Log In Sign Up

Aron Nimzowitsch: "How I became a Grandmaster", part 1

Spektrowski
Jul 28, 2013, 7:18 AM |
c8
This Soviet-published autobiographical book seems to be very rare (only 8500 copies were printed by theShakhmatniy Listok publishing
house). As far as I understand it, it has since fallen into public domain (publishing date is 1929, and Nimzowitsch died in 1935), so I have
decided to translate it for chess.com.

The book doesn't cover only purely chess matters. For instance, Nimzowitsch voices his views on child education in general. Aron
Nimzowitsch surely was a passionate man, and this manifests in his writing. Some thing may seem very outdated, but, well, 84 years have
passed since the publication.

Aron Nimzowitsch. How I became a Grandmaster

I dedicate my work to the

chess book's friend - S.O. Vainstein

Which point of view is this book written from?

Any chess writer taking his work seriously should each time he starts a new book (or rather when he devises a plan for one) ask himself
one question: "Can the book I'm going to write be of value to anyone studying it, and if it can, how exactly will it be valuable?" If the answer
is negative or "almost negative", then the writer must either abandon the topic altogether or at least change his plan radically.

Something similar happened to me. My initial plan was to tell a story of evolution of a certain chess master (in this case - of myself). And I
thought that it was important to observe this evolution from a "psychological" point of view, because psychological factors play a major role
in any personal development, and if you deliberately ignore them, it inevitably leads to bland, artificial narration. I also thought that the
thorough analysis of question such as "What subjective experience made me disillusioned with magical powers of powerful attacks?" or
"Which psychological moment gave the first impetus to my thoughts about the possibility of a system?", can be of some didactic value too.

However, I had my doubts and hesitations, and they ultimately led me to skepticism. You can't wear someone else's clothes without fitting
and some reshaping; the same thing can be said of someone else's experience. The process of fascination and disillusionment is also
individual and depends on one's personality.

Considering all this, I've decided to use the biographical data of "our" hero for utilitarian reasons, as an outside source of practical advice.
Thus, the only goal of this book is to search for objectively useful conclusions.

II

First steps. Not a deviation from the theme, but a practically important reasoning as to which age is best to start to learn the basics of chess

I was 8 years old when I started to learn chess. But, despite the fact that I've immediately started to progress, and this progressseemingly
(!?) continued afterwards, now I can confidently say that my chess development would have been more harmonious and painless if I
learned to play in my teenage years, not during childhood. The reader will soon see that my development up until 1906 (I was born in 1886)
was very one-sided: strong combinations at the expense of positional play. This could have been avoided if I was taught to play at a more
mature age.

Now, I would like to discuss a question that might be of interest both in general and in specific chess-learning sense. I would like to know,
what view is the basis of that allegedly reasonable demand that the child shouldn't waste even a minute of their time, constantly learning
new things? If this demand is based only on parents' concerns, why then, in the Western schools, there are still, say, Latin lessons, or why
in the bourgeois Europe almost the entire curriculum (even in the celebrated law schools!) consists of utterly useless ballast, which is
immediately thrown away right after the exams? And why - let's come back from law students to primary school kids - why boring and
routine tasks, such as studying of various "basics" and "elements", are considered very suitable for a child, while any adult would surely get
angry if they were forced to do such uninteresting things?

Allow me to tell you about a very characteristic feature that perhaps will shed some light on the subject. In the small bourgeois circles of
Central Europe, the dominating view is that women should never sit on their hands, and that's why they're always sewing or embroidering
something, even when on visit. It's very clear: this view manifests the lingering attitude towards women as slaves. In the Middle Ages,
women were no better than slaves. Doesn't our attitude towards children harbour similar feelings? At the very least, I think that we should
get rid of the view that a child should be always working, and various boring and tedious occupations is what befits them best!

If the process of studying of "basics" is boring, you should never impose them (particularly the basics of chess or music) upon achild: wait
until he grows up a bit. But if you do impose them upon your child, at least try to make them interesting, lively and attractive! The feeling of
dull boredom should remain unknown for children!

Later on, we will elaborate on the plan of teaching of basics, completely revolutionizing this part of chess education, and for now we'll stop
with this conclusion: the process of basic learning is based on fantasy, but still needs logic; so the ideal age for beginning of chess studies
should be teenage, not childhood!

III

I'm beginning to play combinations, but lose my grasp on the chess reality, i.e. the demands of positional play, more and more. - On how to
study the basics

My first acquaintance with chess basics happened in solemn circumstances. My family treated chess with much respect, because our
father, a chess amateur, told us many times about incredible beauty of the game. I've often asked him to show me what's the deal with
chess, but my father would always delay the answer, saying that "it's too early for such a little kid to think about chess". And then, on my 8th
birthday, he'd finally agreed. However, I remember my disappointment, because Rook, Bishop, Knight moves etc. looked devoid of any
combinational interest. I must note that even before my chess studies, I was very interested in combinations, because all efforts of my
mentors, and above all my father, were dedicated to developing the gift of combinations and the love towards the world of scholastic
conclusions and rhetorical stratagems that is well-known to anyone who'd ever studied the Talmud.

