Hi RotGut,

Keres is an intersting player for sure. I spent some time a few years ago, going through his games, and I was actually quite impressed by his endgame play.

I've quite often seen the suggestion to choose a chess hero, and absorb yourself in their games and teachings, and have scanned through many players games on ChessBase and in my games collections to try and identify my preference. Previously, I've went through periods where I was hooked on Capablanca and Botvinnik. It's also an opportunity to figure out which styles do NOT match your own. For example, I still can't get my head around Alekhine  , although I think I'm getting a bit closer to appreciating his approach to the game. Each player teaches us a little bit more.

Searching on google, I see various references to Unzicker modelling his play on Tarrasch. Perhaps that would be another place for me to look. From chessgames.com I see Unzicker didn't seem to play the Tarrasch Defence against 1.d4 though, preferring the Nimzo and QID. I'll check later, but maybe he reached similar positions with IQP as Black.

whitecraw wrote on 04/09/08 at 18:58:45:


Very similar to me. I think we've arrived at the same place  

whitecraw wrote on 04/09/08 at 18:58:45:


I did a repertoire scan for Tarrasch, but only 16 games for the Sicilian in Megabase, and not enough to determine a repertoire from. But thats the 19thC Sicilian for you. As this game might indicate

[Event "Breslau m"]
[Site "Breslau"]
[Date "1879.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Tarrasch, Siegbert"]
[Black "Mendelsohn, Jozsef"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B46"]
[PlyCount "47"]
[EventDate "1879.??.??"]
[EventType "match"]
[EventRounds "8"]
[EventCountry "GER"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1998.11.10"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 e6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 a6 6. Be2 Nge7 7. Be3 Ng6 8.
O-O Be7 9. f4 O-O 10. Rf3 f5 11. exf5 Nxd4 12. Bxd4 exf5 13. Bc4+ Kh8 14. Nd5
b5 15. Bb6 Bc5+ 16. Bxc5 d6 17. Bb6 Qd7 18. Bb3 Bb7 19. Rh3 Bxd5 20. Rxh7+ Kxh7
21. Qh5+ Kg8 22. Bxd5+ Rf7 23. Qxg6 Raf8 24. Bd4 1-0

Tarrasch would probably go for the set up common in Victorian games which is going for Be2/Be3/f4 against most things. e6 Sicilians were most common, and here's a game by Tarrasch that's rather Sveshnikov...

[Event "Vienna"]
[Site "Vienna"]
[Date "1898.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Tarrasch, Siegbert"]
[Black "Janowski, Dawid Markelowicz"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B33"]
[PlyCount "129"]
[EventDate "1898.??.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "36"]
[EventCountry "AUT"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1999.07.01"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 e6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Nf6 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bf4 e5 8.
Bg5 a6 9. Bxf6 gxf6 10. Na3 f5 11. Qh5 b5 12. Naxb5 axb5 13. Bxb5 Bb7 14. Bc4
Qf6 15. Nd5 Qg6 16. Nc7+ Kd8 17. Qxg6 fxg6 18. Nxa8 Bxa8 19. Bd5 Kc7 20. b4 Be7
21. c3 Bg5 22. h4 Bf6 23. h5 g5 24. f3 Ne7 25. Bxa8 Rxa8 26. Kd2 d5 27. a4 Kb6
28. Kc2 Rc8 29. Kb3 f4 30. Rhd1 d4 31. c4 Rb8 32. a5+ Kc6 33. b5+ Kc5 34. a6
Nc8 35. a7 Ra8 36. Ra6 Nb6 37. Rda1 Bd8 38. h6 Bc7 39. Rg1 Bd8 40. Rd1 Be7 41.
Rda1 Bd8 42. R1a2 Bc7 43. R2a3 Bd8 44. Ra1 Bc7 45. Rg1 Bd8 46. g3 fxg3 47. Rxg3
Be7 48. Rg1 Nxc4 49. Rc6+ Kxb5 50. Rxc4 Rxa7 51. Rc8 Ra3+ 52. Kc2 Ra2+ 53. Kb1
Rf2 54. Ka1 d3 55. Rb1+ Bb4 56. Rb8+ Kc4 57. R8xb4+ Kc3 58. R4b3+ Kd4 59. Rb7
Rxf3 60. Rxh7 Rh3 61. Re1 g4 62. Rd7+ Kc3 63. h7 g3 64. Rg1 Kb3 65. Rxd3+ 1-0

Also note the 2. Nc3 3. Nf3 4. d4 is a popular move order, but Tarrasch also played 2. Nf3 first. Playing d4 after both Knight moves was the Victorian thing.

A tangential thought is that Tarrasch's apostle Unzicker generally favored such Be2/Be3 lines.

I tried a similar thing myself  - search back for the Victorian Opening Repertoire thread.

I found it quite fun and refreshing to play like this, but it was difficult resist to apply my modern knowledge, especially in openings like the Sicilian.

