 |
This is a game someone showed me when I first started going to the Pensacola Chess Club. And to be completely truthful, although I was enthralled by the play, I probably did really understand it.
I got to know this game many years later when I was a teen-ager. I had gotten "My System," (and several other books on Nimzovich, the local library at that time had a collection of Nimzovich's best games); and I began to study. At one time I had this entire game committed to memory. This is a great game, and surely one of my all-time personal favorites.
The opinions are VASTLY divided over the merits of play and the game itself. For my part, I will simply present the game, and allow you to make up your own mind what you think about the game.
This is a game I have tinkered with for quite a number of years. I was a spectator every year at the "U.S. Open" (COMPUTER!) Championships in Mobile, AL. The first or second year, the organizers asked me to put together a collection of 10-25 games that the computers may not do well with. (That they might have trouble analyzing.) This was one of THE VERY FIRST GAMES I chose. As a result, every time a new chess machine came out, or a new program emerged, this was one of the very first games that I tested the machine or program against.
I have been actively involved in analyzing this game for over 10 years now. (Maybe closer to 15.) I found one notebook that dates back to the late 80's and some tests I did on this game with a Fidelity Chess Challenger. (A dedicated micro-processor.) My notes reflect a series if tests I did just about every time a new box or program came out. (Every 2-3 years.)
This is certainly one of the classics of chess. If nothing else, the number of times great players and writers have chosen to annotate this game is a testimony to that fact. (See the bibliography at the end of the game.)
Click
HERE
to see an explanation of some of the more common symbols that I use
while annotating a game.
***********
I encourage all the students of the game of chess to take the MAGICAL MYSTERY
TOUR.
(The tour of possible
transpositions after Black's third move.) Only by doing so can the student
of the game really learn
the opening and some of the possibilities that it contains!
This is mostly a text-based page, with only one diagram. Therefore, you will probably need a chess board.
REPLAY, but on a different website.
****************************************************************************************************
One of the most interesting and
(very) controversial games ever
played.
It is also poorly understood.
Emanuel Lasker himself dubbed this
game:
"The IMMORTAL
ZUGZWANG GAME." (!!!!)
(Nimzovich was to continually
remind us of this! hee-hee)
{This game is from a tourney,
where ... I believe ...
Nimzo
completed dominated the
rest of the field.}
This game has been reprinted an
almost countless number of times.
---> A lot of great annotators have taken
a whack at it.
Nimzovich gives himself nothing
but exclams and double exclams
for his
conduct in this game.
(In an article he wrote for a
Danish Chess magazine.)
GM Robert Huebner gives out a
(large) BUNCH of question marks,
especially to White's side of the play.
... ... ... So who is right?
(I am sure the truth lays somewhere
in the middle of these two very
different
and opposing extremes.)
***
[
GM A. Soltis also basically trashes
this historic encounter, giving it the
{dubious}
honor of being:
"One of the most OVER-RATED
GAMES ... of all time!!!" ]
***
The ratings are simply estimates, expressed in 2001 terms.
[ Sonas says Samisch was # 25
in the world at the time and gives
him a 2439 rating.
Nimzo is # 4 in
the world and gets a 2647 rating.
I think you would add AT LEAST
50 points to these ratings to get
to 2003 terms.
By comparison: ---> On the current FIDE web
page; the # 4 Player in the whole
world today, (May, 2003); is
GM Peter Leko ... and his rating is
... 2746. (!!!!)
And the # 25 (ranked)
Player in the world today is GM
Zoltan Almasi; and his rating
is a
whopping 2676!) ]
****************************************************************************************************
1.d4 Nf6; 2.c4 e6;
Nimzovich pioneered this whole
method of development ...
AND the move order.
(Black can play a Nimzo-Indian,
a Queen's Indian Defence,
or
transpose back to a Queen's
Gambit Declined.)
3.Nf3,
A simple (and good) developing
move. My only question would
be:
"Was Samisch already
avoiding Nimzo's ...Bb4?"
(In the 1980's, I attended several
U.S. Championships. Most Masters
who played in this select event
would not even play 3.Nc3 ... it was
considered foolish to allow the
Nimzo-Indian.)
