The conflict between Dr. Tarrasch and Aaron Nimzowitsch

Both Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch built their positional views on the theories of Wilhelm Steinitz,
the founder (together with Zukertort and others in London) of "The Modern School", but they
evidently disagreed on the interpretation.The chemistry obviously did not work very well between
the two masters. For one thing their personalities were different, but they had one feature in common:
both took very strong views on theoretical issues and they defended their opinions stubbornly.

Dr. Tarrasch even started a magazine, Tarraschs Schachzeitung , whose principal aim was to fight
against the "hypermodern".

  • The main topic was the center, but another one, less well-known today, was the so called tempo theory.
  • Dr. Tarrasch argued that in a given position only one move could be the best, while Nimzowitsch
    was of opinion that such absoluteness does not exist,
  • Whereas Tarrasch criticized "narrow positions" and questioned "overprotection", Nimzowitsch
    argued for "elasticity" and pointed to the emptiness of a term like German "freies Spiel", literally
    " free play", roughly "a comfortable position", or "open play".
  • Another system introduced by Tarrasch is 3.Nd2 in the French, nowadays a very important variation.
    Strangely enough, although the inventor of the system, he eventually disapproved of it as giving too
    little influence in the center.
  • The variation 3.e5 (The French Advance) was the object of bitter discussions. Tarrasch put a ? after it,
    while Nimzowitsch asserted that the pawn chain granted White a clear advantage, because the "wedge
    pawn" e5 restrains Black.
  • In the Rubinstein variation of the French Defense, Tarrasch   considered 3. - dxe4 bad, Nimzowitsch
    on the other hand said it was good  and recommended b6 to follow. An objective expert such as Paul 
    Keres writes that Black will have certain problems with his development in the Rubinstein variation
    (Petrosjan liked it), and Keres also says that 3.Nc3, 3.Nd2, and 3.e5 are on a level.

Both Nimzowitsch and Tarrasch were such persuaded supporters of their respective views that we can
no doubt say they were dogmatic. But Nimzowitsch allowed for the irrational:
"A little bit of intuition must come in".

Nowadays we no longer discuss strategy in terms of hypermodern features. Ideas from all periods are
continuously being mixed with new ones. Despite this fact, the two key words in the philosophy of
Nimzowitsch, prophylaxis and mobility, are still important.

Siegbert Tarrasch (left) and Jacques Mieses at an exciting  game surrounded by spellbound onlookers,
including a waiter, and what  looks like a high-ranking officer. This match was played just while World
War I was raging, and food was no doubt scarce, so it is not to be wondered at the fact that the prize
to the winner (Tarrasch) consisted of half a pound of butter.

(Courtesy Ludwig Karl and Ludwig Kamm)
     
This is the title photo of  Dr. Tarrasch´s book Der Schachwettkampf Tarrasch-Mieses im Herbst 1916
(Verlag von Veit & Comp., Leipzig, 1916)

Contents

080505