than 10...d5 and 11...Bxf3 is worse than 11...Nxe5.

This partly explains why Rabinovich is ahead in this game up until his inaccuracy on move 24.Ne2 (0.00, best is Rdg1 +1.46)

This is compounded by Rabinovich making the same mistake again just five moves later 29.Ne2 (-2.39, best is Rd4)

A further mistake is made four moves later 33.Qc1 (-4.46, best is Qf1 -2.47)

Here is the game reviewed by Agadmator:

This is Game 19 in the book The World's Greatest Chess Games. Authors Burgess, Nunn and Emms summarise "Nimzowitsch had a slight disadvantage from the opening, but Semisch releases the tension too early, allowing his opponent to equalize. Then, as Saemisch's play becomes planless, Nimzowitsch embarks on a space-gaining operation on the kingside. At the critical moment, he offers a very deep piece sacrifice. His return is not immediately obvious, but slowly Saemisch realizes that despite having more pieces, he is fast running out of moves...

Emmanuel Lasker hailed this as the 'Immortal Zugzwang game' "

The move 3.Nf3 was apparently played to avoid a Nimzo-Indian game, as that was Nimzowitsch's speciality. Nimzowitsch then plays another hypermodern opening.

The World's Greatest Chess Games says the Queen's Indian Defense reached the height of its popularity amongst Grandmasters in the 1980s, but never enjoyed the as much popularity at the club level.

In the book "Chess Explained: Queen's Indian Defence" Peter Wells writes "it was initially developed by players, perhaps Nimzowitsch above all, who have often been characterized as ‘hypermodern’ or more grandly as part of a ‘hypermodern revolution’ which saw its heyday in the 1920s. They brought to chess a number of new and fascinating strategic ideas. Most significant in the context of the Queen’s Indian was a rather fresh conception of how to struggle for the critical centre squares using the pieces."

Wells goes on to add "It is probably only a slight exaggeration to say that the popularity of 3 Nf3 and with it the Queen’s Indian is itself a great tribute to the Nimzo-Indian and the pin on the c3-knight that characterizes it."

As with the Kasparov variation, 7...Nd4 is the main line, but not what Nimzowitsch played. 7...d5 is not the strongest, but the mediocre 9.cxd5?! allows Black to equalize.

9.e4 is the stronger move as it increases the pressure on the center.

14.h3? is rated "good" by the engine, but considered to be a mistake by FM Burgess and GMs Nunn and Emms: "White is drifting, completely without a plan".

The engine recommends 14.Ne4 instead.

Burgess, Nunn and Emms suggest 14.Bg5! although this is also merely calculated as "good" by the Stockfish 12 engine, yet it agrees that move is better for White than the h3 move that was played (-0.17 instead of -0.65).

Here is some QID Fianchetto opening theory from Ginger GM:

Chess.com is quite light on QID opening theory but there is this lesson available https://www.chess.com/lessons/a-kaleidoscope-of-openings/queens-indian-defense

Stockfish 12 Depth 30 analysis

White Black

CAPS 48.8% 97.3%
Best 8 11
Inaccuracies 1 1
Mistakes 2 0

Because this is Nimzowitsch's most famous game, I ran the Stockfish 14 Depth 40 analysis on it, followed by a Depth 50 analysis.

This says the mistakes were 9.cxd5 (+0.00), 16...f5 (-0.52), 17.Qd1 (-1.53), 20.e4 (-2.98), 22.Qg5(-4.41), 23.Kh1(-6.57), 24...Bd3(-5.61) and 25.Rce1 (-6.94)

This analysis (using Lucas chess) rates Saemisch's Elo performance at 2061 and Nimzowitsch's at an almighty 2831. After running the depth 50 analysis, Saemisch's Elo performance dropped to 1895 and Nimzowitsch's increased to 2860.

The final zugzwang move 25...h6 is what makes the game so famous.

Nimzowitsch declared it as brilliant, Lasker agreed and so do Burgess, Nunn and Emms who write "Perhaps it's Nimzowitsch's entire concept rather than this single, quiet by deadly moves which deserves two exclamation marks. 25...h6 simply underlines the helplessness of White's plight. White is in fact in zugzwang here, i.e. every possible move only leads to a deterioration of his position."

At a depth of 40 Stockfish 14 says it is the third best move, with an evaluation of -6.93, behind a5 (-7.46) and h5 (-7.00)

However, at a depth of 50, Stockfish recognizes the true brilliance of the move. It is indeed the best!

thanks for this thread

White Black

CAPS 93.2% 75.1%
Best 14 11
Inaccuracies 0 2
Mistakes 1 3

This is featured in this video, however all of the audio is in Croatian

Thank you for this thread! Following.

Noone or Stockfish 14 Depth 50 had anything to say about Black's 8...c6 other than "Safeguards the position" almost 100 years ago?

Seems to me the Queen’s Indian is mostly about the e4 square and c6 allows that. I noticed (parts of quote left in tact) e4 square was mentioned a couple of times.

What did that Depth 50 analysis give for this?

#13

There is no mention about 8...c6 in the World's Greatest Chess Game book, but Stockfish 14 says 8...Nbd7 is about half a pawn better than it. 8...h6 or 8...Qe8 are also good alternatives.

interresting make notes on John Watson's Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy? and post the link here to that forum?

Hmm

Qe8 and no Na6...

I'd rather play Na6 than c6

c6 (imo) goes against everything Queen’s Indian. Nimzowitsch's comment must have been intentionally satirical. wonder how many times he played it?

on move 34, why not qxc8 qxc8 ne7 kf8 nxc8, i mean extra knight is good

#17

Tarrasch didn't miss a simple tactic there. Qxc8 followed by the fork looks good, until you notice that White cannot prevent the d-pawn from promoting to a Queen.

Okay, here's a link to the discussion about that book in the chess equipment and books forum: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/secrets-of-modern-chess-strategy-by-watson

Game analysis (Depth 30):

White Black

CAPS 98.8% 69.2%
Best 37 21
Excellent 4 10
Good 4 9
Inaccuracies 2 3
Mistakes 0 2
Blunders 0 2

Tarrasch had a very slim edge after the solid but passive 7.e3 move (7.e4 is better).

Nimozwitsch regains a slight lead after Tarrasch's excellent 14...Bb4 (+0.25) with the passive looking move 14...Bd6 rated a little more strongly by the engine.

18...Na6 is a bigger deal for Black, putting the knight on the side of the board when there is the stronger move 18...Nd5

After that Nimzowitsch gradually accumulated a bigger and bigger advantage and the quality of Tarrasch's play deteriorated until he resigned.