Nimzowitsch, Aaron2555–Tarrasch, Siegbert25970–1D05St Petersburg preliminary5St Petersburg28.04.1914
The Players 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. Siegbert Tarrasch (1862–1934) another all-time great, was one of
the best players in the world for two decades. Born in Breslau, he spent most
of his life in Nuremberg where he was a practising doctor of medicine.
Tarrasch had an unusually long chess career. He gained the German master title
in 1883 and in the period 1888–94 won a number of strong tournaments. In
1903 he challenged Lasker for the world title and terms were agreed, but the
match collapsed after Tarrasch asked for a postponement. Further tournament
successes followed, but it was not until 1908 that he finally played a World
Championship match against Lasker. However, by now Tarrasch was perhaps
slightly past his,prime, and he lost decisively (+3 =5 –8). Tarrasch
continued to play for another two decades and represented Germany in the 1927
London Olympiad. Like Nimzowitsch, Tarrasch had a considerable influence on
opening play and his name is attached to the Tarrasch Defence to the Queen’s
Gambit (1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5) and the Tarrasch Variation of the French
Defence (1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2). Tarrasch was a great chess teacher and had
the knack of reducing complex ideas to simple, easily remembered rules.
Unfortunately, he carried this too far and believed that chess could
ultimately be reduced to a set of formulae. The Hypermodern school were
particularly antagonistic to his dogmatic views; indeed, Tarrasch and
Nimzowitsch had a famous feud which made clashes between them real needle
contests. The lifetime score between these two players favoured Nimzowitsch
(+5 =5 –2) but the score is distorted by three Nimzowitsch wins during the
1920s when Tarrasch was already more than sixty years old. While all their
encounters are interesting, the honour of the greatest brilliancy belongs to
Tarrasch. The Game Nimzowitsch’s opening play is fairly insipid, but
Tarrasch makes no real attempt to refute it and soon a near-symmetrical
position is reached. We have already seen (Game, Rotlewi – Rubinstein) how
important tempi are in such positions and in this game Nimzowitsch squanders
time with an odd knight manoeuvre. Tarrasch gradually increases his central
control and finally the stage is set for a double bishop sacrifice. In
desperate trouble, Nimzowitsch tries to find counterplay against Tarrasch’s
king, but suffers the indignity of having his own king chased all the way up
the board. 1.d4 d5 2.f3 c5 3.c4 e6 4.e3 4.cxd5 exd5 5.c3 c6 6.g3
is stronger – Game No.64. 4...f6 5.d3 c6 6.0-0 d6 Also good, in the
spirit of the Queen's Gambit Accepted, was 6...dxc4 7.xc4 a6
(Janowski-Lasker, Berlin 4th matchgame 1910), but Tarrasch was happier playing
these positions as White. 7.b3 0-0 8.b2 b6 9.bd2 b7 10.c1 10.e5!? . 10...e7 11.cxd5 exd5 12.h4 g6 13.hf3 ad8 The typical 13...e4?! is premature in view of 14.dxc5! bxc5? 15.xe4 dxe4 16.xe4 xe4 17.xd6 and wins. 14.dxc5?! bxc5 15.b5?! Nimzowitsch handles this
classical variation passively and unsuccessfully, feeling much less confident
in it that in 'his' modernistic variations. There was nowhere for him to
employ his imagination, and it was possibly games such as this one that made
him think that in chess one should play differently... e4 16.xc6 xc6 17.c2 If 17.b4 there is b5 . 17...xd2 18.xd2 'Also after the
better 18.xd2 Black has fine attacking chances.' (Euwe) 18...d4!
A classic breakthrough. Of numerous similar instances, the first that come to
mind are the games Spassky-Tal (Montreal 1979), Korchnoi-Karpov (Merano 1st
matchgame 1981) and, with reversed colours, Kasparov-Portisch (Niksic 1983). 19.exd4? The decisive mistake. White should have reconciled himself to
an inferior game after 19.e4 fe8 or 19.fe1 fe8 20.c4 c7 . 19...xh2+!? Tarrasch is captivated by the famous game Lasker-Bauer (Game No.36):
of course, he could not resist the temptation to win in classical fashion,
with the sacrifice of both bishops! Although he could have achieved his
goal more quickly with 19...xg2! 20.xg2 20.dxc5 g5! 20...g5+
, when the white army is unable to come to the aid of its king: 21.h1 21.h3 h5+ 21.f3 fe8! (the strongest) 22.g1 f4+ 23.g2 e2 and wins
21...f4 22.g2 xh2+ 23.f3 fe8 24.e4 f4+ 25.g2 xe4 . 20.xh2 h4+ 21.g1 xg2! 22.f3! White would have lost easily after 22.xg2? g4+ 23.h1 d5! 24.xc5 h5+ 25.xh5 xh5+ 26.g2 g5+ 27.h2 xd2
. 22...fe8! But not 22...g3? because of 23.e4 . 23.e4
No better was 23.fe1 xe1+ 24.xe1 xe1+ 25.xg2 e2+ 26.g3 in view of d5! 27.f4 h5 and wins. 23.xg2? e2+ . 23...h1+ 24.f2 xf1 25.d5 A desperate attempt to create counter-threats along the a1-h8 diagonal.
The bishop cannot be taken: 25.xf1? h2+ and 26...Qxc2. 25...f5! 26.c3 Or 26.f6+ f7 27.xe8 xe8 winning. 26...g2+ 27.e3
But not 27.e1? e2# . 27...xe4+! A spectacular concluding
sacrifice. Here the Doctor no doubt remembered one of his immortal aphorisms:
'Chess, like love and music, has the ability to make man happy.' 28.fxe4 f4+!? Much more elegant than the 'crude' 28...g3+! 29.d2 f2+ 30.d1 e2# . 29.xf4 f8+ 30.e5 30.e3 f3# . 30...h2+ 31.e6 e8+ 32.d7 32.f6 f4# . 32...b5# . Lessons from this game: 1) In queen’s
pawn openings, c4 followed by Nc3 is usually more active than c4 followed by
Nbd2. 2) Bring every piece you can into your attack – invite everyone to the
party! 3) The double bishop sacrifice is a standard technique for demolishing
the opposing kingside. It usually requires at least a queen and a rook for
support. 0–1
No comments:
Post a Comment