My disappointment, however, was soon replaced by a feeling of sharp curiosity: some three weeks after the first lesson, my father showed
me several combinations, including the smothered mate (White: Kh1, Qc4, Ne5; Black: Kh8, Qb2, Ra8, pawns g7 and h7). 1. Ne5-f7+
Kh8-g8 2. Nf7-h6+ Kg8-h8 3. Qc4-g8+ Ra8:g8 4. Nh6-f7#; three months after that, my father, as a reward for my school achievements,
showed me Anderssen's Immortal game, which I understood and immediately fell in love passionately with.

I'd often played with my father and quickly entered the combinational rut, but my strategic knowledge remained very scarce for a long time.
To characterize my father's teaching methods, I will point to one interesting detail. My father often told me that when I have a pair of pawns
in the center (for instance, at d4 and e4), I should be very wary with moving them further, to the 5th rank. And I'm completely sure that my
father, being a master-level player, knew of a purely positional danger of hasty advancement: such advancement often allows for a long-
term blockade of these pawns (for instance, White pawn are at e4 and d5, and a Black Knight on e5 blocks them). But despite the
usefulness of this purely positional argument, my father's motivation was more abstract: the pawns' position at e4 and d4 gives richer
possibilities, because you can play both e4-e5 and d4-d5.

And so I was losing my grasp on the harsh chess reality and got my head up in the clouds; it seemed to me that, well, I should have not
thought about having a good position, if there are possibilities for sudden combinations both in worse and better positions! I ultimately
reached this very wrong conclusion...

Before criticizing the teaching method that I described above, I'll show you some facts of my earlier chess career.

1. I played my first published game when I was eight and a half years old. It was printed inRigaer Tageblatt and showed my good
combinational skills.

2. Between 1894 and 1902, I nevertheless played quite rarely, usually against the first-category players; of course, I was always given the
odds. (On the pedagogical value of giving odds, see chapter 8).

3. Despite my horrible anti-positional style, I have eventually reached the level when my father only had to give me a Knight odds. This
happened in 1902. In that same year, I have gone abroad. A new period of my chess career began.

Before further narrative, let's have a brief summary. The reader, of course, has already understood one thing: there clearly were some
pedagogical mistakes during the early stages of my evolution - or else my playing style in 1902 wouldn't have been so unstable. What were
the mistakes?

Let's start from the beginning - from the very first lesson. "Moves were shown" to me - was that the right thing to do? Well, of course, my
dear reader would say, it's impossible to play chess without it. But the thing is, the reader makes a mistake: this method is utterly wrong.
You shouldn't take a boy who knows nothing about chess and immediately stun him with directions, like, the Rook moves like this, and the
Bishop like that, and the pawn just crawls forward at the pace of a snail, and the Knight jumps wildly in all directions, and the Queen moves
everywhere it wants, that the Rook moves straight and chops straight, and the pawn moves straight but chops askew, etc. All those
directions will only seem boring: the data received by the pupil is very formal, without any vividness, and the sheer volume of the
information makes it only more boring... No, you should teach the basics differently. Less "formal" ballast, more substance - that's the main
principle! Now we'll show how we think must the first 2-3 lessons go.

Lesson one. Familiarizing with the board. Border between White and Black. The center of the board.

Rook. The concepts of rank and file. Exercises and problems: White Rook (the pupil should always play White) is at e1, Black pawn is at
e6; in this position, the Rook attacks the pawn. Then you place the Rook at h1, the pawn remains at e6, and tell your pupil to attack it. Then
attack it from the flank. From the rear. Install some barricades: White Kf1, Rh1, pawns g2, h4, Black pawn d6. White attack the pawn by
playing Rh1-h3-d3. Then Black Rook enters the play, defending the pawn.

With this primitive basis, we build some very primitive combinations. For instance: White Ra1; Black Rh8, pawns c7, e5. How many
moves the White Rook needs to attack both pawns at once? Let's play: 1. Ra1-a5 Rh8-e8 2. Ra5-c5 Re8-e7. Then we continue with the
tendency to get to the 7th rank. Place a White Rook at g1, the Black King to h8, and tell that the King can capture one square askew. "Get
to the 7th rank with your Rook". 1. Rg1-g7 Kh8xg7. Now give your pupil a pawn at h5. "Protect the invasion square on the 7th rank." Play 1.
h5-h6 and then 2. Rg1-g7. In that manner, your pupil would easily sit with you for a couple of hours and quickly learn both necessary basics
and primitive combinations. Notice that the first lesson only studies the Rook, while the moves of pawns and the King are mentioned in
passing. Also notice that the game, i.e. vivid combination, immediately supplants, or rather overshadows, the formal stuff. Our Rook is going
to attack the pupil's pawn; if the pupil successfully defends it, they "win".

I hope that the reader understands our main idea: from the very beginning, we areplaying, struggling, fighting, but we should not tolerate
the dominance of formal data. And we tend to give much importance to the pupil's first impression of their first lesson. They should be
interested, they should feel that this is a game, in which the victory is possible and very satisfying!

Studying the Queen (Lesson 2), it'd be best to explain the concept of double attack, i.e. attacking two opposing pieces at once, even though
we have mentioned this already in Lesson 1. And here, you should also give some vivid examples and combinations like this one: White
Qh5; Black Kf8, Ra7. First we force the King to go to the same rank as the Rook: 1. Qh5-h8+, then 2. Qh8-h7+ and 3. Qh7xa7.
We vary these combinations, but the examples in this and all other cases should be very simple and illustrate some strategical truth, for
instance, about the "uprooting" power of a rank check. (The Black King in the aforementioned example had to leave its rank.)

