My System

Sort:
kindaspongey
cats-not-knights wrote (~8 hours ago):
pfren wrote:

My System is interesting, provocative and outdated. Some of the things in it are classical wisdom, while some others are plain wrong.

I'd rather advice you reading something else instead, especially if you take everything at face value.

first real book of chess I've read, so if you're starting from zero I think it's a relly good book. But chess has evolved and I agree that before reading it you may want to tore some pages expecially the overprotection part.

[Aron Nimzowitsch (?) vs. Systemsson (?)

Composition | Copenhagen | 1927 | ECO: C00 | 1-0

1. e4

AN INGENIOUS EXAMPLE OF MY SYSTEM by Aaron Nimzowitsch - Anderssen started the sacrificial style, Morphy and Gruenfeld the pure attacking style, Steinitz the positional style, Tarrasch the scientific style, Lasker the style of styles, Capablanca the mechanical style, Alekhine a style as brilliant as sunlight. But it is a generally known fact that originality and modernism were introduced by me as my own personal inventions and enthusiastically imitated (without being fully understood) by the whole world of chess. For the ridiculously small sum of ten marks, the reader can confirm all this in my monumental work, My System, published by B. Kagan. Before my time, chess was so naive and undistinguished! One or two brutal opening moves, each one involving a vulgar, obvious threat, a common, banal sacrifice, a painfully elementary, bestially raw checkmate - such, more or less, was the course of chess games before my heyday set in. Then I appeared on the scene and the chess world paid heed. The hegemony of matter was shattered at a stroke and the era of the spiritual began. Under my creative guidance, the chessmen, hitherto nothing but highwaymen, pirates and butcher boys, became sensitive artists and subtle instruments of immeasurable profundity. But why waste words! - accompany me, dear reader to the dizzy heights of the following game.

1... e6 2. h4!

My very oldest and latest thought in this opening. To the chess addict nurtured on spineless convention, this move comes like a slap in the face - but calm down, dear reader; after all, you cannot be expected to understand such moves. (Forgive me - it is not your fault, until now no one has opened your eyes and ears.) Wait just a little while, and there will pass before you a miracle of overprotection of more than earthly beauty. (I assume that I rightly surmise that you are quite familiar with my great theory of overprotection.)

2... d5

Black of course has no suspicion of What is coming and continues serenely in classical style.

3. e5!

A move of elemental delicacy. (We detest, as a matter of principle, such words as "power" and "strength"; in the first place, such banal expressions make us uncomfortable; and, in the second place, we like even less the brutalizing tendency which such words imply.) Wherein lies the beauty of 3.e5? Why is this move so strong? The answer is as simple as it is astonishing. The move is strong because it is weak! Weak, that is, only in the traditional sense! In reality, that is to say, it is not the move but the Pawn on e5 that is weak - a tremendous difference! In former times, it is true, it was customary to reject any move which created a weakness. Today, thanks to me, this view is obsolete. For, look, my dear reader, the fact that the Pawn on e5 is weak obliges White to protect the Pawn more and more until at last the state of overprotection arises as it were of itself. But, as we have seen (cf. My System), overprotection is practically equivalent to victory. Hence it follows automatically that the "weak" move, 3.e5, is a certain road to triumph. The rest is more or less a matter of technique.

3... c5

All according to a famous precedent.

4. d4

Here it is quite clear that it is more profitable for White first to provoke c5 and then play d4, rather than the other way round, which is the customary course. For, if White first plays d4, there follows c5 and White's d-pawn is under attack. But my clever transposition of moves changes the situation completely. For now Black's c-pawn is suddenly attacked by White's d-pawn! 

4... cxd4

What else can Black do? 

5. h5!

All very clever, original and decisive! Of course the ordinary run of people who envy my every spark of genius but cannot follow my line of reasoning for even three paces, outdo themselves in sneering at me with the poison-dripping epithet, "bizarre." The text move creates confusion in the whole Black army and prepares for the annihilating invasion by the Queen 18 moves later. 

