Click here
to look for "chess" with the Google search engine.
|
(Navigation bar ******* © A.J. Goldsby, **************** Click HERE **************** Click HERE ****************
**************** Buy a book
|
This is mainly a text-based page ... but with plenty of diagrams. (15-20 game diagrams ... plus analysis.) *** Click HERE to see a thorough explanation of the symbols that I use when annotating a chess game. *** Click
HERE
to replay this game ... on a different web site.
(I only write this in response to some of the e-mails I have received. My advice
is ignore the language, or the bashing of any one individual ...
*********************
To me - a move that develops a
piece, controls the center (e4),
and prepares King-side castling;
[ After the moves:
(>/=) 5.Nc3 Nc6; 6.a3!
a6!; "~" {Diagram?}
[ See any good, modern opening
work, like ECO, MCO,
*** *** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** See the note after White's sixth move in that game. (Editor.) ]
5...Nc6;
(center?)
6.0-0 Bd6!?;
7.b3!?,
{See
the diagram ... just below here.}
********************* *********************
Nimzo - true to form - interprets this
opening ... and the correct follow-up
for White ...
[
Probably a little better than the
actual game was:
>/= 7.cxd5,
"+/=" ('!') {Diag?}
7...0-0;
(King-safety.)
Against a lesser player, the great
German player and teacher may
have played to isolate his
I should also point out that Tarrasch
did NOT believe that the IQP was as
weak as some of
[ Possibly an improvement was:
7...cxd4!?;
"~" ('!') {Diag?}
8.Bb2 b6!?;
(fianchetto?) {D?} (Tartakower warns that Black
should not give White the hanging Pawns, as they could be
[ Was >/= 8...cxd4!?; {Diagram?} more accurate? (I think so.) ]
****************************************************************
Now White should capture on d5,
but both players seem intent to
play very quietly here. 9.Nbd2!? Bb7;
10.Rc1!?,
Deep Junior likes the exchange on
the d5-square, as do several other
programs. [ Maybe better was: 10.a3, "~" {D?} to possible prevent ...Nb4. ]
Now the latest version of Hiarcs
recommends that Black swaps
Pawns on d4 ...
(The authors of the Mammoth Book
give this a dubious ... but that seems
more than a little
Reinfeld - among other annotators -
gave this move a whole question
mark in this position. ('?')
********************* *********************
The original tournament book
called this a ... "petite error."
[ Or maybe Nimzovich could have
tried the following line:
***********************************************
GM John Nunn - very erroneously -
claims that Ne5 represented
For example: (</=)
11.Ne5?! cxd4!; 12.Nxc6,
{Diagram?} *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
( The Mammoth Book instead
gives the following continuation:
( Nunn's original line is/was: </=
12...Ba3?!; 13.cxd5 Nxe5?;
13.Bb1 dxc4;
("=/+") {Diagram?} *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
(Returning to the main path of
our analysis here.)
11...exd5!?;
(hmmm) [ Was 11...Nxd5!?; playable? (And maybe a little better?) ]
12.Nh4!?,
(Maybe - '!')
Almost amusingly, this is the same
kind of maneuver that Tarrasch
himself used to win many
Nunn - who obviously got up on the
wrong side of the bed the day that he
tried to annotate
[ After years of thought, I now
believe that the best line is:
12...g6;
('!?')
{Box?} [ One author claimed that Black lost if he allowed Nf5.
But this
is complete nonsense. Viz:
"=" 12...Nb4!?;
13.Bb1 Ba6!?;
13.Nhf3 Rad8!?;
">>>" None-the-less, one writer wrote that Black missed a big chance to play ...Nb4 here.
[ After the moves of:
(</=)
13...Nb4!?; 14.Bb1 Ba6!?;
Fritz 8.0 - after nearly ten
minutes of 'thought' - awards
White
14.dxc5!;
(line opening)
{See the diagram - just below.} *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (COUNTERPOINT:
"White's position
is uncomfortable, and a satisfactory
continuation
********************* *********************
However!!!!! This same move is also
the reason that Black has hanging
Pawns ... [ Also possible was: 14.a3!? ]
14...bxc5;
15.Bb5!?, ('Maybe - ?!')