[ More normal ... especially for that
period of time, was: 3.Nc3,
{Diagram?}
Perhaps Samisch intentionally
played this way as now 3...Bb4;
leads to the
Nimzo-Indian, an
opening that Nimzovich invented,
patented, and pioneered. ]
3...b6;
Nimzo plays the Queen's Indian
Defence. To be honest, this could
[also!!] be named:
"The Nimzowitsch Defense."
(With ...b6.)
(He was one of the 'God-Fathers'
of the Hyper-Modern movement
and he both
pioneered and mapped
out the Q.I.D.)
From the period of the late 1970's,
to the early 1990's, this opening
dominated
Master-level play.
"The Queen's Indian has become
the most popular defense in
chess today."
-
GM
Andrew Soltis.
(Almost 80% of top-level GM
encounters, according to one
book I have on the Q.I.D.)
From the book: "The Queen's Indian, ...
A Quantitative Analysis of
The {Q.I.D.} Opening." (1982)
By David Levy, Kevin O'Connoll,
and David Watt.
(ISBN: 0-907352-13-8)
**********
--->
[ By playing: 3...c5!?;
{Diagram?}
Many consider this risky today.
4.d5, {Diagram?}
Probably the strongest move.
(If White plays: 4.Nc3 cxd4; 5.Nxd4, "+/=" {Diagram?}
we have transposed into an
English ... where Black could
play a Hedgehog, or play might
yet transpose (again) to a
Sicilian
type of Pawn Structure.)
4...exd5; 5.cxd5 d6; 6.Nc3 g6;
{Diagram?}
and Black is playing a sharp
opening known as:
"The Modern Benoni."
*******
Of course by playing: 3...d5; 4.Nc3 c6!?;
{Diagram?}
Shoring up the center.
( Maybe also playable is: 4...c5!?, {Diagram?}
if Black is trying to 'take advantage'
of the first player's
{imprecise?}
move order.
(This is the opening known as: "The Semi-Tarrasch," I believe.) )
5.Bg5!?, {Diagram?}
The most aggressive.
( By playing the moves: 5.e3 Nbd7; 6.Bd3 dxc4;
7.Bxc4, {Diagram?}
we reach, I believe, a Meran
Variation.
(A sub-variant of
the Slav/Semi-Slav.) )
5...Nbd7; {Diagram?}
Probably the most solid approach
for Black here, even if this is to be
considered by some to be somewhat
of an unambitious approach for
the
second player here.
( By playing the moves: 5...dxc4!?; 6.e4 b5;
7.e5 h6; 8.Bh4 g5;
9.Nxg5 hxg5; 10.Bxg5 Nbd7; 11.exf6, "<=>" {Diagram?}
we enter one of the sharpest and
most hotly debated lines in master
QP praxis:
"The Botvinnik Variation."
(This is a SHARP GAMBIT that has
been played by masters for over
50 years. My database shows
literally hundreds of significant GM
games. It also has been 'refuted' ... and rehabilitated a number of
times!) )
6.e3 Be7; 7.Bd3 0-0;
8.0-0, {Diagram?}
we arrive back at the
main line of the Queen's Gambit
Declined.
(A venerable opening that has
been played at the Master level
for close to (or over) 100 years!!)
By taking this little
tour, I hope you
can get a VERY SMALL glimpse
at just
how many possibilities there
are ... and how many transpositions
are possible ...
in the opening
phase of the game! ]
**********
4.g3,
This "counter-fianchetto" was
patented by Rubinstein and also
championed
by (none other than) J.R. Capablanca.
It was also the main line for something like 50-75 years.
[ The main line today is "The Petrosian System" ...
which is reached after: 4.a3!? Bb7;
5.Nc3 d5!?; {Diagram?}
with complex play.
See MCO-14; and the section
on the Queen's Indian.
(Pages # 555-573, mainly pg. 558,
and columns one through six.) ]
4...Bb7;
This is logical, but Nimzovich
himself was the first to show
that ...Ba6!
is also a very good
move here.
[ Also ... VERY playable is: 4...Ba6;
{Diagram?}
as hundreds of Master level
games have shown. ]
Now both sides develop in a
more-or-less normal fashion.
5.Bg2 Be7; 6.Nc3 0-0; 7.0-0 d5!?;
Black goes for the center ... I like this, and considering
the result,
I would be tempted
to award this move an exclam.
Today, the modern line is ...Ne4.
[ More often played in 'modern' tournaments is: 7...Ne4!?; with good play for Black.
