Question about Nimzowitsch's My System

Hey all, I've just started reading the 21st Century edition of My System (ISBN 1880673851), and it's very hard to understand. The translation from German to English is really poor, and it doesn't help that Nimzowitsch writes in an excessively flowery writing style to begin with.

There is another edition of the book for sale on Amazon.com by Quality Chess (ISBN 9197600539). Does anybody know if this is a better edition, and if it's worth switching editions? 

I'm a little confused about one of the examples at the begining of the book. In the 21st century edition, pg7, he gives the example of 1.e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 (white is waiting to chase away a knight on f5) 3. c3 Nf6! 4. e5 Ne4!

I'm having a hard time understanding why black's 3rd and 4th moves are good. Black's knight can be knocked off its post with a pawn move at any point or just contested with a Nd2. 

This is the position in the book. The comments in the book are "Black lets what will happen, and this is what every beginner should do in order to gain experience of the consequences of an advance in the center."

Black has destroyed white's centre by getting capturing the d pawn and tempting the e pawn to advance and is preparing to play d5 which is the move he is normally aiming for in king's pawn games.

f3 isn't a particularly attractive move for white (weakens the castled position), if white plays Nd2 then perhaps d5 then to support the knight, and you have Nxd6 in case of en passant. I'm not sure I like it if Nxe4 though because the pawn looks weak.

I'm sure he explains though?

But I'm pretty sure that's the idea - to undermine white's centre.

Thanks. That actually makes a lot more sense than what is written in the book. He does say "The Knight can maintain himself there, for 5. Bd3 will be answered by a developing move of full value, namely 5...d5. "

Right before this example he writes "As we have already noticed, a free, mobile center is a deadly weapon of attack, since the advance of the center pawns threatens to drive back the enemy pieces. In every case the question is, whether the hunted Knight, losing all control over himself, will have to flit aimlessly from pillar to post, or whether he will succeed in saving himself or the tempi for which he is responsible."

This is not the easiest book to understand.

I think you're refering to the example found under the heading "6. the centre and its urge to demobilise."

The comments, first of all, have to be read with an understanding of the 5 preceeding discussion points on the center. And you have to pay attention to the paragraph under the heading where Nimzovitch explains "As has already been mentioned, a free and mobile center constitutes a terrible attacking weapon, since the threatened advance of the central pawns would drive back the opponent's pieces. However, in all such cases it depends on whether the knight which is driven off is in fact driven "from pillar to post" or whether it will manage to find a good position or make good use of its tempi."

After 2. .. exd4 we read "White's e-pawn is ready to advance and is only waiting for a knight to appear on f6 to put it to flight as soon as possible."

So the comment after 3. ... f6 is Nimzovitch saying in effect, "and here Black is tempting fate" or something along those lines.

He's showing that black, having a good square to bring the knight too (e4) adn a developing move to support the knight once it lands there (d5), allows black to trick white into making his mobile center immobile.

His example is doing just what he told you it would do " . .. manage to find a good position or make good use of its tempi."

The very next example "1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 Nf6 4. e5" is a counter example showing a position where "the poor distrubed soul (knight) would not know much rest." 

Oh, and the Quality Chess translation is much better htan the older versions. But not so much so that you should immediately run out and by it unless the older versions really are incomprehensible to you. To me they just read as quaint, but everyone is different in their reaction to that style. 

The strength of the book is the abstract content, how Nimzo explains the technique 'lavieren' (german, I dont know the English exact translation; the meaning is to change the direction of th attack several times until the defense is broken; this involves control of a keypoint excessively,  then occupation of this key point by one piece after another) is unbeatable. In Nimzos convincing explanation, 'Lavieren' is not a trap, but an unescapable tool of positional play. Look at the spirit of the book, not too much at the tactical DETAILS of examples.

In the present case, White has the advantage after 5.Qe2!

(5....d5 is met by exd6, and after 5....Ng5, 6.cxd4 Ng5 the knight is misplaced.) 

That actually clears a lot of things up. Your translation of 

" However, in all such cases it depends on whether the knight which is driven off is in fact driven "from pillar to post" or whether it will manage to find a good position or make good use of its tempi."  

is a bit more understandable than

"In every case the question is, whether the hunted Knight, losing all control over himself, will have to flit aimlesslhy from pillar to post, or whether he will succeed in saving himself or the tempi for which he is responsible."

Now that I understand the point of the section, the translation that I have makes a lot more sense. 

So maybe I don't really understand. is Nimzowitsch saying that this position is actually bad for black?

No, he's not. He's saying it's good.

However, Nimzovitch doesn't analyze  5. Qe2 probably because he didn't have Houdini running on his desktop. So this is a case where modern analysis detracts from his main point -- which is that a mobile center isn't really useful if in breaking up the center one can find useful positional moves or make use of extra tempi. 

The only line he looks at is Bd3. He doesn't consider f3 since that is a bad pawn move, and it probably never occurred to him to look at Qe2.

Hey guys, thanks for your help. I've decided to pick up the Quality Chess edition because I'm really struggling to understand the 21st Century edition. I tried to muscle on, but after reading section 6a, I've given up. Fortunately there is a Barnes and Noble in the area with a copy in stock. Thanks a lot!

Thank you. this is extremely helpful. 

Do you REALLY believe white is better after 5.Qe2?

According to mr. Houdini, the critical variation goes:

In all honesty, I would hate being white here- and I don't really care about the engine's evaluation: white's position is very difficult to handle in practical play.
7.f3 might be a more sane choice, yet it's hard to believe white has much of anything after 7...d3 8.Qe3 Bc5 9.fg7 Rg8 10.Qh6 Qe7+.

I have the quality chess edition, and the translation is much better than what you quoted above

11.Qh5+ seems to force the exchange of queens, 11....Qf7, 12.Qxf7+ Kxf7, 13.fxe4 dxe4, 14.Bf4. I believe, Black has not enough for the piece.

10...Qe7+ 11.Qh5+ (counter-check) Qxe1 12.Qxe8 looks like a draw to me. Am I right? 

Soory, but 10....Qe7 is not a check: there is a knight on e4.

Oops, right... my bad. I forgot to insert the rather obvious moves 10...Nf6 11.Bxd3 and just now 11...Qe7+. White will be a pawn up, but with quite some issues regarding his development.

@ Scottrf: schlechter55 talks about the alternative variation, starting with 7.f3. The one in the diagram looks far too dangerous for white.

Yes, I really believe White is better after 5.Qe2.