Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc Path: info!dregis From: dregis@exeter.ac.uk (D.Regis) Subject: My System (was Re: Book Suggestions) Message-ID: Followup-To: rec.games.chess.analysis Organization: University of Exeter, UK. References: <01bbfba6$8f67ad60$381443cf@mcribb> <5bjrjg$ojb$1@news.pubnix.net> <32DFE283.2A41@sloc.net> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 14:02:47 GMT In article <32DFE283.2A41@sloc.net> Matt Pope writes: >krunch@nash.pubnix.net wrote: >> > >> >> Two very good books: >> >> My System by Aron Nimzowitsch ( a classic! and a must-have) >> > >I bought the book "My System" and I am not that enamored of it. It's >tough to follow, mainly because of the descriptive notation, which is a >real pain to work with. Also, some of the writing is awkward to read - I >think it loses something in the translation. I think the writing is wonderful! - it must be one of the most-quoted books around. Can anyone improve on his endgame advice? "Passed Pawns must be pushed!" "Every healthy, uncompromised majority must be able to yield a passed Pawn." "The passed Pawn is a criminal that must be kept under lock and key. Mild measures, such as police surveillance, are not sufficient." "With every step nearer the endgame the power of the King increases. You should throw him without fear for his safety where the battle is thickest." Anyhow, it's probably one of the best introductions to most modern strategical ideas - with some genuinely striking games. "Nimzovitch became then for me more or less the author of the only book which could help me get away from these Euwe books, which, I admit, are very good for the ordinary club player. But once you've reached a certain strength you get the impression that everything that Euwe writes is a lie." -- Bent LARSEN, in KEENE, Nimzowitsch: a reappraisal. But, as I said in another thread, I suggest reading it with a pinch or three of salt. I wonder if other readers would salt the same passages as myself? Off the top of my head, I'd mention: a. the lines 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 and 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 are strategically important and may be good practice, but the feeling these days is that they do give up the centre too soon. b. the whole idea of prophylaxis as a positive strategy I don't think has ever been universally accepted c. is it really a system? or a set of ideas you can use in games? I think my vote would be for the latter - I never really got the idea of a "system" at all d. generally, Nimzo fancied himself as a thinker and, perhaps in common with the feeling of the time, may have regarded strategy as somehow a higher calling than tactics. So in his book and his annotations he emphasises strategical elements, but usually there's a pretty busy tactical argument going on as well. Modern annotations are more inclined to emphasise the dynamic and tactical features of positions - partly because the modern game is more dynamic, but I think a modern GM would annotate Nimzo's games with a different emphasis. Anyhow, that's my tuppence-worth. Any more? -- Dave Regis &8^D* a dry, fruity red From info!dregis Wed Jan 22 11:18:24 GMT 1997 Article: 5214 of rec.games.chess.analysis