I read Nimzowitsch in my formative chess years and had a big leap in development which I credited to this. So I also went through a Nimzomania phase with my repetoire of the Nimzo-Larsen, Nimzowitsch defence and the Nimzo-Indian . However I don't know if my development would have improved anyway.

I was also playing the KIA, and in the long French line, the idea of overprotecting the e5 pawn made sense. In a simplistic way, I just saw it that if the attackers = defenders, then none of the defenders can move, but if you add another defender, then all the defenders can move.

I'm glad for having studied Nimzo's ideas, but they are only part of chess development.

This is a personal comment about the usefulness of Nimzovich in helping a strong player to improve:

When I graduated from high school, the only chess I had known about was a pretty poorly run scholastic scene.  I had seen the Fischer-Spassky match and had followed the world championships in the newspapers but had not read any books.  When I went to college upon graduation, I found My System and checked it out in the summer before school started.   

My rating jumped from something like 1450 to the mid-1700s in those few months and I always credit Nimzovich for that jump.  (I broke 2000 USCF within about a year and continued to improve for about five years before life got in the way.)

However, my play is not as dynamic as many players who had coaches or started studying at an earlier age.  Looking back, I think part of my problem was that my game was bound too much in the world of Nimzovich.   

Nimzovich is an important stepping stone to chess understanding, but he represents only a part of chess.  I recommend studying My System then following that up with Taimanov's Selected Games which includes a section called "In the world of Nimzovich's Ideas".  But then you will need to learn dynamic play as it's studied and played today.

For dynamic play, I would stay away from the many classics of chess instruction and go directly to books such as Fire on Board by Shirov or Igor Stohl's Instructive Modern Chess Masterpieces.   

I would also study tactics, tactics, tactics and play as much as possible.  Such a course may take up to a year of hard work but it would lay a sound basis for future improvement.

OK,I know now,that there were a few improvements since Nimzowitschs books,but were there also refutations of some of his ideas?
E.g. what is about the covering?Is that really so important as Nimzowich said?
Also there were a few ideas i couldnt really follow.
But the general question is:If I read Nimzowitschs books and start to play using his ideas,will I do something wrong,by using some wrong ideas?
That is what I am suspecting now.
Will I improve,if I will using his ideas or will I do something false by using his ideas?

I find Spraggett's comments about Russian Gms despising Nimzovich rather surprising. Professional curmudgeons like Yermo, sure, but I seem to recall Petrosian and Bronstein expressing a different view.

Udav18 wrote on 07/17/07 at 10:17:08:


Well, I think the seven decades of grandmaster practice since Nimzovich helps things a bit for Watson!

Cute picture, JEH.   

Get John Watson's "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy - Advances Since Nimzowitsch"

I can't post anything more here, as then they wouldn't be secrets  

Hi,I know that most of the best GMs have read the books of Nimzowich,but are all of his ideas important nowadays.The covering e.g. seems a little bit strange to me.