Lesson 3 is dedicated to the pawn. The pawn attacks opposing pieces. The pawn defends its own piece (several examples). The pawn
defends (creates) a strong point.

Such a highly-strategical concept may seem inappropriate for many people. But practice has convinced us that thepunctual (here: based
on the concept of points) argumentation, which is completely indigestible for an old routiner chess player, is very easily understood by
novices! The small problems such as this: "White Rd3, Nf2, pawn e4; Black Ra8, pawn e6. Create a strong point" (the solution: 1. e4-e5,
creating a strong point at d6 which can then be occupied with Rd3-d6 or Nf2-e4-d6) were easily solved by some of my pupils even at the
second lesson. The punctual thinking comes easiest when it's introduced to the pupil at the earliest stages of learning.

While the punctual thinking can be mastered relatively effortlessly, the problem of the Knight can be very hard for novices. And this is
natural: instincts protest against the strange movements of this piece. Of course, carefully constructed examples can do much, and the
Knight, this cunning creation of human fantasy, will soon seem close and comprehensible. But the teacher should avoid overly complex
examples; various Rsselsprungs(German for "Knight moves") only exacerbate the "unfortunate" fact that the Knight is, in essence, an
"artificial" piece that bears little resemblance to reality. Good are exercises like this: White Ng2, Black Bd6 (only White move): how the
Knight can capture the Bishop? Or, White Ng2, Black Bd6, pawns b5, e6, f5 (the White Knight cannot capture pawns or be en prise); the
solution: Ng2-h4-g6-h8-f7xd6. If the pupil's personality is balanced, the following exercise can be useful for them: White Na1; Black Rb7,
Bb6, Bc6, pawns a5, d3, e3, e4; capture the c6 Bishop while adhering to the previous exercise's conditions; the solution: Na1-b3-c1-a2-
c3-b1-a3-c4-e5xc6. However, if the pupil has their head in the clouds, it's better to aviod such exercises.

We aren't going to describe a whole chess teaching course on this pages, so let's restrict ourselves with these two advices:

1) After the first 2-4 lessons, it's imperative for the teacher to determine the nature of their pupil (combinational or non-combinational).
Depending on that, the teaching methods should vary (we'll discuss it below).

2) You should pay much attention to the endgame from the very beginning. The ability to convert the material advantage in the ending
should be developed.
You can read the second part here

More from Spektrowski

Crazy Double King Hunt

The Most Dominant Players in History, post-Sinquefield

Blogs .

Spektrowski's Blog
Spektrowski
 Spektrowski
Alexey Spectre
Moscow

All Blogs
Top Bloggers

Desktop Mode | Help | Why Join? | Language | About | Jobs | Terms & Privacy | Developers | Chess.com 2017

Desktop Mode | Help | Why Join? | Language | About | Jobs | Terms & Privacy | Developers | Chess.com 2017
 Log In Sign Up

Aron Nimzowitsch: "How I became a Grandmaster", part 2

Spektrowski
Jul 28, 2013, 10:57 PM |
c0
You can read Part 1 here

IV

Of joys and sorrows of combination

The main mistake of my education was not, of course, that the first lessons weren't exactly up to the highest standards we've come to
expect from modern chess education. I had big reserves of vivid fantasy, so the "formalistic" approach of the the first lessons couldn't kill
my love towards chess. Significantly worse was that my father didn't pay all the necessary attention to the fact that I suffered from
hypertrophied combinational play. Such a hypertrophy should be taken seriously, and countermeasures should be implemented. Naturally,
those countermeasures should be ofpositional nature. But how can such positional influence be exercised? If you feed a novice with various
positional ideas, you'll get this result: the novice's fragile system will not be able to assimilate this wisdom. He may remember some
individual rules, but his positional feeling won't get any better - and only the presence of this feeling is the main symptom of the
"hypercombinator's" curing.

We can solve this problem in the following manner: remember that some mineral salts that are quite hard for the human organism to
assimilate can be easily assimilated if they are chemically tied to some other (organic) substances. We should do the same: find a way to
"chemically" connect the dry positional wisdom with the vivid and comprehensible teaching of "elements". I have dedicated a whole book to
these elements: the entire first part of My System (and a good chunk of the second part) is dedicated to them (the third part is dedicated to
the chemically clean positional game). I'm not intending to promote my work here, but I think that I do have the right to recommend it: the
chess tragedies I got through in my youth give me this right. I would like to show a combinator the ways to positional healing, and I think
that nobody would reproach me for that. Ah, those tragedies! Those unending combinational impulses that were invariably broken by the
dry positional play of a pragmatic and very often much less gifted player!..

But let's get back to the "elements". We assign this name to lines, 7th rank, passed pawn, discovered check, pinned piece, pawn chain etc.
In the first part of My System, I analyze them thoroughly and formulate a series of laws for their systematic use. I see the gist of this
pedagogic method in the very fact that these laws, unbeknownst to the pupil, contain a fair amount of positional wisdom. Let's look at an
example.