5... Qb6

Naturally not 5...Nc6 6 Bb5! etc. Why should Black play the French Defence only to allow the Ruy Lopez Bishop move after all?! 

6. h6!

An avaricious dullard would never hit on this deeply conceived Pawn sacrifice. 

6... Nxh6

After 6...gxh6, White has an even more comfortable game. 

7. Qh5!

The reason for this becomes clear after next move. 

7... g6

Black threatens to begin a successful siege of the weakling at e5 with Bg7. But White forestalls this. 

8. Qh2!

To every fair-minded observer, this move must come as a revelation! All the previous manoeuvres now become clear! White has completed his development brilliantly and proceeds to overprotect e5. Against this, Black is helpless. 

8... Nf5 9. Bd3

Note the splendid cooperation of White's forces: while the e-pawn and the King Bishop completely blockade Black's position, the development of the overprotective forces takes place behind the broad backs of these sturdy blockaders. 

9... Nc6 10. Nf3

As a rule this is a routine move. But here it is strikingly original and as such occupies a place in the treasury of my intellectual property. 

10... h5

Old stuff! 

11. b3

A deep trap, as will soon become apparent! 

11... Bg7

How Black must have rejoiced when he anticipated his formidable opponent in the occupation of the long diagonal. But... 

12. Bf4!

...how bitterly disappointed he must have been to realize that 11.b3 had only been a trap and Bb2 had not been intended at all. The position of Black's Bishop at g7 is now quite pointless. 11...Be7 would have been relatively better. 

12... Bd7 13. Nbd2 Rc8

Black no longer has any good moves! 

14. Ke2!

Again, an extraordinarily deep move. White sees through Black's plans, and in addition he prepares a particularly powerful continuation of his strategy of overprotection. 

14... Nb4

Just what White was waiting for. 

15. Ne1!

This was the point of his previous move! Black is now forced to exchange off the attacking Bishop at d3. But, with that, even White's King Knight enters the fray with fearful effect at d3, while the square f3 becomes available to the Queen Knight. Surely a grandiose piece of strategy. The fact is that I'm a marvellous player, even if the whole chess world bursts with envy. 

15... Nxd3 16. Nxd3!

Naturally not 16 cxd3? which would have been quite inconsistent. The Pawn on c2 is unimportant, and Black only wastes precious time by capturing it. 

16... Rxc2 17. Rae1!

White continues his overprotection without much ado. 

17... a5

This counterattack has no punch. Black would naturally like to get a passed Pawn plus a Rook on the seventh, but it is too late for that. 

18. Kd1!

Now the menaced Rook must scurry back, for capture on a2 would be much too dangerous. 

18... Rc6!

At last, Black gets the right idea: overprotecting his Pawn at e6. But it is already too late. 

19. Re2 Ke7

Introduced into tournament play by myself. See note to White's 14th move. The King overprotects e6. 

20. Rhe1 Re8! 21. Nf3!

Completing the overprotection of e5 and thus deciding the fate of the game. Black has no defence. Note the aesthetic effect created by White's position. 

21... Bf8

Now Black threatens to complete the overprotection of e6 by playing Ng7. But White has prepared a brilliant combination. 

22. g4!

Much stronger than the obvious Bg5+ etc. 

22... hxg4 23. Qh7!

Now one clearly realizes the masterly understanding of position which went into White's eighth move (Qh2!). 

23... gxf3

Had Black continued overprotecting by 23...Ng7 there would have followed 24.Bg5+ f6 25.Bxf6+ Kf7 26.Ng5 mate. Black's basic error was that he started overprotecting much too late. 