Taking the gambits with Black was hairy but fun. Open Lopez was the way, although I played the Berlin a lot too.

Against d4 it was Classical QGD, but I think there's valuable things to be learnt having a phase playing the Tarrasch. There's a rumour that Eric Schiller once wrote a good book on the Tarrash.  A rumour.

My main priciples were:

1) Lasker - common sense chess 
2) Larsen - Play in off hand games the opposite style to what you play in tournament games. I've been hypermodern for tournament games, playing as Classical otherwise.
3) Miles - Play the lines first and only then look up the theory. 

So I'd say, go for it!

As for what Tarrasch would be playing Today? Probably poker 

 

whitecraw wrote on 04/08/08 at 23:51:13:


Tarrasch was Tarrasch then; there is no Tarrasch now.  He had no ken of many modern ideas, and it's useless to speculate what he would have thought about them.  Tarrasch represents a certain level of chess understanding, which was in some ways an extension of, in many ways a reaction to, the ideas of Steinitz.

I don't think it's at all true to say that Tarrasch "favored" the IQP. Rather, he recognized the IQP as an inevitable and necessary constituent of the game of chess, well played.  He merely said, if you don't want one, give up chess!  That was a little like saying (and he himself pointed to the analogy), if you don't ever want to be a pawn down in exchange for better activity, you had better give up this game.  That doesn't mean he "favored" being a pawn down.

Tarrasch played a more nuanced game of chess than he taught.  He often played the French Defense, for example; the Slav; and also often played what has come to be called the "Berlin Wall."  But if you want to play in the spirit of Tarrasch as he taught the game, I strongly recommend: (1) the Two Knights Defense par excellence; (2) the Open Defense to the Spanish (which was once indeed called the Tarrasch); (3) the Modern Defense to the King's Gambit (we understand today that the Falkbeer is no good unless you transpose to the Modern); and (4) the Tarrasch Defense to all the "closed" systems. I played like this myself for many years and I tell you, it is good.  The Tarrasch particularly is undervalued these days, I think.  So I pretty well second your ideas for how to handle the black pieces. 

This is a perfectly viable way of playing chess.  It is limiting if you stick to it for very long; there are always the nagging pawn weaknesses and pawn deficits that argue against your vaunted piece activity; the endgame is not often your friend; but if your opponent makes one passive or overly greedy move, you become White.  This method is sufficient for a successful game even against strong opposition.

Hi all,

I've been reading about Seigbert Tarrasch recently, in an attempt to solidify my classical chess understanding (that I missed out in my youth ), and to work on my tactical weaknesses. I've chosen Tarrasch as a role model for a few reasons, 1.) I'm trying to start my classical chess education back in those early days, and he is a good representative of how good classical chess was played at the turn of the 19th century as a result of Morphy and Steinitz's discoveries; 2.) his books are milestones in chess education and 3.) his style of play is very appealing to me (clear, direct, lots of play with the pieces).

However, in an attempt to use his play as a role model, I'd like to closely follow his opening repertoire, or at least follow a reliable modern equivalent that emulates his theory on the opening (open positions with rapid development, piece activity at the cost of pawn structure etc). There are some gaps (especially with White) that I've some ideas for, but would appreciate some suggestions from the forum members. So, the question is, what would Tarrasch play if he was around today, assuming he relaxed his dogmatism a "little" bit with age ???

As White:

1. e4
1...c5 - Open Sicilian or Closed Sicilian (one modern possibility could be the Rossolimo against 2...Nc6). Tarrasch only played against the Sicilian about 8 times, playing the Open slightly more than the Closed. In "The Game of Chess" he expresses some doubts about the Open (due to the exchange of c for d pawn), and states that the Closed is also an option. What would he play if he was around today ???
1...e5 - Ruy Lopez (Main line). Not sure on the details of a Tarrasch-like Ruy Lopez repertoire here.
1...c6 - Panov-Botvinnik (2.d4 d5, 3.c4) or Main line with 2.d4 d5, 3.Nc3 ... , or 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.ed cd 4.Bd3 or even Two Knights (2.Nf3 d5, 3.Nc3 ...)
1...e6 - Believe it or not, he did not play the French Tarrasch much, infact he throught that 3...c5 was a refutation, and he had countless arguments with Nimzowitch about the Advance, so I'd need to look at 3.Nc3 lines here I think.
1...d6 - Austrian Attack lines perhaps (he played that once, but 1...d6 or 1...g6 was not common back then).

As Black

1...e5 to 1.e4
v. Spanish: Open Ruy Lopez
v Kings Gambit: Falkbeer Counter-Gambit (1.e4 e5, 2.f4 d5, 3.ed e4), or Modern defence (1.e4 e5, 2.f4 d5, 3.ed ef). Tarrasch did not trust the Kings Gambit Accepted.
v. Italian Game - Not sure here

1...d5 to 1.d4 (and everything else) - the Tarrasch defence off course!