The positional rule that, in essence, the entire game can be reduced to the struggle of two principles: the tendency of pawn advancement
(expansiveness) and the tendency of blocking these pawns, isn't comprehensible for a beginner. On the other hand, if we present this rule
under the guise of some fascinating feature of one of the elements (the passed pawn), the effect will be very different. In this form, our rule
will be very simple, and its assimilation will help to develop the beginner's "blockade feeling" and, therefore, his positional feeling (later on,
this rule should, of course, be expanded). Our simple law of blocking passed pawns says, "You need to block the opponent's passed pawn".
That's why the studying of elements from My System may be beneficial for combinators.

But if the beginner is not of combinational type, he should learn to do combinations as quickly as possible. Tothese beginners, we
recommend P. Romanovsky's book Middlegame.

The period between 1902 and 1906. - The anguish for the "elements". - I discover... no, not America yet, but my "mortal enemy". - The first
serious encounter with him, and what he said during it

During my first year abroad, I've been playing chess extensively, to my father's clear annoyance; he demanded that I pass an additional
exam and enroll into university. In the beginning of 1903, I moved from Koenigsberg to Berlin, where I got acquainted with, and later
befriended, O.S. Bernstein and B.M. Blumenfeld. I've played a lot of games against Blumenfeld, also against Master von Scheve and D.G.
Baird, an American. They were much stronger players than me, but often got bad positions, because I sometimes would find a combination
nobody else would have thought about. Still, I've lost an overwhelming majority of these games, because without a combinational
opportunity, I was completely in the dark. I had no positional directives - for instance, it never occurred to me to weaken the dark (or light)
squares of my partner's position (with subsequent invasion), or prevent an opponent's breakthrough altogether, etc. I've been attacking a
lot, advanced my pawns and set combinational traps. I saw such traps with exceptional quickness and played them very confidently,
calculating 5-6 and even more moves ahead. I remember how in a game between Bardeleben and the student Nimzowitsch, it took me just
half a minute to calculate this spectacular combination:

(Note from translator: this article seems to be the first ever publication of the game in PGN form. At least I couldn't unearth any
Bardeleben/Nimzowitsch games with Google and chessgames.com searches).

In 1904, I took part in my first tournament (Haupt-tournament in Coburg) and won 6th prize. Inspired by this success, I went to Nuremberg
to "play some games with Tarrasch".

Let me tell you about a small chess-psychological episode which played a tremendous role in the history of my development. In one of my
games, I got a position with a pawn chain. The moves were along these lines: 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. Bxe7
Qxe7.

In this (or similar) position I was painfully struck by the thought that "I can play 7. Nf3 or I can play 7. f4", and this poignant question can only
be resolved if somebody discovers the laws or rules of pawn chain usage. In other words, it dawned on me that there were some strategical
elements, and they are searching for their ideologist and "lawmaker".
It had never occurred to me that I could become such an ideologist; indeed, this episode hadn't seemed significant or important to me at the
time. But in 1904, when the memories of this small and innocent story have already faded completely, another thing happened to me.
When I analyzed my game against Hilse (Coburg 1904) with a master (I'll tell his name later), I had to admit that my Rook maneuvers from
d-file to h-file and back weren't strategically necessary. I had a following position at my kingside: White Rh1, pawn g5; Black Rh8, pawn
g6. "You should have played Rh1-h6", the master said weightily. "Why", I protested, "my move Rh1-d1 wasn't bad too". This humble
statement was met with a cathegorical answer, "No, you should have played Rh6, because that's how you should play in such positions!" I
remember clearly how after those words that impressed me enormously, I've suddenly remembered the aforementioned episode with a
pawn chain, and I've made an irreversible decision: "There are laws and rules for both pawn chain and open line usage, and I should
discover them at any cost!"
A curious detail: the master who unknowingly gave me the needed impetus towards my chess strategy revolution that dethroned the
pseudoclassical style, was Tarrasch himself - the leader of the very movement that was antiquated by my research; in other words,
Tarrasch, with his weighty assertion, dug a hole for himself!
While I did sense at the time that Tarrasch was my opponent, I haven't seen my "mortal enemy" in him. But our relationship soured shortly
afterwards. A couple of months after the Rh6 episode, Tarrasch honoured me with a serious game (see Game 3 in the appendix). I've
played the opening quite strangely, as usual, both because I, as mentioned before, was a very weak positional player then, and because I
was consciously avoiding well-known variants and took the dominating chess doctrine with a pinch of salt. There was a lot of spectators
(even though our game was casual), because, knowing of my rich combinational fantasy and ignorantly identifying it with real playing
strength, the public expected, if not an even struggle (Tarrasch was at his peak then), but at least an interesting game.
After move 10, Tarrasch, his arms folded, suddenly uttered the phrase, "Never before in my life did I have such a won position at move 10
as in this game!" I, nevertheless, managed to draw the game. But I couldn't forgive Tarrasch for this public "humiliation" for a long time.
Soon this game was published, to Tarrasch's obvious displeasure; he thought that I have almost commited a crime by publishing it.
However, the game wasn't published by me, but rather by one von Parisch, against my will. But the fact was that we have become enemies
until 1907. I'll tell of a curious (and very characteristic for Tarrasch) episode of our reconciliation later. Right now I'd like to say that if I didn't
feel that enmity against Tarrasch, I wouldn't have really learned to play chess. To play stronger than Tarrasch - that was my desire during
1904-1906. And here's an advice for my readers: "If you wish to achieve results, choose a mortal enemy for yourself and try to dethrone
him".
Though I think it's necessary to add: while my hostility towards Tarrasch was caused by personal motives, it wasn't fueled by them (we
have never quarreled again since 1904), but rather by a deep igeological antagonism that I felt ever since we first met. I've always
considered Tarrasch mediocre; yes, he was a very strong player, but all his views, sympathies and antipathies, and unability to create new
thoughts - all that obviously proved the mediocrity of his personality. I've always loved genius, and I couldn't put up with the fact that the
leader of a dominating school was a mediocre man! That fact exasperated me!
Continues in part 3.