A good - and fairly recent -
example of this line would be:
GM F. Vallejo Pons
(2629) -
GM Ruslan Ponomariov (2734);
XX Super-GM Tournament.
Linares, Spain. (ESP) 2003.
Ponomariov is the current FIDE
World Champion.
(Black won a
long and difficult game.) ]
8.Ne5 c6!?;
(Maybe - '!') {Diagram?}
This leads to a rather boxed-in
type of pawn structure.
(But
Nimzovich has a very clear
strategy already worked out.)
Some annotators have criticized
this move, but without really proving
the second player had anything that
was demonstrably better.
[ Or 8...Nbd7!?;
9.Qa4, "+/=" {Diagram?}
and White has a slight advantage. ]
9.cxd5!?,
This looks like a logical move.
But it prematurely releases the
tension, {"Too easy-going," says
Reinfeld.};
and Huebner (and Fine)
awards it a question mark.
(GM John Emms is more restrained,
and only awards it a dubious {?!}
appellation.)
(The change in the computer's evaluation is very slight.)
'?' - GM Reuben Fine. '?!' - GM Johm Emms. '?' - GM Andrew Soltis.
[ >/= 9.e4!, "+/=" - GM J. Emms.
Maybe 9.Bg5!?, "=" {Diagram?}
with unclear play. ]
The next few moves look
fairly normal.
9...cxd5;
Probably the best re-capture.
[ Was 9...Nxd5!?; playable? (This is not really clear.)
After the further moves: 10.e4 Nxc3; 11.bxc3
c5; "~" {Diagram?}
Black's position is OK, but I
much prefer to be White here,
as he has
more space and
better control of the center.
(Most programs consider this position to be close to equal.) ]
10.Bf4!? a6!?;
Nimzo himself awards this an
exclam ... and I am inclined to
agree.
In a seemingly sterile
position, Black's Q-side
expansion appears to be trivial.
'!' - GM A. Nimzovich
(The great player himself points out
that among the many ideas for Black
here
is ...b7-b5; and then attempting
to anchor a Knight on that square.)
'!' - Fred Reinfeld. '!' - GM Raymond Keene. '!!' - Yakov Damsky.
After White's next move ... nearly
all the good chess programs -
from Fritz to
ChessMaster9000
to Crafty ... give White a modest
but solid advantage.
11.Rc1 b5; 12.Qb3!?,
This looks OK, (at least on the
surface); ... ... ...
but shows a certain
lack of feel for the position.
(A ham-handedness?)
("White is obviously lost in this
hyper-modern maneuvering."
- GM R. Fine.)
[ Fritz still shows a very small advantage for White here. ]
Several authors have greatly
criticized this move, yet already
White has difficulty finding the
best plan.
'?' - GM R. Fine.
(He calls the move, Qb3:
"A positional error."
But I am
not sure I can go along with that. .........
The 'refutation' is not easily
demonstrated.)
[ Maybe better is: 12.a3!?,
"~" {Diagram?}
with a playable position.
GM R. Fine recommends that
White play the continuation of:
12.Nd3!? Nc6;
13.e3 Rc8; 14.a3, "=" {Diagram?}
with the idea of b2-b4, followed
by anchoring the Knight on c5.
(This was probably superior to
Samisch's idea of Qb3.)
Another alternative was: 12.Qd3 Nbd7; 13.Nxd7 Nxd7;
14.Nb1 Rc8;
15.Rxc8 Bxc8;
16.Rc1, "+/=" {Diagram?}
and White has a small, but
fairly solid edge. ]
12...Nc6!?;
(Maybe - '!') {Diagram?}
Nimzovich praises this move ... I like it as well precisely because
it is a little daring. (non-routine)
"The ghost! With noiseless steps
he presses on towards QB5."
- GM Aaron Nimzovich. (QB5 = the c4-square.)
'!' - GM Aaron Nimzowitsch. '!' - Iakov Damsky.
[ Black gets little from: 12...Nfd7;
13.Nxd7 Qxd7;
14.e4! dxe4;
15.Nxe4, "=" {Diagram?}
and the position offers almost
no chance of advantage
for
the second player. ]
13.Nxc6,
Seemingly the correct move.
(And the first choice of virtually ALL the computer programs!)
'?' - GM Andy Soltis.
"White stops ... Na5-c4; at the
cost of trading away his best
minor piece."
- GM Andrew Soltis.