(I cannot help
myself ... I won't resist the impulse
to quote Arsenio Hall here: "Again - very subtly played." - The Book of the Tourney *********************
[ Better was:
>/= 15.Re1!,
"+/=" {Diagram?}
15...Ne4!;
(Pow!) '!' - Fred Reinfeld [ {also} Playable was: 15...a6!?; "~" with a roughly equal position. ]
16.Bxc6!?,
(dubious?)
Positionally this is a somewhat
questionable concept. But I never
felt that this move was so terrible ...
The authors of the 'Mammoth Book' ... {see
the bibliography at the end of this game}
********************* *********************
Probably Qe2 or Re1 was a little better here (than what was played in the actual game).
[ Or slightly better than the game
would be the continuation of:
16...Bxc6;
17.Qc2, (Is this move an error?
Some commentators even praised it!)
Nunn recommends the exchange
on the e4-square ... which also might
have prevented what
"White's position really looks good
and shows no {sign of} weaknesses."
- Georgi Marco *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
As natural as White's last move
looked ... it is quite possible that
this was ... "The losing move,"
[ After the following moves: ********************************************** After the following continuation:
</= 17.Nxe4?! dxe4; 18.Nd2 Bb5!;
19.Re1 Bc7!;
17...Nxd2!?;
(why?) (Maybe - '!' or '!!')
{See the diagram ... just below.}
********************* *********************
'!' - Fred Reinfeld. '!!' - The Book of the Tournament
However - - - if Black already saw
that he had a forced win here ...
[ The
'box' likes:
(>/=) 17...a5!;
"~" {Diagram?} ****************************************
Also good for Black is:
18.Nxd2,
{Box?}
{See the diagram - just below.}
********************* *********************
The position looks - at least
superficially - to be dry and even
somewhat drawish.
[ Grossly inferior would be:
18...d4!!;
(huh?)
{See the diagram ... just below.}
********************* *********************
However, after a fairly monotonous
and boring opening, Tarrasch comes
alive and begins to *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
"This preliminary pawn offer allows
the c6-Bishop to join in the fun" - [The Mammoth Book Of] [ Possible was: 18...Rfe8; "~" ("=/+") ]
19.exd4!?;
(Possibly - '?')
I am not sure what to think of
this move ... although White
could have been asleep here.
One author labeled this as ...
"The LOSING move." Of course,
he is probably the same *******
NOTE: Fritz 10's evaluations switch from a relatively small advantage for
Black ...
[ After the moves:
"=" 19.Nc4!? Bb8; ***
( MUCH better would have been: >/=
19...Bxh2+!!; 20.Kxh2 Qh4+; ***
20.exd4 cxd4;
"=" The position is equal, or even
slightly better for Black.
**************************************************************
White could try (instead):
(>/=)
RR19.e4!? Qh4?; {D?}
20.g3 Qh3; "~"
"/\" *************************************************************
Maybe
White should have tried:
19...Bxh2+!;
{See the diagram just
below here.}
'!' - GM John Nunn.
'!' - FM Graham Burgess. '!' - Reuben Fine.
********************* *********************
All very, very, very impressive ... and
this combination has been praised for
a very long time ...
[ "The first part of the classic
double Bishop sacrifice. It was made
famous by the game
But if you give this position to a
really strong program like Fritz 8.0,
and let it "cogitate" for
[ A
large
improvement would be:
>/=
19...Bxg2!!; ('!!!') 20.Kxg2[],
{Diag?} ( After the moves: 20.f4 Bxf1; 21.Nxf1 Bxf4; "-/+" White's game looks bleak. )
20...Qg5+!; 21.Kh1[],
{Diagram?} ( </= 21.Kf3?? Rfe8!; "-/+" )
21...Qf4!; 22.Nf3[],
{Diagram?} ******* ( a.) Of course NOT the insane: </= 22.f3 ???, 22...Qxh2#.
b.)