More from Spektrowski

Crazy Double King Hunt

The Most Dominant Players in History, post-Sinquefield

Blogs .

Spektrowski's Blog
Spektrowski
Alexey Spectre
Moscow

All Blogs
Top Bloggers

Desktop Mode | Help | Why Join? | Language | About | Jobs | Terms & Privacy | Developers | Chess.com 2017

Desktop Mode | Help | Why Join? | Language | About | Jobs | Terms & Privacy | Developers | Chess.com 2017
 Log In Sign Up

Aron Nimzowitsch: "How I became a Grandmaster", part 3

Spektrowski
Jul 29, 2013, 6:15 AM |
c1
Read part 1 here and part 2 here.

VI

Barmen debacle in August 1905 as the last and decisive stimulus: I finally get down to work! (1906)

In the beginning of 1905, I took part in a Vienna tournament (1st - Schlechter, 2nd - H. Wolf; I finished 6th out of 10, ahead of Albin,
Neumann and others). My playing there was impressive (see games 4 and 5 in the appendix). The same thing happened in my match
against Spielmann (+4-4=5), and I've been seriously thinking about winning a master's title very soon. However, I didn't take into
consideration the fact that my nerves have become shattered during my time abroad. Constant travelling between chess cafes, irregular
lifestyle and the total absence of a job - all this together had a detrimental influence on my nervous system, and I've started to play
impulsively (in the quick attacking style of my early youth) and very badly.

In August 1905, I played in the Barmen B-tournament and... failed miserably (+3-8=6). Back then, I thought of this debacle as a horrible
disaster, but now I'm sure that this misfortune saved me from an "almost completely hopeless situation". Without this "saving move" made
by my destiny, I would have soon faced a catastrophe.

Angered by mocking attitude of the critics in the Barmen tournament game book, I decided to quit my chess cafe life, heal my nerves, and
then work seriously on my playing.

I started my work in the first half of 1906 in Zurich, after I enrolled into the university (together with my Realschule certificate, which alone
was not enough, I've managed to get a commendation from one of my school teachers, where he said that I allegedly had some kind of
exceptional mathematic skills). After 2-3 months of hard work, I've achieved great progress. Let's study: 1) the psychological factors of this
progress; 2) the plan of my studies.

I think that the factors that made my work easier, besides my combinational skills, were my anger over the Barmen fiasco, my strong dislike
or Tarrasch and the "elemental anguish" deep inside my soul, which was described in the previous chapter.

A cursory analysis of my games in Barmen already showed me that my main weakness was bad opening repertoire (I didn't know how to
defend against 1. d4). A deeper analysis convinced me that I also knew nothing of the art of consolidating my position. This was obvious,
for instance, in my game against Forgacs (#7), where my attack at the flanks was completely anti-positional.

At this time, the Nuremberg 1906 tournament game book with annotations by Tarrasch was published. I bought one and gave it to the
binder, asking him to bind blank sheets between each two pages of the text. Then I started to analyze some games, mostly by Salwe,
Duras and Forgacs, and also M.I. Chigorin's games with Black pieces. Any findings were immediately written down on the blank sheets. I've
always "played" for one partner - either White or Black; first, I've been trying to find the best move myself, and only then looked at the actual
move played in game. So, I've been spending at least 6 hours on one game. That's how I studied consolidation: in one of Salwe's games,
he had a position very characteristic for the isolated Queen pawn system: White Nf3, pawn d4; Black Nd7, pawn e6 (both partners also
had a lot of other pieces). It occurred to me that White don't have to hurry with their Knight invasion on e5; several moves later, the Black
Knight moved away, trying to get to d5, and so White got the e5 square without any efforts on their part. This was immediately written down
on a blank page, mainly not for purely chess merits of this maneuver, but mostly for its psychological value: "The squares often free up on
their own!", "Never hurry" etc. And still, with some anxious curiosity I was watching the open files, 7th ranks and passed pawns. It was then
that I discovered the concept of "open file outpost" (see My System, part 1). But I had most joy in proving Tarrasch's commentaries wrong
and seeing their overall shallowness. I've learned much by that.

Curiously, I've never studied the games of masters of attacking style, such as Spielmann, Marshall or Leonhardt. Tarrasch's games also
seemed useless for my improvement.

My hard work gave the following results: 1) I have thoroughly analysed a defensive plan against 1. d4: 1... Nf6 and 2... d6 (following
Chigorin's steps). 2) I've developed a slow, cautious playing style. I was dumbfounded - how could I make sacrifices without a precise
calculation (alas, that's how I often play in Barmen!) 3) Another important achievement: the analysis of some games made me understand
the strategy of closed games, particularly the principles of pawn chains and centralization.
Now let's forget that we're speaking about me, and let's put any combinator with an undeveloped style into my place. Can we recommend
the method I used in 1906 to him for his improvement?