I fail to understand this. Soltis
also does NOT point out the move
that is better ...
or the correct
move that White should have
played. (So do we guess?)
{In fact, several hours of computer-assisted analysis failed to help
me deduce
what White was
supposed to have played in this
particular position.}
I am 100% sure that GM Soltis
would be unable to reasonably
substantiate
this question mark.
(Or his comments here.)
*******
[ Emms offers the following line:
13.Nxd5!? Nxd5!?;
Some authors pretend this is
the only move for Black,
but
I know better.
( >/= 13...Nxd4!; 14.Nxe7+ Qxe7; 15.Qe3 Bxg2; 16.Kxg2,
16...Qb7+; 17.f3 Nf5; 18.Qf2, "=" {Diagram?} )
14.Nxc6 Bxc6; 15.Rxc6 Nxf4; 16.gxf4 Qxd4;
At first, Black looks OK ...
Now GM J. Emms gives the
(simply horribly) tame: 17.e3,
"=" (?)
with about a level position.
( MUCH better was: >/= 17.Rxe6!, "+/=" {Diagram?}
and White is clearly on top.
(Maybe - "+/") )
***
The continuation of: 13.e3 Nxe5; 14.Bxe5
Ng4; "~"
offers White very little, and
may even be better for Black!
(Not 14...Nd7?!; 15.Bc7!, "+/=")
***
Maybe playable was the line: 13.Rfd1 Rc8; 14.a3
Nh5!, "="
but Black is certainly OK.
***
Utterly pointless was: 13.Nf3?! Rc8; 14.a3
Na5!; "~" {Diagram?}
and Black has good play. ]
*******
13...Bxc6; 14.h3!?,
I think White wants to play
g4 and save his dark-squared
Bishop,
but he had no time for
this type of maneuver.
Several writers and commentators
condemn this move, one even
gives it ...
TWO question marks. (!)
Needless to say, this is more
than a little unjustified. The machine's
appraisal
of this position has really
not been affected, the worst one
could award to this
move is the
dubious appellation. ('?!')
'?' - GM John Nunn, GM J. Emms,
and FM Graham Burgess.
(The Mammoth Book.)
'?' - GM Andrew Soltis. "Clueless play." - Soltis.
[ >/= 14.Rc2,
"~" (Maybe - "+/=") {Diagram?}
is probably better than the
actual game.
Maybe White should play: >/= 14.Bg5!?,
"~" {Diagram?}
as suggested by the authors
of the Mammoth Book. ]
14...Qd7!;
Reinfeld points out that this
prepares ...b4; and prevents
White's Knight
from going to
the a4-square.
'!' - Fred Reinfeld.
'!' - GM Lajos Portisch.
(The Hungarian GM annotated this
contest as one of several games that
influenced him early in his career.)
[ Maybe 14...b4!?; 15.Na4, "~" or 14...Qb6!?; 15.Rfd1 Nh5; "=" ]
15.Kh2!?,
I am not sure what this move
really accomplishes here - it
is a safe bet to say
that White
is basically drifting, and playing
without a plan.
(While definitely
not a great move, it hardly
deserves the full question mark that
several annotators have used
to adorn this rather lackluster
try by White.)
(One author provides the rather humorous comment:)
"Another move from the same
stock as (14) h3."
- GM John Emms.
(From the Mammoth Book.)
[ White could try: >/=
15.a3!?, "=" (!) {Diagram?}
or 15.g4!?,
{Diagram?} or 15.Be5,
"~" {Diagram?}
or even 15.Bg5!?,
"~" {Diagram?}
all of which were probably a
little better than the
actual
game continuation. ]
15...Nh5!;
Not just Bishop hunting.
{Black prepares ...f5; as well
as several other ideas.}
Nimzovich realizes that White
is very restricted and that he
can play on
BOTH sides of
the board in this position.
'!' - Fred Reinfeld. '!' - Iakov Damsky.
[ Fritz 8.0 thinks for 5 minutes and
recommends that Black play:
15...b4; "=/+"
{Diagram?} with a small advantage. ]
16.Bd2,
Samisch felt this was forced.
[ </= 16.Be3?! b4!; {Diagram?} with the idea of ...Ba4; "/+" ]
16...f5!?;
(Probably - '!') (Maybe - '!!')
{Diagram?}
[Nimzo himself gave this move an
exclam, when annotating this game
for a Danish magazine.]
