Smashing game by Nimzo. Fits the post perfectly.
It's not the opening that wins games it is who (on the day) plays the better Chess.
This game was what? 6 or 7 moves of theory, though Nimzo was out of his
book by move 2!
I've got loads of games like this on my CV.
Simply put you could say White sacced the d-pawn to keep Black from castling
and then thanks to the open d-file White crashed through with a Morphy type sac on d7.
But it's not that simple. Here is the hard bit, though easy once you have seen the game.
White played 16.Bh6! preventing castling and saccing the d-pawn.
This is judgement. It can be taught. But the student must be willing to listen
and be prepared to play over 100's of games to get it honed up so you can trust it.
Games like this help.
Nimzo never saw the coming sac on d7 but knew he would get tremendous activity
for his pawn v the uncastled King. He also knew defending such positions is an
art form that most players do not have.
Indeed Black stumbled right away.
Black has won his pawn and he too is in love with an idea concerning the
loose h6 Bishop. Qh5 or Ng4.
Black played 12...a6
A typical case of grabbing material and wondering about the consequences when
they appear on the board. This is to stop Nb5 and perhaps if Black had seen he
would be resorting to moves of this ilk when grabbing the pawn he may have
resisted temptation.
12...Qb6 (That's deep. Pawn up - get the Queens off.) Would have been the
move I did not want to see. Then I have to make decisions I don't want to make.
(A typical case of saccing the d-pawn and then wondering about the consequences
when they appear on the board.....I do it all the time.) 🙂
13.Qxb6 and Nb5 or keep the Queens on....? Decisions....
Finally here. NImzo mentions this line in his note after move 10.
We know what's coming. Black took the Knight, his best was Rxg7 and going
the exchange down...15...Rxg7 16.Nc7+ Kf8 17.Nxa8.....
...though this is not quite a pawn for the exhange type of position and that
fianchettoed Rook is awful. But it was better that getting mated.
The part about feeling the vibe from an OTB opponent is of course lost on here.
This comes with playing and it is nigh impossible to explain.
Experienced OTB players know what he talking about but nailing down what is
going on is, as I said, beyond me.
Suffice to say there is a lot more going on in players minds than chess when two
players meet OTB. That is why you get GM's beating GM's.
When you think about it there should be no way a Grandmaster, any Grandmaster,
should lose a game of chess. (but don't ask me to explain how.)
Nimzo some of the notes are out of sinc.
You have not left a space before the { and after the }.
I have tidied it up so the notes now appear in the right order and added just
one small comment.
Just in case some lad has not seen it. Morphy v The Allies Paris 1858.
GP- Qb6 is a pesky idea, I like it. I think I would be inclined to avoid the exchange but I would have to put some thought into the best way to do so.
If there is one chess game a person should have memorized it is the Opera game. If a 1600 did nothing else but "know" cold 100 or so of the best games of all time I suspect they could be a formidable class player (and no longer 1600).
Originally posted by PacifiqueWe can just look at Capablanca's games as a kid, but it's almost beside the point, as opening prep becomes more important as you go higher. Capablanca merely shows that the idea is true even when taken to its logical extreme.
I think we discussed about level below 2000. Games from nimzo5 & Erekose are good illustration. Thanks.
Of course, I would consider it a reasonable argument to say that he is the exception to the rule, but I doubt it. The real problem is that it is hard for we mortals to tell whether a GM has played a major innovation due to superlative opening prep, or whether he had no idea what the line was, and just made something up at the board.
I should also mention that I myself contradict the idea a bit, as most of my career upsets against stronger players have come due to superior knowledge of the openings I play. Even then, though, the wins or draws came from knowledge of the typical tactics or plans that arise, as opposed to a concrete set of moves that I used.
I think this is one of those issues where we can discuss and learn what is "generally true", but there will be enough exceptions to dispense with words like "absolutely" or "always", as there will be many worthy counterexamples.
Originally posted by nimzo5IM Rashid Ziatdinov's GM-Ram book is built upon this exact premise.
GP- Qb6 is a pesky idea, I like it. I think I would be inclined to avoid the exchange but I would have to put some thought into the best way to do so.
If there is one chess game a person should have memorized it is the Opera game. If a 1600 did nothing else but "know" cold 100 or so of the best games of all time I suspect they could be a formidable class player (and no longer 1600).
Great article Mr. Pawn.
What a sad sod I am. I didn't read your note until too late - I was screaming at black "PLAY Q to QN3 !!!" it seemed clear to me. That is what happens when you hate these open positions. I always like to keep the keel below the waves.
Its interesting how the games you've gone over contribute to your own particular style (what you know is what you know!). Kasparov, Karpov, Tartakower are some of my favorites and as such I tend not to do anything "Morphy-like".
