ChessPub Forum - Tarrasch, Nimzovich et al.

(UTC)

ChessPub Forum › General › General Chess › Tarrasch, Nimzovich et al.

(Moderators: trw, proustiskeen, RoleyPoley)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 [2]

Topic Tools

Tarrasch, Nimzovich et al. (Read 12201 times)

Willempie God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing .com! Posts: 4312 Location: Holland Joined: 01/07/05	Re: Tarrasch, Nimzovich et al. Reply #2 - 01/30/10 at 16:02:43	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb wrote on 01/30/10 at 13:51:19: Could that possibly be because Tarrasch' ideas of how to play chess did not work that well against really strong opposition? I have the same question for Nimzo. A certain Viennese GM at the other hand beat all the greats with his very distinctive style, with one exception (Lasker). And of course there has been some Dutchman who even became WCh. Personally I find Tarrasch' ideas only useful concerning playing with the IQP and even then there are better, more modern examples to be found. Tarrasch had no problems playing against strong players it is just that: -In many of the tournaments of those days there were weaker players, so if you have a book called 300 schachpartien there is bound to be a lot of weaker opposition (plus that of course for guys like Tarrasch, Lasker and Tsjigorin a lot of the players were weaker by definition ). -His comments are intended to be read and used to "teach chess to the reader", not as extensive analysis. Therefore it is easier to analyse a game where the ideas are clear and that is often against a weaker player or a strong player playing weak. Still the book contains wins against Lasker and his match against Tsjigorin. Btw Euwe annotated in very much the same way as Tarrasch only a bit less personal.

	If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
	IP Logged

sharpplay Junior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 72 Joined: 03/24/08	Re: Tarrasch, Nimzovich et al. Reply #1 - 01/30/10 at 14:46:34	Post Tools	Print Post
	I find reading Tarrasch to be entertaining because of his dogmatism. According to him, many lines that are seen in modern GM play are "incorrect". However, I think one could do worse than to adopt the openings he seems to prefer in "The Game of Chess": Ruy, Open Sicilian with 6 Be2, Winawer with 5 Bd2 as white, Open Ruy and Tarrasch as black. I have recently reached an interesting conclusion. After many better players telling me this, I had to run in circles for years chasing opening silver bullets to discover it for myself (sort of like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz). At my level (1500-1600 USCF) sidelines are not "the road less traveled." It is mainlines that are the road less traveled. In my rating level, if you play mainlines almost everyone will fear the theory and divert into sidelines that make you already better.


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Tarrasch, Nimzovich et al. 01/30/10 at 13:51:19	Post Tools	Print Post
	Could that possibly be because Tarrasch' ideas of how to play chess did not work that well against really strong opposition? I have the same question for Nimzo. A certain Viennese GM at the other hand beat all the greats with his very distinctive style, with one exception (Lasker). And of course there has been some Dutchman who even became WCh. Personally I find Tarrasch' ideas only useful concerning playing with the IQP and even then there are better, more modern examples to be found.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

Pages: 1 [2]

Topic Tools

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Bookmarks:

« Board Index ‹ Board Top