Entertaining thread

A few comments:

FischerTal wrote on 02/20/09 at 04:31:36:

I enjoyed that as an amusing book about Norwood. As Anand reputedly said: "Thank you for mentioning me in your book, Dave". Or something like that

SorenJensen wrote on 05/07/09 at 14:34:46:

Absolutely. I only have "his" book on the King's Gambit and there's no original content whatsoever. Similarly, Hagen Tiemann's book on the Schliemann.

naughtyknight wrote on 03/21/10 at 19:51:39:

I enjoyed this too. Yes, his claims for his system were sheer hyperbole, but I didn't mind that. He's an original thinker and that's always interesting.

TalJechin wrote on 03/27/10 at 14:39:57:

No indeed

My worst book ever? I dunno. I guess it has to be about an opening you know a lot about... a new monograph comes out and you rush to get it... and it contains nothing of value whatsoever... ffs!

Keano wrote on 03/08/14 at 03:00:16:


My System is probably better studied when you're already a reasonably strong player (at least 1800?), so that you can take some of the stuff with a grain of salt, or at least an open mind.  But I think it's a wonderfully instructive book, so long as you don't get it too early in your education and become obsessed with it, trying always to play according to "system."  

Many players have claimed that it was the last book they studied before making the leap to Master (Dvoretsky comes to mind, who then recommended it to many of his Candidate Master students, with which it had the same effect).  I actually had a similar experience; the last two books I read cover-to-cover before becoming a Master were Averbakh's little Essential Chess Endings (I felt I needed a refresher on the basics that I hadn't looked at in years), and My System. 

I also did a lot of other calculation/decision making/dynamics training at the time as well, though.  I was using Beim's How to Play Dynamic Chess to work through solitaire-style (I spent 2-3 hours per game on average I think), which was very good for calculation practice, dynamic play, sacrifices, all that stuff.  

I think that it's very interesting to get Nimzovich's perspective on positional play when you're already a fairly good player.  Weaker, "impressionable" players should probably shy away from it for a while.  

Incidentally, I started noticing a lot of My System stuff in games around the local club.  I watched a promising junior player (rated about 1900) get completely outplayed on the White side of a Philidor when his senior opponent completely "old-manned" him to death: created a maneuvering game, played ...d6 and ...f6 (the "sawing action" or whatever it's called), etc.  It all seemed to go perfectly according to Nimzovich, and the poor 1900-player had no idea what was happening.

In that same tournament I also played this game:


 
Which while unexceptional, definitely "felt" like My System to me when I played it.  I felt like I knew exactly what to do with that central pawn structure--the whole game was very easy for me, in a way it might not have been before (even if I would still have found the same moves, they call came much easier this time).  There were many other games around the same time that I felt came easily after having read Nimzovich.

So I can certainly recommend My System highly, but perhaps would wait until you're rated at least 1800 and feeling "stuck." 

BPaulsen wrote on 03/08/14 at 00:50:17:


I like the "resident My system pimp".... otherwise I have read the book I even have the "companion" book practice of my system aha, should work again on those in secret!!

But for sure my trainer has more respect for the writings of other greats of the past or present, world champion or not !

That being said, the above mentioned trainer is a fervent supporter of the indian defenses so obviously not everything is to throw away and it was more to catch the ball from keano that well yes we can find dogmatism in many chess  books and I guess even more from the past periods - nowadays chess is carpe diem and calculation .... Rapport is so annoying with his play

Keano wrote on 03/07/14 at 23:56:54:


The question is where to start ? When I was little I learned that speed was equal to distance divided by time, much later the theory of relativity...

Talking about dogmatism, I take regular chess lessons with a well-known trainer because books are so...dogmatics  and one of the worse ever book written according to my "trainer" is My system (no joking) food for thoughts (or fools).... I challenged a bit that because everywhere you read lines along "he who has not read Nimzowitsch has read nothing and should be close to have his FIDE rating card deleted" one of the main point being that "My system" is demonstrated on games won over lesser opponents but never quite against the very best of his time and by applying the mentioned system.

Tarrasch not counting as being a dogmatic player and "easily foolable" because blinded by his rage to dismantle the system (not the Sicilian)

Well, I am certain that V.Moskalenko was sincere in his approach but the passage shown by Arne Moll is really showing the substance! Of course the notions are valid but the formalism is just over-the-top, does anyone count "T's" like that : I don't think so.

Overall the result is confusing   

A book like "Chess strategy for club players" H.Grooten is more instructive in my opinion.

It sounds very much like a book that was trying to push the boundaries a bit and go for something different.

This can sometimes be hit or miss as regards the audience.

Having said that, I've not read it, only the review, so I could be talking rubbish.

not seen the Moskalenko book you say but given his other work I'd be staggered if it came even close to contention to a worst chess book.