24. Bg5#

One of my best games! I am proud of it if only because Herr Systemsson is one of the strongest Scandinavian players. The game made an overwhelming impression on the players and spectators as well as on my opponent. The game has become famous in Denmark as "the immortal overprotection game."]

kindaspongey
_Number_6 wrote (~7 hours ago):

I think any chess book studied is likely better than a library not.  I find study is mostly about ideas anyway.  Sure, an idea might be antiquated but if it was never in the head before, so what?.  Playing old but now surprising ideas are just as good as novelties.

If a student cannot tell whether a book is better or worse than some other book does it really matter which one they pick?

kindaspongey
NachtWulf wrote (~7 hours ago):

I, too, am curious about the (lack of value) in reading My System. Is the main issue that the contents are convoluted and difficult to digest? I personally find such books aluring, but would like to know about the inaccuracies within Nimzowitsch's text! Looking for a book to read after Pachman's three volumes in chess strategy.

kindaspongey
ipcress12 wrote (~7 hours ago):

There is such a huge amount of chess literature to choose from that it's hard to justify reading less than the best. Even the admirers of "My System" readily admit some of its material is outdated or plain wrong.

Nonetheless I'd still say "My System" has its place for players who want to have a go at it. For one thing, Nimzovich is a hoot to read. He has such a great cranky voice that the pages go by quickly and memorably. For another thing, it provides historical perspective on the advance of chess. Nimzo's good stuff is old hat now, but once upon a time it was new, or at least hadn't been yet articulated.

I read it in high school when I didn't know about rooks on 7th or blockades and I was entranced. Recently I was working some positional puzzles and I got to a position for which I immediately knew the answer, though I didn't know why. Then I remembered ... it was right out of "My System."

Far better players than I -- Tal and Larsen for two -- have sung "My System's" praises. Don't read it for final answers. Read it for the pleasure of encountering a great chess mind and a sharp writer at work. Listen to Nimzovich and argue back at him if necessary. I don't think he would have wanted it any other way.

Here's John Watson on "My System":

In conclusion, for those who haven’t read them, I recommend My System and the associated works in this book app as strongly as I do any other chess book. We no longer consider many classics to be essential to a chess education, not since the Internet; but if there’s an exception, Nimzowitch’s work is it.

http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/My-System-p3821.htm

kindaspongey

Dolphin27 wrote:

"... I suppose 'trainers' like Nigel Short and Grivas dislike My System for the same reason I like it, it makes their services unnecessary. ..."

My System is not exactly a secret, so, if people are using Short and Grivas as trainers, it must be because My System is NOT seen as making "their services unnecessary."

Dolphin27 wrote:

"... My System was also top of John Watson's list when asked about his favorite chess books. ..."

As documented in #111 in this thread, even IM John Watson noted, "Not everything in it has stood the test of time".

Dolphin27 wrote:

"... forum troll Pfren who spends his days smoking cigarettes and calling users 'patzers' on chess.com. ..."

I'm not exactly a fan of IM pfren myself, but, in this case, it seems to me that he is indicating something of value. At least to me, the truth appears to be that one can learn worthwhile stuff from My System, but one doesn't have to.

"... The books that are most highly thought of are not necessarily the most useful. Go with those that you find to be readable ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2010)

Ziryab

I've come up with a New Year's Resolution. I'm gonna read My System and Chess Praxis.

kindaspongey
ipcress12 wrote (~6 hours ago):

And here's GM Seirawan on My System:

This then, is the strength of My System. It is a book that provokes you to think differently about chess. It challenges you to consider a different approach and urges you to prove or refute Nimzovich's ideas. It is also a book that you can read and reread, each time coming away with different lessons and insights, leading to a deeper understanding of the game.

I don't think My System is for everyone. God knows how many classics in all fields I've heard shouted to the skies which however left me cold or confused.