To answer this clearly, you need to be aware of one thing. In 1906, it was much harder to study chess than now, in the heyday of chess
pedagogics. Then, in 1906, I had to discover the positional principles all by myself, but now, I daresay largely because of my research (in
my works My System and Chess Praxis), the principles are already there. When someone studies chess, he clearly sees both the
"elements" and such concepts as centralization, blockade, prophylaxis etc.

And still, the method I used in 1906 can indeed be recommended. Let's imagine a young combinator who slowly, move by move, plays out
a Capablanca game. He reaches some position and is anxious to know which one of the attacking continuations was ultimately preferred;
then he looks at the next move and sees that Capa played a seemingly passive move. The combinator is stunned, perhaps even saddened,
but during the deeper analysis, he sees the hidden power of this move. Similar sensation is caused by a purely maneuvering move instead
of a direct attack.

I think that this "sensation", or "shock", has a tremendous pedagogic value. You may repeat about centralization ad nauseam, but the
combinator will still attack the flanks; but this "method of sensations", as we will call it hereinafter, might as well have a decisive influence on
his playing style. And so, along with studying My System, we offer this method of sensation as an antidote against the shallow
combinational style.

But there's more to it: the art of consolidation is directly dependent on nerves and character balance. The best consolidator of all times is
surely Capablanca (he elevated the art of prophylactic maneuvering to unbelievable heights). But Capa is a sportsman, a man without
nerves, with completely balanced psychics. So, here's another advice to our combinator: engage in sports, take long walks, breathe deeply,
try to stay quiet, try training by Mueller's system etc.

We are completely sure that the late Schlechter was right when he said that any combinator, with the right preparation, can became a first-
degree master. It's even more true in our times (Schlechter said that back in 1905, when chess pedagogics were in their infancy), because
now is the heyday of chess pedagogics. Combinational talent, plus good learning, plus psychological preparation (balanced psychics!) can't
help but give you master's strength.

On the other hand, the people who use combinations rarely can develop their combinational skills. However, you can live without
combinations. For instance, Johner, who didn't have much fantasy, still became a strong master.

VII

The fruits of my progress: I become a master. - About my reconciliation with Tarrasch and what happened next (1907-1914).

My first performance, in Munich (November 1906), already resulted in a great success: in a double round-robin tournament with masters
Spielmann, E. Cohn, Przepiorka (Elyashov and Kirschner also played) I took the 1st prize with 8.5/10, 2 points ahead of the 2nd place. My
playing was both solid (see the game with Cohn, #11) and rich with ideas (#12). I remember the beginning of my game against Elyashov (I
had Black):

I won rather quickly.

(Note from translator: the Elyashov-Nimzowitsch game is also absent from chessgames.com)

In the beginning of 1907, I took part in the masters' tournament in Ostend. Tarrasch played in the main tournament. We met frequently in
the cafe, but despite all my efforts, he refused to notice me, just ignoring my existence. And I continued my victorious streak: in the first two
weeks, I scored 7.5/9. And suddenly, a miracle happened: Tarrasch saw the light! I beat W. Cohn that day; then I came to the cafe, and
Tarrasch was already there. As soon as I came in, Tarrasch quickly ran up to me, smiling joyously and extending his hand: "At last, I met
you! I'm so glad to see your success! Can you show me some of your games? Ah, I'm so glad to see your success!!" So opportunistic: he
would fling mud onto the weak and act all complaisant before the strong! In this minute, I very clearly saw the mediocrity of Tarrasch's
nature.

The search for new ways that already began in Barmen and Coburg has found a more solid base after I improved my playing technique.
While the opening experiments I've tried in Barmen (like in the game Caro-Nimzowitsch below) ended with failures because of my lack of
technique, in the subsequent years there were no such failures.

In 1907, I've started to play 1. Nf3 d5 2. d3 as White, and if 2... Nc6, then 3. d4, with a stupid position of the Black Knight that hinders c7-
c5. In 1910, boldly challenging Tarrasch, I've started to favour closed systems, like Hanham variation etc.

The challenge was accepted, and since that time, Tarrasch started to mercilessly persecute me in the press. His favourite epithets towards
me were "hsslich", "bizarr" (ugly, strange, bizarre playing methods!) etc. Now I just laugh at that, but back then, it annoyed me greatly!

In 1912, I've almost won the San Sebastian Grandmaster tournament (due to my nervousness, I've lost a decisive game to Rubinstein and
had to share 2nd/3rd places with Spielmann). Tarrasch didn't miss a chance to gloat: "That would be scandalous if such an unaesthetic
playing would win him the 1st prize!"

I've continued to dig under Tarrasch's "solid" (?) position: the variant 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6!, the effort to rejuvenate an old variant 1. e4 e6 2.
d4 d5 3. e5 - this slowly, but surely weakened the position of the Nuremberg champion. By returning the 3. e5 variant into practice, I wanted
to carry the old concept of the center to the point of absurdity. In 1912, I've published my games against Salwe (1911) and Tarrasch (San
Sebastian 1912), trying to prove that the old Tarrasch's understanding of the center was outdated.

Fighting alone against the whole chess world, I've created a new understanding of the game, a new school, a new game.

In 1913, I've discovered a game plan that since became popular:1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 - without d7-d5; or 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3.
Nf3 b6 - also without d7-d5, and this completely destroyed Tarrasch's position as a universally recognized chess wisdom teacher.