Black gains space, (puts a clamp
on); stops White from playing e4,
and
prepares a possible K-side
attack.
(The drawbacks is that his
light-squared Bishop is a
little more hemmed
in and the
e5-square is left unprotected.)
This is a bold move by Nimzovich,
knowing how much he hated
creating
weaknesses such as the
one on e5. Also notice how Black
has hemmed
in his own QB.
(Normally he was highly critical of
masters who played in this fashion.)
'!' - GM Aaron Nimzovich. '!' - Fred Reinfeld. '!' - Iakov Damsky.
[ Good for Black was: 16...Rfc8;
"=" {Diagram?}
which should be sufficient for
at least a draw.
(Nimzovich wanted more from this game!!) ]
17.Qd1,
(Maybe - '?!', possibly - '?')
This is virtually a confession
that Qb3 was a waste of time.
Few annotators notice that this
move costs White a great deal
of time -
and also cause a
sudden (downward) jump in the
evaluation of White's position.
(By most computer programs.)
Now Nimzovich releases a virtual torrent of very brilliant moves.
[ Maybe better was: 17.a3!? ]
17...b4!;
GM R. Fine praises this and
awards it an exclam. Black's
expansion on the
Q-side looks
almost futile here, until you
realize the White QN will have
to
retreat to b1 ... and stay there
a VERY long time!!!
'!' - GM Reuben Fine. '!' - GM Aaron Nimzovich. '!' - Iakov Damsky.
[ A safer move for Black would have been: 17...Nf6!?, "=" and Black is OK. ]
18.Nb1 Bb5!;
(Maybe - '!!')
Black re-deploys his QB to
a new diagonal.
'!' - Fred Reinfeld.
[ Black could have played: 18...Rac8!?;
"~" {Diagram?}
but after possible exchanges
on the c-file, a draw could be
the result. ]
19.Rg1,
{See the diagram just below.}
The Rook slinks off the diagonal
threatened by Black's Bishop.
(Damsky says you can see White's
position shrinking.)
While this move does not {majorly}
affect the computer's assessment
of the position, the Rook on g1
does NOT impress anyone here ...
and makes a rather sorry sight!!
[ Maybe 19.a3!?, "~" ]
|
(The game position after White's 19th move)
19...Bd6!!,
(Maybe - '!!!/!!!!') {A
brilliant concept.}
This is the move that must be
praised to the skies. It is extremely
deep.
(Most computers in the
year 2001 did not even begin to
realize what this move did.)
This is the point in the game where
Nimzovich must have decided to
sacrifice his Knight.
(Although he
has probably been playing with
the idea for a few moves.)
"At first glance, this appears to be a blunder, but ..." - GM A. Soltis.
***
'!!' - Fred Reinfeld.
'!' - GM John Nunn, GM J. Emms,
and FM Graham Burgess.
(The Mammoth Book.)
'!' - GM Andrew Soltis.
[ In the year 2000, many of the
best available programs pick
move: 19...Rac8;
{Diagram?}
but this is uninspiring.
If Black wanted to chicken out,
he could always play: 19...Nf6;
{D?}
and offer a draw! ]
20.e4!,
"+/="
Win or lose, White MUST play
this.
(The computers now {2002}
think that WHITE is better here!)
If White does not try this, then
Black can prepare ideas like ...e5
at his leisure,
and with no
fear of reprisal. (!!!!!)
I also should point out that ...
WHITE IS WINNING A PIECE HERE,
and the refutation is FAR from
completely obvious!
Fine questions this and calls
it, "A miscalculation."
'?' - GM Reuben Fine.
I - with the help of several Internet
students - ran many tests and
subjected this game
to a VERY
thorough analysis. BOTH Fritz 8.0,
AND ChessMaster 9000 choose
e4 in this position, and then award
White at least a small plus. (2003.)
[ 20.Qe1!? a5; "~" ]
"White has just played 20.e2-e4?,
discovering an attack on the h5-Knight.
However, Nimzovich has
a fine reply ready." - FM Graham Burgess.
20...fxe4!; (Maybe - '!!')
Many authors praise this move
and some even award a double
exclam here.
But I will offer
this statement here:
"By modern standards, this is
not a terribly impressive sack.
Black gets two buttons and a TON
of play for the Knight."
(From an article I wrote for a
southern {state} chess magazine.)