Looking through the book this morning I'm still impressed. I suspect the problems some titled players have with the book is that they can see the exceptions and fuzziness to Nimzovich's claims. However, class players are only beginning to peer into the deep mysteries of chess and can do worse than to take Nimzovich on and think for themselves.

kindaspongey
plutonia wrote (~5 hours ago):

My System is a useful book, but it needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. I personally find it too dogmatic. For example, snatching a pawn in the opening and/or bringing the Queen out early for him are sins, but so many times they are perfectly playable if you can calculate concretely... ...

kindaspongey
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote (~2 hours ago):
pfren wrote:

Several Senior Trainers, e.g. Grivas, are way more dismissive than I am of the book. I am no Senior Trainer yet, so I guess it comes with time...

Nigel Short says My System is rubbish. Sometimes boldly, some other times "subtly":
My System is not exactly fun, is it?

(a recent tweet of his).

For the record, Short is also a very fine trainer, I guess a wee bit better than mr. Reynolds... Pentala Harikrishna is his most reknown pupil.

On the other hand I’ve never liked Nimzovitsch's My System that much, finding it to be a tough read and rather convoluted in its thinking.

(GM and Chess Author Nigel Davies)

GM Spraggett claims in his blog that Davies is rather too keen on Nimzo, and the book is way too convoluted.

And so it goes...

Now- may I ask you who are you to put others in shame, mr. Grandpatzer?

Outragious!

You expect me to listen to Nigel "the womanizer" Short?

Why should I listen to anything this man has to say?

This man is deluded I am glad Garry Kasparov crushed him!

His name is Short and so to was the Match!

 

Than you have the nerve to call me a Grand Patzer after telling people to not read "My System"?

Absurd!

pfren wrote:

I have three copies of "My System" in my library. One of them is priceless, I bought it in a Rusian old bookstore for quite some $$ thirty years ago. It's the first Russian edition (1930) printed in 10,000 copies, and authored by Maizelis. A rare copy, that is, which becomes more precious due to erratic page binding.

But leaving archival purposes aside, it's not hard to find something more useful to read...

There are other classics, e.g. Pachman's "Complete Chess Strategy" which are still a terrific read.

Pfren said don't read "My System"! You will not learn anything! Everything is wrong!

Mr. Pfren has only read it and bought 3 different copies of it including a priceless one!

What a Hypocrite!

kindaspongey
NigelShart wrote (~124 minutes ago):

Hey, don't be talking bad about Nigel!

kindaspongey
Freddie-Freeloader wrote (~119 minutes ago):
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:
pfren wrote:

Several Senior Trainers, e.g. Grivas, are way more dismissive than I am of the book. I am no Senior Trainer yet, so I guess it comes with time...

Nigel Short says My System is rubbish. Sometimes boldly, some other times "subtly":
My System is not exactly fun, is it?

(a recent tweet of his).

For the record, Short is also a very fine trainer, I guess a wee bit better than mr. Reynolds... Pentala Harikrishna is his most reknown pupil.

On the other hand I’ve never liked Nimzovitsch's My System that much, finding it to be a tough read and rather convoluted in its thinking.

(GM and Chess Author Nigel Davies)

GM Spraggett claims in his blog that Davies is rather too keen on Nimzo, and the book is way too convoluted.

And so it goes...

Now- may I ask you who are you to put others in shame, mr. Grandpatzer?

Outragious!

You expect me to listen to Nigel "the womanizer" Short?

Why should I listen to anything this man has to say?

This man is deluded I am glad Garry Kasparov crushed him!

His name is Short and so to was the Match!

 

Than you have the nerve to call me a Grand Patzer after telling people to not read "My System"?

Absurd!

pfren wrote:

I have three copies of "My System" in my library. One of them is priceless, I bought it in a Rusian old bookstore for quite some $$ thirty years ago. It's the first Russian edition (1930) printed in 10,000 copies, and authored by Maizelis. A rare copy, that is, which becomes more precious due to erratic page binding.

But leaving archival purposes aside, it's not hard to find something more useful to read...

There are other classics, e.g. Pachman's "Complete Chess Strategy" which are still a terrific read.

Pfren said don't read "My System"! You will not learn anything! Everything is wrong!

Mr. Pfren has only read it and bought 3 different copies of it including a priceless one!