White also loses after:
</= 22.Kg2?! Qxh2+;
{Diagram?}
23.Kf3 Rfe8!;
{Diagram?} 24.Rh1, {Diagram?} Relatively best ... in the given situation.
(The box gives: 24.Qe4!?[], {Diag?} {sacrificing
the Queen!}
24...Qf4+; 25.Kg2 Re2;
{Diagram?} *******
22...Qxf3+; 23.Kg1 cxd4!;
24.Qc6, (hmmm)
{Diagram?}
( After the moves: </=
24.Bxd4?! Bxh2+!; {Diagram?} 25.Kxh2 Rxd4; ("-/+") {Diagram?} & Black has an easy win. ) 24...Bxh2+!; 25.Kxh2 Rd5!; "-/+" {See the diagram - - - just below here.}
***************************** {Analysis Diagram} *****************************
Now - in order to prevent the coming mate - White must give up the Queen here. ]
20.Kxh2 Qh4+;
21.Kg1 Bxg2!!;
{See the diagram just below.}
And although this double-Bishop sacrifice has been done
before ... this game
********************* *********************
A good place for a "look-see." (A diagram.) "A complementary sacrifice: The King's field is entirely bare." - GM Savielly Tartakower.
[ </= 21...Rfe8!?; ('?') 22.d5!, "+/-" ]
22.f3[],
{Box?}
{See the diagram - - - just below here.}
********************* *********************
"This feeble-looking move is all that is left for White." - Fred Reinfeld
[ After the following moves: ( But not: </= 24.Rg1?? Rh5#. )
24...Rh5+; 25.Qxh5 Qxh5+;
26.Kg3 Qg5+; 27.Kf3 Qxd2;
"/+"
22...Rfe8!; (Maybe,
probably - '!!') Both Nunn and Reinfeld give this move an exclam ('!') here. "A beautiful waiting move," says Tartakower and J. du Mont. *******
[ After the continuation: </= 22...Bh3!?; ('?!') 23.Ne4!, "~" {See the diagram - below.}
***************************** {Analysis Diagram} *****************************
Black might even have difficulty trying to find the win. ] *********************
23.Ne4!?,
(hmmm)
[ The alternative is: ( Or 26.Kg3 Rd5; "-/+" )
26...Rd5; 27.f4 Rh5;
("-/+") {Diagram?} *********************************************
</=
23.Qd3? Qg3!; - Fred
Reinfeld.
Black could lose his way with the
capture on f3, but Tarrasch has no
intention of letting His only choice is resignation - against a very bitter rival. "Despair," says Reinfeld here.
********************* *********************
The one positive aspect to this move
is that it opens the long diagonal for
White's latent Bishop.
[ </= 25.Rxf1?? Qh2+; 26.Ke3 Qxc2; "-/+" ]
25...f5!;
(Nice!)
{See the diagram - - - just below.}
********************* *********************
Black takes advantage of the fact
that the Black Bishop is immune, as
capturing would drop
Nunn claims that: "Black could have
won more easily by 25...Qg2+!; 26.Ke3, {best}
My only advice to Nunn is to check
his brand of tobacco! [ Or 25...Qg2+; 26.Ke3 f5; "-/+" ]
26.Qc3, ('!?') The computer finds a way to prevent mate ... but only at the cost of massive losses in material.
[ According to the box- it was
better to play the following
continuation:
( After: </= 27.Nxe8? Rxe8;
"-/+" {Diagram?}
27...Rxd5!, ("-/+")
{Diagram?}
26...Qg2+;
27.Ke3[], [ But not: </= 27.Ke1?? Qe2#. ]
27...Rxe4+!!; {See the diagram given ... just below.}
********************* *********************
"One murderous blow after
another." - Fred Reinfeld << Mass production in sacrifices! >> - GM Savielly Tartakower and James du Mont *******
28.fxe4 f4+!?;
(hmmm) {D?} Nunn goes on to state that:
[ The most efficient method of
execution for Black was: ***************************************************
Black could have also mated in
the same number of moves
29.Kxf4 Rf8+;
('!') 30.Ke5[],
(Ugh!) {See
the diagram given - just below.}
********************* *********************
White's King ... way out in the
middle of nowhere, on the fifth
rank no less ... [ Or </= 30.Ke3?! Qf2#. ]
The
rest needs no comment ...
