Shakespeare wrote of beauty in Love’s Labor Lost, saying, “Beauty is bought by judgment of the eye…” Benjamin Franklin wrote in Poor Richard’s Almanack, “Beauty, like supreme dominion/Is but supported by opinion.”
According to one article I read you should never say that because "it’s a phrase with the power to silence. Once it’s been uttered, trying to keep up a dialogue about the merits or drawbacks of certain visual things can come across as shrill, anti-social or just plain rude."
Aron Nimzovich struggled with the beauty problem in his day. He wrote about it in one of the seldom looked at books in my library, Chess Praxis. The book is his companion to My System and is what he described as, "A textbook of practical chess, illustrated with 109 games from my struggles." In other words, it's a collection of his games.
The late chess book publisher Bob Long didn't think much of the book. He thought it has discouraged more chess players than any other book. But, if you read the reviews, some people loved it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as the saying goes.
Topics covered include centralization, restriction and blockading, over-protection and prophylaxis, isolated Pawns, hanging Pawns and the two Bishops
One of the chapters that caught my attention was "A victory parade of bizarre and ugly moves" ...those two games have to be worth looking at!
Nimzovich wrote that it was words like "bizarre and ugly that masters of the "pseudo-classical school" used to describe his moves. But then he asked, since his ideas had "been totally victorious, can anybody claim to understand how such a natural, beautiful and
profound line such as, for example, the Hanham Variation (of Philidor's Defense) was ever considered ugly?!" He then explained that "...the formalistic pseudo-classical way of looking at things is dead and you can't flog a dead horse."
He also addresses the Advance Variation of the French Defense (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5). Once upon a time the move was considered unmotivated and ugly because it didn't attack anything, but he insisted for 20 long years that it was neither a mistake nor ugly, but a good and sensible move.
His claim was that often the judgment of the pseudo-classical
school often saw neither the dynamism nor the intrinsic beauty in many of his recommended moves.
He summed things up by saying, "...in chess aesthetics must be firmly anchored in concrete thought. If you only judge by external
appearances, you can easily consider some moves ugly which are not so. Beauty in chess, in the final judgment, exists only in thought."
One game he examined under this heading is Nimzovich vs. Gilg from Kecskemet 1927. You can play over that games with notes by Raymond Keene HERE.
The other was his game against Alekhine played in the famous New York 1924 event; Nimzovich called it, "A battle of giants(!)" Take a gander...
Aron Nimzovich–Alexander Alekhine1–0A04New YorkNew York, NY USA26.02.1927Stockfish 15
Reti Opening 1.f3 f6 2.b3 d6 3.g3 e5 4.c4 Nimzovich
called this move bizarre and noted that he was not afraid of ...e4. He also
mate the statement that anyone else would have played 4.d3. 4.d3 e7 5.g2 0-0 6.0-0 c5 7.c4 c6 8.c3 is quite equal. Vucenovic,L (2118)-Cobic,V
(2378) Belgrade 2003 4.g2 e4 Also reasonable is 4...Nc6 5.g5 d5 6.d3 h6 7.h3 Black is slightly better. Vaglio Munoz,J (2235)-Orlov,G (2512)
Vancouver 2000 4...e4 Nimzovich was critical of this move claiming it
weakens the dark squares and it is at the bottom of all the difficulties which
will crop up for black. An exaggeration to say the least. The position is, in
fact, equal. 5.h4 Interesting. Nimzovich said that the g2-square was not
intended for the B at all. Instead, he intends to place his N in a bizarre
position...g2. Most players would prefer 5...Nd4 d5 This move, which would
have been strong if 5...Nd4 had been played, but here it leads to black's Q
being drawn out where it is attacked and so loses time, He claimed that there
was hardly anything better. He is probably correct, but even so, the move is
not as bad as he seems to indicate. 5...c6 would yield black a minimal
edge after, say... 6.d4 d5 7.a3 d6 6.cxd5 xd5 With the obvious threat
of ...e3 7.c3 c6 Nimzovich gave this a !, but without explanation. 7...