Now let me clarify here, I am not
saying that this is not a brilliant
concept.
I am simply disputing the
need for this move to receive two
exclams.
(One is sufficient.)
'!!' - GM Reuben Fine.
'!' - GM Aaron Nimzovich.
'!' - Fred Reinfeld.
'!' - GM Raymond Keene.
'!' - GM John Nunn, GM J. Emms,
and FM Graham Burgess.
(The Mammoth Book.)
'!' - Iakov Damsky.
'!' - FM Graham Burgess.
[ Simply horrible is: 20...Nf6; ('??')
21.e5, '±' {Diagram?}
and White is now probably
winning this game!! ]
Extensive computer testing that
I did in the year 2001, shows that
most programs
consider Black
to be lost here. (After White's next move.)
21.Qxh5 Rxf2;
"Black has two pawns for the
piece, and can make further
inroads into White's badly
organized position via the f-file." - FM Graham Burgess.
[ 21...Rf5!? ]
22.Qg5!?,
(Maybe - '?!')
This could be one of the
critical decisions of the whole
game.
And I am not sure if it
was the best one.
[ >/= 22.a3!, "~" ]
22...Raf8;
('!')
It is correct to double on the
file here.
[ Interesting was: 22...Bd3!? ]
23.Kh1!?,
(Maybe - '?!/?')
Probably not the most accurate
move.
But Samisch was already
running short of time.
Samisch saw that Black threatened
..h6; and if White retreated his Queen
to e3, then Black could play ...Bd3;
followed by ...Re2; or ...R/f8-f3;
winning
White's Queen.
[ White's only chance was to
play the move: >/= 23.Rge1,
{Diagram?}
trying to vacate g1 for the
White Queen. ]
23...R8f5;
The correct plan, first Black
drives back the White Queen.
'!' - Fred Reinfeld.
[ 23...Be7!? ]
24.Qe3 Bd3!,
Black could already win material
with ...Re2; but this move is far
more classy.
'!' - Fred Reinfeld.
"24...Re2; 25.Qb3, Ba4; also wins,
but the text move embodies a more
beautiful idea." - FM G. Burgess.
'!' - GM Andy Soltis.
[ = 24...Re2; 25.Qb3 Ba4; "-/+" ]
25.Rce1
h6!!; {And Black is
winning ... "-/+" ... here?} White Resigns.
(Just about EVERY annotator
gives this move {...h6} a DOUBLE EXCLAM!)
White is completely tied up.
(zugzwang - sooner or later White
will run out of moves)
Death ... by strangulation.
A VERY unique and brilliant concept.
Fine like the move ...h6 so much,
that he awards it THREE exclams!
(He calls it the most remarkable
winning move on record.)
This is a very elegant game by the
great Nimzovich. He played with a
great deal of inspiration and also
with a fiery originality.
(I know of no other game like
this one.)
"This extraordinarily striking piece
set-up, by which Black achieved
zugzwang,
places this game on a
par with the 'Immortal Game.'
(cf. Anderssen - Kieseritzky)." - NM Iakov
Damsky.
R.N. Coles called it, "One of the
most extraordinary denouements
on record to
any combination
that was ever played."
(The authors of the Mammoth book praise Nimzovich's play as well.)
In an article Nimzovich wrote, he
referred to this as:
"One of the first truly great games
of the hyper-modern era!!"
(He went on to talk about how
this was the correct way to play
chess,
and how banal K-side attacks
would become a thing of the past.)
****************************************************************************************************
"White's play in this game was awful."
"A pleasant little game in which
Black found two fair moves, (10 & 19)
and one excellent one. (...h6!!)
But that's all." - GM Andy Soltis.
(He ranks this game as the second
most over-rated game of all time!)
***
GM R. Huebner dismissed this game
- with contempt - calling it,
"A piece of junk." (And a waste of time to try and
bother to analyze it.)
****************************************************************************************************
Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby I. Copyright (c) A.J.G; 2003.
*******
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
I have seen this game many times in print!! (More times than I
can count.)
I consulted literally dozens of books
and magazines to try and annotate
this game. I also was fortunate to have a few Internet students who copied
material and sent it to me.
I could not possibly list every single
time I saw this game in print ... ... ...
that would be an impossibility.
So I will simply let you know were the
best sources of information, or might have
had the greatest influence on my job of annotating that I did here.