What a Hypocrite!

Some thirty something years ago? Since he has the book and read it, probably a good idea to listen to him?

kindaspongey
lolurspammed wrote (~105 minutes ago):

Nigel Short is a more trustworthy authority than Reynolds. Some books don't stand the test of time...

kindaspongey
Dolphin27 wrote (~99 minutes ago):

@X_Player_J_X I too think it's terrible how Pfren calls you things like Grandpatzer.You're not a patzer, you're a creative thinker who is obviously very enthusiastic about chess and I believe you'll be a master someday. ...

kindaspongey
Ziryab wrote (~32 minutes ago):

I've come up with a New Year's Resolution. I'm gonna read My System and Chess Praxis.

kindaspongey
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote (~18 minutes ago):
lolurspammed wrote:

Nigel Short is a more trustworthy authority than Reynolds. Some books don't stand the test of time...

It has nothing to do with trustworthy!

The book "My System" was written by Aron Nimzowitsch.

Aron Nimzowitsch is a chess legend.

The Father of Hyper-Modern Chess!

The book expresses his thoughts and ideas of chess.

Thoughts and ideas which were never heard of before during "His time".

Not everything stands up to the test of time because some new ideas improve on the old ones.

However, He was the original!

You are learning from Aron Nimzowitsch.

You are learning from what he believed was the right way of playing!

Finding out what is right or wrong is part of the learning experince.

Even if everything Aron Nimzowitsch said is wrong.

You should still read this book!!

WHY?

Because it is like a small glimpse into the mind of one of the most famous chess players in history.

Where esle can you gain insight on what Aron Nimzowitsch was thinking?

It is his own words!


 

I would of loved reading books by Harry Nelson Pillsbury.

A US Chess champion!

Harry Nelson Pillsbury had a even score against Lasker!

They believed he was going to be the next World Champion.

I believe he would of been the next World Champion.

He had an illness which called him to die at such a young age!

What do you guys and gals think of Harry Nelson Pillsbury ideas in chess?

Do you think they are wrong?

Oh forgive me that is right Harry Nelson Pillsbury never wrote a book!

He died before he could ever express his thoughts or ideas on chess.

The stuff we know of Harry Nelson Pillsbury comes from others!

The saddest thing in chess is not ideas which end up turning bad by new modern chess theory!

The saddest thing in chess is ideas which have been lost to time!

They were never shared!

They were never expressed!

It happens in chess.

It is very sad.

This is one example of a chess player who has been lost by time.

Hundreds of thousands of chess players end up like this.

Many of them have wonderful stories.

Stories which were never told!

It is a privilege to have insight from the mind of Aron Nimzowitsch.

A privilege which we do not have from the mind of Harry Nelson Pillsbury.

 

What about Jackson Whipps Showalter?

5 - time US Chess Champion!

Known as "The Kentucky Lion" due to his birth place and hair style.

A line is named after him in the Queens Gambit Accepted.

[ 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 [[3. Nc3 ]

Here is a game he won against Lasker!

[Jackson Whipps Showalter (?) vs. Emanuel Lasker (?)

Lasker - Showalter | Logansport, IN USA | Round 2 |

16 Dec 1892 | ECO: C66 | 1-0

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O d6 5. d4 Bd7 6. Nc3 Be7

7. Bxc6 Bxc6 8. Qe2 exd4 9. Nxd4 Bd7 10. b3 O-O 11. Bb2 Re8

12. Rad1 Bf8 13. Qd3 Kh8 14. f4 c6 15. Nf3 Bg4 16. Rd2 Qc7

17. h3 Bxf3 18. Qxf3 Rad8 19. g4 Kg8 20. g5 Nd7 21. Ne2 d5

22. e5 Qa5 23. Bc3 Bb4 24. Bxb4 Qxb4 25. c3 Qb6+ 26. Kh2 Nc5

27. Ng3 Rd7 28. Nh5 Ne4 29. Rg2 Kh8 30. Nf6 gxf6 31. gxf6 Rdd8

32. Rg7 ]

"The Kentucky Lion" attacking!

