Older Players Playing at Top Level and Improving Older Players

I guess the name was used first for the Dutch defence formation (c6-d5-e6-f5), and when white started to use it as well, it was coined 'reversed Stonewall' (same setup from the other side of the board).

This is an opening that is used at amateur level, though its popularity is probably not very high at the moment. You may not want to spend too much time on it, still the main lessons from this game are those in the middlegame (the use of the open file). This knowledge is highly transferable to any other chess game, so very valuable IMO.

As a KID player, you may still run into this setup though : 1.d4 Nf6 2.e3 g6 3.f4, or even from a game starting with 1.f4

That's a useful post. Such animation, and explaining basic concepts that Nimzo doesn't explain, is a useful addition to his book. And experts can add extra info. in comments, and keep you straight. I see this has already started! So if you like creating educational tools, like this, I'd say "go ahead": don't let lack of current expertise in chess or education stop you. Animation alone is useful, and any little bit of extra information (describing the stonewall...), is something anyone can do and helps people. And, of course, you will learn a lot yourself. If you fancy animating/annotating Nimzo's book I'd be glad to give feedback as I'll be studying it over the next few weeks/months. 

Players rated under 1600 need to learn the basics. Learning about the Stonewall is fine but if you are under Class B there are far more important things to learn.

In today's environment there are many good ways to learn.

One of the best ways to learn is to learn from your mistakes.

But, I'm sure, many beginners will pick up "My System" as their second book and Nimzo uses advanced terms like "Stonewall", and I think a little explanation like that from hicetnunc goes a long way - there is no need to learn the ins-and-outs of the Stonewall but it lifts the fog somewhat to just know what the term refers to. "Stonewall" is a term thrown around a lot, e.g. it's in one of the free workouts aimed at 1400-1800 players : http://www.chess.com/computer-workout/server/stonewall-clamp. (No idea what's happening here by the way, if anyone knows please explain in the comments section... there is no help provided...)

I think the animations lead to a more involved audience because the annotations are right there on the board and you don't have to shuffle wood or books around, which are distractions from actually learning. It's also easy to go wrong as I did around move 32 in following that game on the board... I admit I just skipped on rather than starting again. Nimzo does say "the rest is obvious" at move 29 .This is actually lecturese for "the rest is complicated and tedious, but I don't really want to explain it. Because of this, I'll intimidate you into thinking it's obvious, so you don't make my day more tedious by asking lots of questions."

P.S. I don't think you're right about open positions requiring open files, but not open diagonals. (But I might have a wrong understanding!) Imagine an endgame where you have only bishops and pawns, won't it be open if the bishops move freely along the diagonals? And they don't care about the files.  In a rook and pawn endgame it won't it be open if the rooks move freely down the files and rows, and they don't care about the diagonals?

Don't know if there's an official definition of an open position, but for me, it's when lines through the center squares (e4-d4-e5-d5) are open or easy to open, whether these lines are files or diagonals. So basically, the less pawns in the center, the more open the position is.

If the pawns are in the center but can move and disappear quickly (by trade or clearance), then the position may be considered "semi-open".

I believe the Russians had a full typology of the different kinds of centers ; that's something you could probably find in Kotov or Marovic's books, but I'm not completely familiar with it, and I navigate by ear in these waters

Understanding Chess Tactics that you mention is the same book as Chess Tactics From Scratch?

I'm a bit late joining this thread, but my Dad became an IM in his 50's after he retired (more time to devote to chess maybe?).  However, he had played chess most of his adult life so he wasn't starting from scratch.  I am just starting to learn for the first time in my 40's and I am finding that I am slow compared to my son who is starting at 16.  However, I can feel my brain rewiring a bit - I also do a bit of luminosity and I went on it for the first time after starting chess and smashed all my best scores without really trying.  I'm a psychologist so I keep up to date with some of the neuro research - and we now know that the brain is plastic right through the life span.  The idea of 'critical periods' for learning is pretty much being challenged.

I have a hard time believing someone made IM in his 50's without having a name.  I've never heard of a case.  I do imagine there has been a case where someone made 2200-ish by early 20's and then IM at 30 (or IM and then GM).  I've gone looking for cases of player making IM later in life, and I came up with nothing (or players who probably should have made it when they were younger and had the rating but not the norms).  At first, I was glad to hear Edward Lasker made IM at 80, but then I found out it was honorary, and retroactively awarded on the basis of playing strength in his younger days.  

"My System" is too advanced for beginners to pick up as thier 2nd book.

harterhare: I consider it a remarkable achievement to make IM in one's fifties. I'll bet that's rare.

The idea of 'critical periods' for learning is pretty much being challenged.

Excellent. Good to know. Though I would be surprised if that were true of language acquisition. Not that one can't learn a new language later in life but children seem to pick them up so much more quickly.

You are welcome to check the records - my Dad played CC so maybe that makes the difference.  His name was David Lodge and his hightest rating was 2479 in 1992.  A memorial tournament was held in his honour after he died in 2000/2001.

Yeah, for me, at least.

Especially after my experience of playing CC on chess.com, I can't take it seriously.  I had a teammate in the Pittsburgh Chess League who could not get a board (he was rated 900 OTB), and a team member, one day, noticed his CC was 2280.  I actually vented in a post on chess.com about this recently.  Anyway, if there are OTB examples of late-life bloomers, I'd love to hear one. 

Well CC now bears no relationship to how it did in my Dad's day.  There are so many engines etc now that I imagine it is very difficult to regulate.  However, when my Dad was playing there was no such assistance - we didn't even have a computer.  He never used an engine or chess computer, never had a chess coach.  I never saw my Dad with anything other than a chess board, his notepads, chess magazines and the little post cards that he used to send in the mail all over the world.  He was a very strong and well respected player - as shown by the fact that he had a tournament dedicated to him.  That decision would have been made by people who knew not just his CC ability but had played him OTB as well.

I think you'll agree that some things were a bit different in 1992 than now. I'd imagine you would have to be a very strong player to get a rating of 2479 back then. It's probably not easy today either, but then you didn't really have any engines &c. to check for tactical mistakes and such.

As a whole maybe, but it does have wonderful parts that I can understand - the discussion of outposts, open files, rooks on the seventh rank, handling a pawn majority, etc., are crystal clear and his writing style is amusing and cultured. So for adult beginners who are used to reading difficult texts in other fields, and know when to skip, I can't see why they shouldn't pick it up and give it a go. Is there a book that deals with these essential, interesting matters, as well as Nimzo at a "second book" level? 

Yes. I can't ever spell the name of the author though...

This one might be a better read, although I'm not sure if it qualifies as a 2nd book either. That being said, motivation is very important in chess, and I believe people should study whatever they feel interesting / inspirational :

http://www.amazon.com/Chess-Secrets-Petrosian-Capablanca-Nimzowitsch/dp/1857445414

Define "beginner" at chess as opposed to "novice"

[to me, a beginner is someone who has just learned the moves, he may be learning the value of the pieces, how to do check mate with king and rook or king and queen vs a lone king. etc. ]