First, I annotated this game from
memory - pulling just the raw score from an
on-line database. Then I looked at the following books, given in the order
that
I consulted them. These were the principal sources for my annotation job
here.
(This game was in all of the following {listed} books.)
# 1.) "The
World's Great Chess
Games," by GM Reuben Fine.
(c) 1951, 1976. Dover Books.
# 2.) "My
System," by A. Nimzovich.
(c) 1947, David McKay Books.
# 3.) "Hyper-Modern
Chess,"
('As developed in the GAMES
Of its greatest exponent, AARON NIMZOVICH.')
Compiled from numerous sources;
- - - annotated and edited by
Fred Reinfeld.
(c) 1948, Dover Books.
# 4.) "Aaron
Nimzowitsch:
A Reappraisal," by GM Raymond Keene.
(c) 1974, G. Bell/D. McKay Books.
# 5.) [The Mammoth Book Of:]
"The World's Greatest Chess Games."
By GM/Dr.
John Nunn, GM John Emms,
and FM Graham Burgess.
(c) 1998, Carroll & Graf Books.
# 6.) "Chess
Brilliancy" ('250 Games From The Masters.')
by NM Yakov
Damsky. (c) 2002, Everyman (chess) Books.
# 7.) "Chess
Highlights Of The
Twentieth (20th) Century," (1923)
by FM Graham Burgess.
(c) 1999, Gambit Publications.
# 8.) "The
100 Best."
('The 100 Best Chess Games Of
The 20th Century, Ranked.')
By GM Andrew Soltis.
(c) 2000, McFarland Books.
# 9.)
There is a fairly detailed analysis
of this game in my CB database with
contributions from dozens of authors,
including (former) World Champion,
Tigran Petrosian.
(I have culled references about this
game from a variety of different
sources
and added them to this
version of the game, including from
about two dozen
different magazines.)
***
(Code Initially) Generated with ChessBase 8.0
This
is yet ANOTHER game that the opinions seem to be SHARPLY divided upon!
(I seem to be working on a lot of these lately!! --- March-thru-June, 2003.)
The
late, great GM Reuben Fine called this an immortal and divine masterpiece. He
awarded THREE exclams
to Black's final move, and called it the most beautiful
and unique (winning) move in all of chess praxis.
Several other players said it was a great and/or a fantastic game. Reinfeld and Chernev hail it as one of the great games of all of Hyper-Modern chess. One Danish annotator called it: "THE Game of the new era. All other master chess games that follow will be measured by this one!"
The one and only (great) Emanuel Lasker, dubbed this game: "The Immortal Zugzwang Game."
This is certainly an interesting game. Dozens of books/game collections have included this contest in their anthologies. (See the Mammoth Book of the '100 Best Chess Games.') Several Soviet Masters said this game influenced them more than any other they had ever studied.
Time marches on. GM Huebner would annotate this game ... and seem to give every (other) move a question mark, or a double-question mark. He dismissed it as a very poor game.
Other
annotators have followed suit, to me, it seems that they were just imitating
Huebner.
(At least a few.)
GM Andrew Soltis provided the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. In his book, "The 100 Best," calling this: "ONE OF THE MOST OVER-RATED GAMES OF ALL TIME." (When I asked him his personal opinion of this game, he told me it was very poor. He said it looked like a second-rate Master playing Black, and a Class 'C' player - having a bad day! - playing White!!!)
So ... a classic game of chess literature ... or a piece of worthless junk? YOU be the judge!!!!!!!!!!
May, 2007: I continue to get e-mail about this game. (click) HERE to see an interesting blog on this game.
There is no site map, but you
can click here.
(Click here
{or here}
to return to my Home Page for this site.)
Click here
to go to - or return to - my page of:
ANNOTATED GAMES, (Angel-Fire 2) Page #3.
Click here
to go to my (main) "Recent GM Games" page.
(LOTS!! ... of great annotated games.)
Click here to go to, (or return to) my "Best Games Page" on my Geo-cities web site.
(Or use the "back" button on your web browser.)
(To contact me concerning this analysis, click here.)
This page was first posted: Friday; March 28th, 2003. This page was last updated on 06/05/07 .
Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby, 1975 - 2006.
Copyright (©) A.J. Goldsby, 2007. All rights reserved.
|
|
(Note: This page/game was previewed between 25-30 times.)