(other than to point out that A.N.
could have lasted 30...Qh2+!;
31.Ke6!? Re8+; 32.Kd7,
[ Or White could (instead) play:
32.Kf6 Qh4#.
{Diag?}
32...Bb5#.
('!')
{See
the diagram - just below.}
********************* *********************
A
grand game by Tarrasch. While the
opening is more than a little droll, and
the conception << A justly famous game, in which
the tension in the centre is suddenly relieved by a diversion ************************************************************************** BIBLIOGRAPHY:I consulted MANY books while trying to annotate this game. I purposely did NOT use any books that contained material written by either Tarrasch or Nimzowitsch - - figuring neither player was capable of being totally frank or completely unbiased ... as concerns this game. I did consult the following books ... given roughly in the order that I pulled them out of my library: ************
# 1.) [The Mammoth Book Of]
"The World's
Greatest Chess Games,"
This is a fantastic book ... each game
is analyzed in great depth. Additionally
all the players are given with a brief
introduction, biography, and a brief
synopsis of their respective careers.
---> At the end of the game, you
are given useful insights and
lessons to be learned from each
of these royal battles. ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
# 2.) "Tarrasch's Best Games
of Chess," by Fred Reinfeld. (Dover)
# 3.) The Official Book of the
Tournament / St. Petersburg, 1914.
# 4.) "Chess Highlights of
The
20th Century,"
# 5.) "Aaron Nimzowitsch:
(1886 - 1935) A reappraisal," by GM Raymond
Keene.
# 6.) "Chess Strategy,"
by {IM} Edward Lasker.
(Originally printed in - 1915)
# 7.) "The World's Great
Chess Games," by GM Reuben Fine. #
8.) The one and only fantastic book - "500
Master Games of Chess,"
******************************************* Copyright (c) LM A.J. Goldsby I / Copyright (c) A.J.G; 1983 - 2004. Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby, 2005. All rights reserved.
0 - 1All games ... the HTML code (was initially) generated with the program, ChessBase 8.0. Most of the diagrams on this page were generated with the useful little program, Chess Captor 2.25. This is a game that I have worked on many times. I don't mean to be a cry-baby, but the simple truth is I have annotated this game more than once ... a lot more than 3-4 times. (Maybe around twenty?) I never finished the long version ... I thought I had saved one version - a fairly lengthy one - on a floppy disk, but when I loaded into the computer a few weeks ago- around July - it was corrupted and completely unreadable. (NUTS!!) Needless to say ... this did not make me a happy camper!! ******* Originally I was going to do a really quick analysis. But most of the pundits did SUCH a poor job of annotation ... I thought that it might be time someone at least tried to do a decent and objective job of analyzing this game. I spent about 4-6 weeks on the analysis phase for this game ... but I did not do it all at once. It was done in bits and pieces - spread out over a period of many weeks. I also re-discovered what I already knew ... that electronic databases often have the completely incorrect score for many of these classic games. When
this game is finished, it will represent the definitive job of analysis. {At
least on the Internet.} ******* I should also point out that I do not quibble with those people that say that the opening was not played very well. I should also remind you that this game was played in 1914. NO databases, NO computers, NO chess programs to analyze the game in, etc. This is also one of the prettiest combinations that Tarrasch ever played!
This
HTML page was originally {first} created in August 2004. ******* Copyright (c) LM A.J. Goldsby I Copyright © A.J. Goldsby, 2009. All rights reserved. (This game was previewed by 15-20 people.) |