Nimzowitsch and the French Opening
1. The French Advance Variation
In 1921 Nimzowitsch played a so called
consultation game at Uppsala, Sweden, against a team consisting of
Andersson, Enström, and Öberg (White).
After the moves 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nimzowitsch makes the remark "Correct
is 3.e4-e5." (p. 247)
This is a strange comment, a truism, to say the least of it. The reader may get
the impression that Nimzowitsch
was of opinion that 3.Nc3 should be dubious. But that cannot be the case, since
he often played 3.Nc3 himself.
It may be that he did not trust 3.Nc3 in 1913, when the statement was first
published in an article in "Wiener
Schachzeitung", whereas he did in reality play the move in the 1920ies, and
maybe he did not want to change the text in
the "5. Lieferung" 1927.
However, in the Post Script Nimzowitsch
says that Rubinstein's suggestion dxe4 together with b7-b6 casts doubt
on the move 3.Nc3, which at the time induced him to the surprising remark "Correct
is 3.e4-e5."
But first of all we must assume that his remark
is meant for such critics as asserted that 3.e4-e5 was bad. And of
course Tarrasch belonged to that group. So it is not a question of finding the best
move in the position; the remark
is a contribution to the debate about the centre, and Nimzowitsch annoyed his critics
by saying that the pawn e5 was
a threat to the Black pawn on e6, a comment that was more or less understood as
an insult. The idea was of course
that White should play f2-f4-f5, and when Alapin said that such games were very
rare, Nimzowitsch answered that the
reason was that Black had to take measures to prevent that move, thereby causing
damage to his position elsewhere.
And even if the White pawn d4 should be
exchanged, Nimzowitsch asserted that the remaining wedge pawn e5
constituted a pawn chain, which comment of course added to the annoyance.
Tony Kosten writes in "The French
Advance" (Brighton 1998) that "One of the pillars of Nimzowitsch's
system was the
overprotection of a strongpoint, which with regard to the Advance variation is
the e5-pawn."
No wonder that there was an angry debate over this variation when the disputed notion of overprotection was involved.
2. The Rubinstein/Burn System
After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 or 3. Nd2
Nimzowitsch was of opinion that the exchange 3. - dxe4 would allow Black to
exert pressure on White's centre by placing his Bishop at b7, whereas
Tarrasch strongly condemned this belief.
In fact, this difference in opinions stirred up hot felings, which Nimzowitsch
manifested in an article under the title of
"The surrender of the centre - a prejudiced opinion", which appeared
in "Sydsvenska Dagbladet Snällposten" in 1913,
and, delayed by the war, in "Die Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" in 1923
(Mein System, p.188ff)
Nimzowitsch takes the game Tarrasch-Mieses, Berlin 1916
(Mein System p.192) as an example. After the moves
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7
5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.Bd3 Nxe4 7.Bxe4 Nf6 8.Bd3 b6 9.Bg5 Bb7 10.0-0 Be7
11.Qe2 0-0 12.Rad1 we have this position:
Mieses played 12. - h6, which led to
advantage for White.
Nimzowitsch suggests 12. - Qd5, for instance 13.c4 Qa5 followed by Rad8, or 13.c4 Qa5 15.d5 Rae8!
Nimzowitsch gives an "ideological" explanation of Black´s good
position, namely that the square d5 fulfills the
following functions:
1) d5 is the outpost station on the d-file;
2) it has the same function on the diagonal a8-h1;
3) d5 is a blockading point.
However, according to B. Slotnik:
"Französische Verteidigung" (Heidelberg 1982, p.83) White should play
Ne5
instead of d5, with advantage for White.
We have to admit in this example that
Nimzowitsch in a way indulges in wishful thinking in order to prove his
own
theses, and by all means at the expense of Tarrasch and his views.
A picture from the match Tarrasch-Mieses, Berlin 1916, at which the Rubinstein-Burn system was used in several games.
3. The Winawer/Nimzowitsch-Botvinnik
System (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 Bc3 Bb4)
B. Slotnik writes in the introduction of "Französische Verteidigung"
(1982):
"Bestimmte Schwierigkeiten hatte der Autor ... mit
der Benennung einzelner Systeme ... Das System 3.Sc3 Lb4 heisst in der Sowjetunion
die "Nimzowitsch-Verteidigung"
und im Ausland "Winawer-System", obwohl Winawer ausser einer einzigen gespielten Partie keinen
Beitrag zur Theorie
dieses Systems geleistet hat ..."
If it is true that Simon Winawer (1838-1920)
only played one game with this opening it is certainly astonishing that it
should bear his name, whereas Nimzowitsch played many such games, both as Black
and as White, all the time
experimenting with new ideas.
If that is so, maybe we can find a
possible explanation in the following quote from Raymond Keene's book "Aron
Nimzowitsch -
A Reappraisal" (1974): "Nimzowitsch
has not received the recognition in the English-speaking world that he
deserves."
Which raises the question of who has the privilege of naming chess openings.
However, it is also notable that
Savielly Tartakower in his book "Das neuromantische Schach" (1927)
refers to the variation
3. - Bb4 as "die solide Maróczy'sche Verteidigungsvariante".
No doubt the name "The
Nimzowitch-Botwinnik system" would be fair as a recognition of the
theoretical and practical work of
these two brilliant grandmasters.
080505