VIII

About the triumph of my ideas and Grandmaster-level successes of 1923-1929. - Some parting advices

After the war, the correctness of my revolutionary chess views was recognized universally. The seemingly strange and bizarre variants
have gradually earned their rightful place.

On the other hand, Tarrasch's theory (about arithmetic center, quick development etc.) now only brings smiles on people's faces.
Concurrently with that, I've achieved even more practical successes that brought me the Grandmaster's title. Though I think that my
greatest success isn't among the 1st prizes in Marienbad 1925, London 1927 and Berlin 1928 (in two latter tournaments, I finished ahead of
Bogoljubov): it's 1st place in Dresden 1926, when I scored 8.5/9 and finished 1.5 points ahead of Alekhine! And I think that I played my very
best games in Dresden.

Almost anything is said, and now I could just go on to the games section, but I would like to say something more about the "elements" (i.e.
about the time of their final development).

I felt the "anguish" for them as early as 1902 (see chapter V), but still couldn't overcome the tremendous difficulties I faced for a long time.
Some parts, such as the thoughts about outpost and new understanding of the pawn chain, were created in 1911-1913.

But since any new system, besides intuition, also needs detailed development, I've completed my system during the years 1917-1923. The
author of the proverb discendo discimus ("By teaching, we learn") is completely right. This happened to me: since 1917, I've started giving
chess lessons, adhering strictly to the direction I've once chosen - the doctrine of elements. Thus I have amassed a lot of details about 7th
rank, passed pawn etc. After all that, I have finally stated my case in the 1925 book, My System.

Curiously, the detailed study of the elements helped me to gain much understanding in analyzing the complex positional problems, because
I found out that even the most complicated positional ideas are contained in the simplest elements, albeit on a much smaller scale.

Before parting, I'd like to give some more advices.

Take chess seriously. Understand that the solid study of one element is much better for improving your positional feeling than superficial
study of all elements. The analysis of an element is full of "positional value".

About the handicap games: the one who gives handicap corrupts their playing style, but a chess player who often plays in tournaments can
sometimes play with a handicap without much damage. It's bad for the receiver of a handicap to simplify the game at all costs. But playing
defensively and using simplifications just as one of the many methods of defense, they will surely achieve success.

"Casual" games are detrimental to the playing style; however, if they are alternating with serious games, they are acceptable.

Try memorizing as few variants as possible! Your positional feeling should free you from the slavery of "variants". So try and develop this
positional feeling in yourself! Play your games soundly, methodically.

Even more important is analysis! Analyze the opening that interests you with a fellow player (slightly stronger than you). But your analytical
work shouldn't be limited by openings - analyze also various typical positions, for instance, the positions where one partner has a Knight for
two pawns, or midgames where one partner has a flank attack, and the other has counterplay on the center lines. That's how Capablanca
works. He constantly analyzes various typical positions. Capa knows a lot of such positions (mainly from Queen and Rook endgames).

But we don't recommend to study many "types" at once. Simultaneous analysis of completely different positions will only bring chaos to
your thoughts, while thorough studying of one type will surely increase your level of positional knowledge.

If you, dear reader, would sit down and study - with maximum intensity possible for you - the positions, say, of the type "central line against
flank attacks", then I won't be surprised if this would also lead you to a better understanding of endgames. The goal of studying one typical
position is not only the better understanding of position of that type, but also the improvement of the positional feeling as a whole!

I believe in the radioactive power of this method: the entire chess organism wakes up and joyously waits for its rejuvenation. Not only the
positional feeling improves - the best and most characteristic improvement is when you stop chasing ghosts (for instance, dreaming of
daring mating attacks) and start to take the chess reality very seriously (as an illustration, see game #11).

So, we recommend: 1) to thoroughly play through a limited number of games; 2) to thoroughly study the elements in the My System book;
3) to thoroughly study a small number of typical positions with exhaustive analysis.

I conclude: you need to take it very seriously!

Concludes in part 4.

More from Spektrowski

Crazy Double King Hunt

The Most Dominant Players in History, post-Sinquefield

Blogs .

Spektrowski's Blog
Spektrowski
Alexey Spectre
Moscow

All Blogs
Top Bloggers
Desktop Mode | Help | Why Join? | Language | About | Jobs | Terms & Privacy | Developers | Chess.com 2017

Desktop Mode | Help | Why Join? | Language | About | Jobs | Terms & Privacy | Developers | Chess.com 2017
 Log In Sign Up

Aron Nimzowitsch: "How I became a Grandmaster", part 4

Spektrowski
Jul 30, 2013, 3:24 PM |
c9
Part 1, part 2, part 3

Games section

I wish to give the reader a more concrete idea of my chess evolution, so I offer you some games of mine, mostly played during the early
period of my chess career (1902-1907).

In these games, I still chase the "firebird" of mating attack. But after a thorough analysis, we can also see the rudiments of the positional
ideas that later revolutionized the history of chess, the rudiments of neo-romantism.

After the crisis of 1906, I don't chase after the mating attack so readily, and my positional tendencies that humbly hid in the far corner start
to grow... And the deliberate slowness in playing out my strategical operations immediately appears (see the game against E. Cohn, #11).

