[Event "Copenhagen"]
[Site "Copenhagen"]
[Date "1923.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Saemisch, Fritz"]
[Black "Nimzowitsch, Aaron"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E06"]
[WhiteElo "2452"]
[BlackElo "2537"]
[Annotator ""]
[PlyCount "51"]
[EventDate "1923.??.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "10"]
[EventCountry "DEN"]
{
The Players Friedrich Sämisch (1896–1975) was a German bookbinder before
devoting himself to chess full-time. His most notable successes as a player
were his match victory over Richard Réti and his third place at the strong
Baden-Baden event in 1925, behind Alekhine and Rubinstein. In his later years
Sämisch proved himself to be an excellent lightning chess player, yet
paradoxically he was also terrible in time-trouble. He lost more games on time
than any of his contemporaries. In fact, in one tournament he lost all
thirteen games on time! Aron Nimzowitsch (1886-1935) was one of the strongest
players in the world during the 1920s and was also influential as a thinker
and writer. He was born in Riga and rose to prominence before the First World
War. The war interrupted his career for six years but when Nimzowitsch was
able to resume international competition he rapidly advanced into the world
elite. After a succession of tournament victories, his challenge for the World
Championship was accepted by Capablanca in 1926. However, Nimzowitsch was
unable to raise the necessary money and when the world title passed to
Alekhine in 1927, the new champion preferred to play a title match against
Bogoljubow (some have said that this was because Alekhine regarded Nimzowitsch
as the more dangerous opponent). After 1931 he could not maintain his level of
play and was no longer a realistic title contender. Nimzowitsch fell ill in
1934 and died from pneumonia some months later. Nimzowitsch was, along with
Réti, one of the most prominent members of the “Hypermodern” school of
chess, which introduced many new ideas into the game, especially in the area
of opening play (see the introduction to Game Réti - Bogoljubow, for more
details). Nimzowitsch’s influence on opening theory was especially profound
and a number of opening lines bear his name. The two most important are the
Nimzo-Indian Defence (1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4), and the French Defence
line 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4, which is called the Nimzowitsch Variation
in most non-English speaking countries. Both are still in everyday use.
Nimzowitsch wrote three important books of which two, My System (1925) and
Chess Praxis (1929) are regarded as classics of chess literature and are still
in print. The Game Nimzowitsch has a slight disadvantage from the opening, but
Sämisch releases the tension too early, allowing his opponent to equalize.
Then, as Sämisch’s play becomes planless, Nimzowitsch embarks on a
space-gaining operation on the kingside. At the critical moment, he offers a
very deep piece sacrifice. His return is not immediately obvious, but slowly
Sämisch realizes that despite having more pieces, he is fast running out of
moves... Emanuel Lasker hailed this as the “Immortal Zugzwang Game”.} 1. d4
Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 {The Queen's Indian Defence is the natural counterpart
to the Nimzo-Indian, continuing the fight for the e4-square.} 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2
Be7 6. Nc3 {Not surprisingly for a game played almost 100 years ago, in the
earliest days of the development of this opening, the move orders adopted by
both players are not entirely accurate, compared with contemporary
understanding.} O-O $5 {Not regarded as 100% accurate by theory nowadays.} 7.
O-O {And White, in his turn, settles for routine development, instead of
trying to profit from the move order.} d5 $6 {A slightly old-fashioned
treatment, which is rarely seen these days.} 8. Ne5 c6 $6 {Another sub-optimal
choice.} 9. cxd5 $6 {This exchange gives away the opening advantage.} cxd5 10.
Bf4 {LiveBook: 12 Games} a6 $1 11. Rc1 b5 12. Qb3 Nc6 $6 {The position is
equal.} 13. Nxc6 $6 Bxc6 14. h3 (14. Ne4 $11 dxe4 15. Rxc6) 14... Qd7 15. Kh2 (
15. Nb1 $15) 15... Nh5 16. Bd2 f5 ({Black should play} 16... b4 $17 17. Nb1 a5)
17. Qd1 $2 {White has already lost a lot of time, and stands very badly, but
Kasparov suggests that this is the final, decisive mistake.} (17. Nb1 $11 {
remains equal.}) 17... b4 $17 18. Nb1 Bb5 {Now we see just how 'bad' the
Stonewall bishop really is.} 19. Rg1 Bd6 20. e4 {The text is a last, desperate
attempt to change the course of events, by trying to exploit the tactical
possibilities against the 'loose' knight on h5. Unfortunately, it loses by
force, as Nimzowitsch had seen, but White does not really have anything better.
} (20. Bf3 $15 Nf6 21. Bf4) 20... fxe4 $1 $19 {The prelude to one of the most
famous finishes in chess.} 21. Qxh5 Rxf2 {Black already has two pawns for the
piece, and the white pieces still have almost no moves.} 22. Qg5 $2 {[#]} (22.
a3 $17) 22... Raf8 {Now 23...R8f3 is a threat, hence White's next.} 23. Kh1 $2
(23. Qh4) 23... R8f5 {Black is clearly winning.} 24. Qe3 Bd3 {Now he threatens
25...Re2.} 25. Rce1 {After} h6 $3 {One of the most well-known final positions
in chess history. White has no safe move, apart from} 26. b3 $146 {(met by any
waiting move), Lessons from this game: 1) When you have control of the centre,
it is usually a good policy to maintain or increase the tension, rather than
release it (as Sämisch did with 9. cxd5). 2) “A bad plan is better than no
plan at all.” 3) Zugzwang is normally seen more in the endgame rather than
the middlegame, but when it does arise in a complex position, it is an
extremely powerful weapon. Accuracy: White = 11%, Black = 49%.} 0-1
No comments:
Post a Comment