Qe6 is plausible though. 8.e3 Giving up for all time the possibility of a
fianchetto, but 8.Bg2 was not a good idea anyway. 8.g2 g5 9.b2 gxh4 10.xe4 xe4 11.xh8 h3 12.f3 g6 Black is marginally better. 8.b2
is a good alternative. e7 8...g5 9.g2 g7 10.e3 is good for white. 9.g2 e6 10.c2 g5 11.f5 xf5 12.xe4 is equal after 12...Qe6 8...a6 According to Nimzovich this move makes the defense harder, without it being
hopeless. 8...g4 was his recommendation, but white gets no more than
equality after 9.xg4 xg4 10.b5 9.b2 g4 Here 8...Bg4 was definitely
better. 10.e2 10.b1 was better. After bd7 11.g2 white stands quite
well. For example... e5 12.xe4 b5 13.xf6+ gxf6 White is a P up with a
solid position, but compared to black, he has little play so the chances are
about equal. 10...xe2 An interesting possibility was 10...h5. Now white
seizes the initiative. 11.xe2 bd7 12.c1 This attack on the
Q is what Nimzovich was referring to back on move 5. b6 13.0-0 Nimzovich
pointed out that 13.Qc2 would have maintained the pressure, but even the
weaker text should not allow black to shake off the pressure. He then made the
rather obscure comment: Once the opportunity for white-squared counterplay was
missed, it will not return. And for that reason he was extremely dubious about
Alekhine's attempted white-squared coup d'état in the following moves. His
not to move 15 makes it clear what he was talking about. d6 Oddly, this
move is a rathe rpoor one! 13...0-0-0 Is best. Rather too risky now would
be 13...g5 14.f3 b8 15.c2 exf3 16.xf3 d6 White still has the better
prospects for attack. 13...g5 14.f5 0-0-0 15.c2 e8 16.d4 and white
is calling the shots. 14.f3 Equally good, maybe even a bit better was 14.d3
e5 Extremely interesting! Alekhine wants to occupy the white squares (d3)
at any cost. But what is the logic of the game? Well, he takes a rather
skeptical attitude to it. Why and how should the white squares suddenly be
able to put the black squares in the shade!? After black's slip on move 8 his
black squares had become chronically weak; white had not made any mistakes
(because 13.0-0 was not one), so his opponent's violent, though ingenious,
attempt must somehow be wrong. - Nimzovich. After the text engines put white's
advantage at a little over a Pawn. That said, after 14...exf3 white woulkd be
only slightly better. 15.xe5 xe5 16.fxe4 d3 Mission accomplished, but
white still has the advantage. 17.c3 0-0-0 18.b1 xe4 According to
Nimzovich you cannot have a coup d'état (the sudden, violent overthrow of an
existing government by a small group) without some sort of sacrifice! 18...c5 would have been better. 19.d3 and white is better, but only slightly. 19.xd3 xd2 20.xd8+ xd8 Black's demonstration has achieved nothing and
now white is clearly superior. However, it must be noted (as will be seen in
upcoming notes) that white must be careful not to let his advantage slip. 21.f5+ 21.xh7 xf1 22.xf1 xe3 23.f5+ 23.xg7 d1+ wins 23...b8 24.f3 d1+ 25.g2 e5 26.f2 c5+ 27.g2 d2 followed by 28... g5 is good
for black. 21...b8 22.e1 22.xh7 is still bad. xe3+ 23.f2 e4
and black is winning. 22.xf7 lets his advantage slip. xe3+ 23.f2 e4 24.f3 d1+ 25.g2 xf2+ 26.xf2 xf2 27.xf2 d2 This position is
advantageous to black. 5 Shootouts ended in black wins. 22...xe3+ 23.f2 d3± 24.f4 24.xf7 is wrong because black gets the advantage after g5 25.e7 gxh4 24...c3 This got a ? from Nimzovich claiming that 24...Qc2
would have left black good chances of a draw. But how would things turn out,
asked? Would the coup d'état be correct? Or would the black or the white
squares be able to achieve dominance at wilk No, neither. Firstly, the draw
(after 24...Qc2) would not be certain and secondly it has not yet been proved
that white did not have a stronger line somewhere along the way (for example
on move 22), and thirdly, there are unfortunately many positions in which a
clearly demonstrable advantage is not enough for a win (victory by attrition
should be included!). - Nimzovich. Stockfish puts white's advantage at just a
bit over one Pawn and the difference between 24...Qc3 and 24...Qc2 is
inconsequential. 25.e3 c1+ There follows a bitter struggle; White wins,
but only after hours of hard effort. - Nimzovich 26.g2 c6+ 26...g5
is met by 27.d3 c6+ 28.f3 27.f3 g5 28.d3 xf3 29.xf3 c2+ 30.f2 f5 31.e2 c5 32.d3 d4 33.e5 f4 34.c4 According to
Spielmann, 34.g4 was a sate move because white had to set up a middlegame
attack. But when it finally gets to an endgame the protected passed Pawn not
ecome unpleasant. fxg3 35.d2 h8 36.xd8+ xd8 37.hxg3 d4 38.f8+ a7 39.f2 xf2+ 40.xf2 An instructive and difficult endgame has
been reached. Stockfish puts white's advantage at at 6.5 Ps; Komodo puts it at
a little over 1.5 Ps. Let's go with Stockfish. h5 The win is still hanging
by a thread, namely a study-like turn of events, see the note to black's 41
move.- Nimzovich 41.e3 The sealed move. c5 Nimzovich considered 41...b5
to be the main line, nut, in fact, black has a wide choice of moves, none of
which can be considered absolutely the best. 42.a4 b5 43.axb5! axb5 44.d2 b6 45.e4 h4 46.g4! h3 47.f3 b4 Nimzovich attached a ! to this
move, commenting, "A final ingenious flurry before it is all over." 48.xg5 c4 49.e4 cxb3 50.g5 White mates. b2 51.d2 c5 52.g6 h2 53.g2 d4 54.g7 d3 55.g8 It took Stockfish seconds to calculate a mate in 21 moves. xd2 56.a2 c2 57.c4+ Black resigned. Mate follows. 57.c4+ d2
Same fate, same number of moves if 57...Kd1 58.xb4+ c2 59.c4+ d1 60.b3+ c1 61.c3+ b1 62.xh2 a2 63.c4+ a1 64.a4+ b1 65.g2 c1 66.c4+ d1 67.b3+ c1 68.c3+ b1 69.f3 a2 70.c4+ a3 71.b5 b1 72.xb1 a4 73.e4 a5 74.d5 a4 75.c4 a3 76.a1# 1–0
No comments:
Post a Comment