Great stuff gentlemen! Keep it coming!
Q
Originally posted by Paul LeggettOpening preparation in the beginning of 20th century can`t be compared with opening preparation today.
We can just look at Capablanca's games as a kid, but it's almost beside the point, as opening prep becomes more important as you go higher. Capablanca merely shows that the idea is true even when taken to its logical extreme.
Of course, I would consider it a reasonable argument to say that he is the exception to the rule, but I doubt it. The real p ...[text shortened]... with words like "absolutely" or "always", as there will be many worthy counterexamples.
"Its interesting how the games you've gone over contribute to your own
particular style (what you know is what you know!). "
I very rarely dip my toe into areas I'm not sure of. See what often happens
when I'm yakking about endings! A couple of months back I was claiming a book
draw was a win (- or the reverse.).
Re: Nimzo's game.
"Queens off...Queens off....Gotta get the Queens off." is one of the songs I hum
to myself when my opponent seeks peace in a trade of Queens. I'm always on
the look out for them.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I appreciate nimzo5 decision because it was practical and coldly rational.
"Its interesting how the games you've gone over contribute to your own
particular style (what you know is what you know!). "
I very rarely dip my toe into areas I'm not sure of. See what often happens
when I'm yakking about endings! A couple of months back I was claiming a book
draw was a win (- or the reverse.).
Re: Nimzo's game.
"Queens of ...[text shortened]... hen my opponent seeks peace in a trade of Queens. I'm always on
the look out for them.
When I was younger and dreamed of a brilliant sacrificial attack, I avoided queen exchanges like the plague.
What changed my mind was a GM Joe Gallagher game in the King's Indian Classical Exchange variation where white goes for the early queen trade. Gallagher's attitude is that he will torture and grind the "wannabe drawmeisters" right into the ending and win.
He made me realize that I needed to change my attitude. I now avoid acting on preconceived notions, and simply try to decide what is best for the position.
Of course, I think we all know that is what we should do, but it is easier said than done sometimes!
Originally posted by nimzo5Just did a search of Megabase 2012 for Players between 1800 and 2000 (ie non master)
While there is an objective advantage to White, non master players tend to score about 50/50 as the quality of their play is more a factor than the advantage of the first move.
With 1e4 White scored 53.9% (52320 games)
With 1d4 White scored 53.0% (28573 games)
Therefore, there is and advantage even at non master level.! I suppose it comes down to the first move in a mating race.
Originally posted by kingshill2True - even with very strong chess engines white wins more against black
Just did a search of Megabase 2012 for Players between 1800 and 2000 (ie non master)
With 1e4 White scored 53.9% (52320 games)
With 1d4 White scored 53.0% (28573 games)
Therefore, there is and advantage even at non master level.! I suppose it comes down to the first move in a mating race.
Hi Kingshill.
I think I would expect that type of result.
Games on the DB are between players from tournaments and between 1800-2000
they have had some experience.
On RHP the 1400 DB. (I have 1,218,218 games) The bland scores are:
White wins = 52% Black wins =48%
I like the idea of breaking into 1.e4 and 1.d4
1.e4 White wins 51% Black wins 49%
1.d4 White wins 52% Black wins 48%
Now taking it further. 1.e4 meeting the standard 1...e5
White wins 54% Black wins 46%
1.d5 d5 White wins 55% 45%
(that's a good stat to look at. At the lower levels. I'm thinking 1.d4 is not better
than 1.e4 but it does look like it's safer.)
However if we give Black just a smattering of book knowledge then things
start to change.
1.e4 e6
The French not your normal beginners move there is a reason behind it.
Mainly to stop quick attacks on f7 but armed with just an idea of how to play
the French. White wins 49% Black wins 51%
1.e4 c6
The Caro Khan. Again not a beginners move (unless they stumble upon it.).
It actually breaks quite a few beginners rules of thumb.
White wins 48% Black wins 52%
1.e4 c5
The Sicilian again not a normal reaction, Stats indicate some opening knowledge.
White wins 42% Black 47%
Which can indicate that White players (at this level) do not know what to do
v a Sicilian (no book knowledge) Black does appear to have an inkling of what is happening.
Going on these figures (of course all stats lie) there is a pattern emerging here
that suggests that if Black does not play 1...e5 the most popular reply to 1.e4
(328,890 games), the 'no theory at all' choice and Black has some kind of book knowledge,
indicated by 1...e6 1...c6 and 1...c5 then White is not scoring as well against these
openings. Infact it is the reverse.
One could argue that the Black players on the 1400 DP tend to develop their Black rep first.