[ Jackson Whipps Showalter (?) vs. Harry Nelson Pillsbury (?)

Pillsbury - Showalter US Championship | Brooklyn, New York USA |

Round 8 | 6 Mar 1897 | ECO: C67 | 1-0

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Nxe4 5. d4 Nd6 6. Ba4 exd4

7. c3 dxc3 8. Nxc3 Be7 9. Nd5 O-O 10. Re1 Bf6 11. Bf4 Ne8

12. Rxe8 Qxe8 13. Nxc7 Qe4 14. Bd6 Rb8 15. Bc2 Qg4

16. Bxf8 Kxf8 17. Qd6+ Be7 18. Re1 g6 19. Qd2 Qh5 20. Nd5 Bd8

21. Qc3 f6 22. Nxf6 Ba5 23. Nxd7+ ]

That game was played in the US Championship in 1897.

Black is playing the Berlin Defense.

A Modern line in 1897!

The Kentucky Lion avoided the dreaded Berlin Wall Endgame!

The line he played is called the l'Herment Variation.

Jackson Whipps Showalter wrote no books!

People would love to read books by some of these chess players and don't even have the chance to because they didn't write any.

The few books we do have to read people are advicing not to read?

It is outrageous and there is no way they are ever going to convince me what they are saying is right!

It is a crying shame!

kindaspongey
ipcress12 wrote (~24 minutes ago):

Some thirty something years ago? Since [pfren] has the book and read it, probably a good idea to listen to him?

However, other players, some even more highly rated and prestigious than pfren, say otherwise.

As Patrick Swayze said in Roadhouse, "Opinions vary."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeglesB0qDk

kindaspongey
najdorf96 wrote (~40 minutes ago):

Indeed. My System is one of the most comprehensive, definitive books on Abstract thinking by one of the.greatest Chess thinkers. One of my ex-gf loved reading it because of the way he wrote, not because she could understand any of it's concepts. Heh. Anyways, while I still use many of it's axioms, principles...I too agree, although a great read, it's not one of my favorites. I'll only recommend it to players who have read other books and are already proficient technical players themselves. Simply as a change up, a break from the norm you might say. To be inspired by this work, to become creative thinkers themselves instead of being stuck in rut in an imaginative sense.

For me, I don't like the negativism which sort of permeates throughout. Like how Petrosian at his best plays. Not to lose. Prophylaxis & overprotection speaks to this way of playing. It's only my opinion. I like dynamism. Giving life to a position, not taking it away.

Just me, I guess.

SmyslovFan

What a monologue!

ipcress12

I take ylb's point that a long off-topic thread on My System in something called "LOL at the sicilian" may not be ideal.

I salute his dedication in cutting and pasting all those comments from there to here.

So in ylb's spirit I'll add a new thought on My System here.

Nimzovich wrote in a somewhat archaic formal style, but also in an old-school style of saying what he's going to say, saying it and hitting his points hard, then illustrating with examples.

It's an organized style which lends itself to browsing for main points, then drilling down when one's interest is piqued. Most class players could gain substantial benefit for a small time investment just by browsing the first paragraphs of each chapter and each subheading.

Plus his writing is delicious! Compare the first sentence of Chapter 6 with the first sentence of Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice":

"It is a well known phenomenon that the same amateur who can conduct the middlegame quite creditably, is usually completely helpless in the endgame."

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife."

JM3000

In this forums I read a message of a master recomending reading pachman books on strategy (3 volume). The top player of my club also recomend reading the pachman book on strategy (1 volume in spanish). 

In this tread a master speaks good of "My system"

You can read "My system" and improve or if this book is boring for you, you can read others good books on strategy for example Pachman books or more modern works: "Chess Strategy for Club Players" or "How To Reassess your chess".