About the 1907-1929 period, I wrote two books: My System and Chess Praxis, and so I don't touch upon it too much here; I devoted my
attention to my early games, especially those that clearly manifest the shortcomings of my style in that time or those that illustrate the
evolution of my style.

Chasing the "firebird" of a mating attack

2 endgames of the 1902-1904 period

2
 II
The "historical battle"
(see chapter V)
3

III
Some small successes between a crushing fiasco (Vienna, February/March 1905; the match with Spielmann)
In the beginning of 1905, I took part in a Vienna mixed double round-robin tournament with Schlechter, Wolf, Forgacs, Vidmar, Perlis and
others. By the way, I drew both games against Wolf, won one game with Forgacs (sacrificing two pieces, no less) and utterly destroyed the
altmeister Albin.
From Vienna, I went straight to Munich, when a match against Spielmann was organized for me. I won the first game of this match...without
sacrificing anything (!), and this "remarkable" fact filled my heart with so much pride that I'd almost imagined myself as a fully fledged
positional master!
In fact, my positional playing was still quite weak.
I remember one thing from Vienna: in a tournament game against Perlis I managed to win a pawn, but... the position was completely devoid
of any combinational possibilities, and I didn't know what to do next. (The inability to realize the material advantage is very characteristic for
combinators!)
To save myself from this awkward situation, I offered a draw, and I was glad that Perlis accepted it.
The match against Spielmann ended in a draw (+4-4=5). Sadly, I don't have the games from this match. (Three of them were printed in
Bachmann's Schachjahrbuch in 1905.)
Here are two games from the Vienna tournament.
4
Black played the second part of the game in an anti-positional style (forgot to block the d6 pawn and weakened the base). White
ingeniously used their partner's mistakes.
5

I can't deny myself the pleasure to publish one endgame played during the tournament. If you compare it to the games #1 and #2, you'll find
that it's no less fantastic, but still more correct.
6
Notice how the triumphal advancement of the g-pawn gets blocked, in turn, by the Black pawn g6, White Rook g6, Black Queen g6, and
how the combination makes all those pieces finally disappear (sometimes by capturing each other)!
IV
The Barmen debacle
The study of the prime causes of this fiasco is the goal of this chapter.
Such a study, we think, might be useful both in biographical and pedagogical sense.
We have already discussed bad opening preparation as one of the main causes of this failure.1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6 always gave me a bad
game.
As White, I've been playing a bland variant of Scotch game.
We'll discuss other reasons later.
7

Forgacs played greatly. Considering my playing... I showed insufficient understanding of centralization and an inclination to play in a
desperate style. Let's write this down.
8

9
In this subtly played game, we'll look at the opening and the ending; considering the middlegame, despite all the combinations, we'll study
only the mistakes that were typical for a 19 years old Nimzowitsch.
So, the Barmen tournament ended with an utter fiasco for me, and a crushing victory against the 3rd-placed player was only a small
consolation; here's this game. The sweeping style of this game has some neo-romantic vignettes here and there.
10

V
After my 1906 reformation
(see chapter V)
In this game, I showed high class and great playing maturity.
12
The following game was played in the same tournament as the previous one, but the style was more "energetic". But only at a cursory
glance this can be similar to the style that caused my Barmen failure. A thorough analysis shows that the game was quite satisfactory (see,
for instance, the commentary to Black's 4th move).

VI
Some words about 1907-1929 period
In the annotation to the previous game, I stated that in 1906 I've already had a clear understanding of strategy of invasion a weak complex
of same-coloured squares. Now I want to elaborate a bit.
The true, scientifically justified understanding of this very complex strategy, of course, hadn't come to me yet. Even when I did invade the
light squares (like in the endgame against E. Cohn), my maneuvers were more of random and intuitive character.
At the end of 1906, the status quo was such: my newly-discovered stability and technique made it possible for me to boldly follow the
revolutionary way of the chess strategy that seemed so enticing to me even back in 1904 (see game #3). When I completed my theory of
elements and only then felt solid ground beneath my feet, I've started to build new understanding of: 1) theory of the center; 2) blockade; 3)
centralization; 4) redundant defense and other revolutionary principles.
All those ideas are clearly stated in my new book Chess Praxis; the evolution of my chess views in 1907-1929 is also described there. I
recommend this book to any readers who are interested in that, and here I'll publish just one game, the "Zugzwang Immortal" I've played in
1923.
Who could foresee in 1902 that a classical zugzwang game - a game full ofpatient waiting - would be played by me, who then was a
seemingly incurable combinator with a completely anti-positional style!
But let's repeat this: combinational talent plus hard fundamental work can make anything possible, and so here's this advice again:
"Combinators, try to gain understanding of the key positional motives and strategies, step by step! And those who don't like combinations,
try to like them, try to learn them, because only by joining combinational and positional play together, you'll achieve those successes, those
joys and thrills that fill chess experience!"

Fin.

More from Spektrowski

Crazy Double King Hunt

The Most Dominant Players in History, post-Sinquefield

Blogs .

Spektrowski's Blog
Spektrowski
Alexey Spectre
Moscow

All Blogs
Top Bloggers

Desktop Mode | Help | Why Join? | Language | About | Jobs | Terms & Privacy | Developers | Chess.com 2017

Desktop Mode | Help | Why Join? | Language | About | Jobs | Terms & Privacy | Developers | Chess.com 2017