An appreciation of Aron Nimzowitsch

@Kingscrusher-YouTube said in #20:
> Not sure about that - one hypermodern notion is that occupying the center can be a downside - so for example also in the Kings Indian Defence, and Gruenfeld, the opponent is invited to occupy the center. Later the occupation can be attacked. In the Alekhine defence, there are even fianchetto bishop variations where black later will be hitting the center hard with either d6, or sometimes even a d5 to provoke c5 and then later e5 is dangerous for White's center. A hypermodern opening to me includes things like the Alekhine Defence and Nimzowitsch Defence - as well as the King's Indian Defence and Gruenfeld. Wiki lists some hypermodern openings at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermodernism_(chess)
>
> "Hypermodern openings include the Réti Opening, King's Indian Defence, Queen's Indian Defence, Nimzo-Indian Defence, Nimzowitsch Defence, Grünfeld Defence, Bogo-Indian Defence, Old Indian Defence, Catalan Opening, King's Indian Attack, Alekhine's Defence, Modern Defence, Pirc Defence, Larsen's Opening, and to a lesser degree the English Opening." - Wiki
>
> There are quite a few notions of Hypermodern chess - but Breyer captured the idea that occupying the center can be weak with the famous quotation that after 1.e4 White's game is in its last throes.

it would have been surprising if a player like Alekhine who hated hypermodernists had invented a hypermodernist opening. he himself claims that this opening was a joke but that it ended up in a newspaper the next day. hypermodernism is close to artistic surrealism. Alekhine was a neo-romantic who was a fine psychologist

@CSKA_Moscou said in #31:
> it would have been surprising if a player like Alekhine who hated hypermodernists had invented a hypermodernist opening. he himself claims that this opening was a joke but that it ended up in a newspaper the next day. hypermodernism is close to artistic surrealism. Alekhine was a neo-romantic who was a fine psychologist

You do appreciate he was saying these things in World War II - maybe he thought that would be better than being killed or risk of being killed. I don't want to get into the dark side of Alekhine though. But yes I think he was a more of a classical player than Hypermodernist. The Alekhine defence was used by him in two games in Budapest 1921 - one draw, and one win. According to Chessgames.com there are 19 games in total that he used it:

www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer?pid=10240&side=black&node=21720&move=1.5&moves=e4&nodes=21720

These are facts - not comments made under potentially duress. Also the fact is he can win with it against decent players, show the opening has something to it. Provoking the opponent to overextend a center - no surprise that also Gruenfed use it on occasion. In fact 38 times is quite a decent percentage for Gruenfeld with Black vs 1.e4:

www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer?pid=11127&side=black&node=21720&move=1.5&moves=e4&nodes=21720

So this also kind of cements it as a "Hypermodern" opening if Gruenfeld has used it 38 times compared to 92 with just e5. Still a good percentage of Gruenfeld games.

For me it is interesting that the hypermodern openings relieve the monotony of most games starting 1.e4 e5 or 1.d4 d5

The Sicilian Nimzowitsch variation seems a cross between the Sicilian defence and the Alekhine Defence and runs:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6

Again interesting, colorful, and provocative.

@Kingscrusher-YouTube said in #32:
> You do appreciate he was saying these things in World War II - maybe he thought that would be better than being killed or risk of being killed. I don't want to get into the dark side of Alekhine though. But yes I think he was a more of a classical player than Hypermodernist. The Alekhine defence was used by him in two games in Budapest 1921 - one draw, and one win. According to Chessgames.com there are 19 games in total that he used it:
>
> www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer?pid=10240&side=black&node=21720&move=1.5&moves=e4&nodes=21720
>
> These are facts - not comments made under potentially duress. Also the fact is he can win with it against decent players, show the opening has something to it. Provoking the opponent to overextend a center - no surprise that also Gruenfed use it on occasion. In fact 38 times is quite a decent percentage for Gruenfeld with Black vs 1.e4:
>
> www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer?pid=11127&side=black&node=21720&move=1.5&moves=e4&nodes=21720
>
> So this also kind of cements it as a "Hypermodern" opening if Gruenfeld has used it 38 times compared to 92 with just e5. Still a good percentage of Gruenfeld games.
>
> For me it is interesting that the hypermodern openings relieve the monotony of most games starting 1.e4 e5 or 1.d4 d5
>
> The Sicilian Nimzowitsch variation seems a cross between the Sicilian defence and the Alekhine Defence and runs:
>
> 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6
>
> Again interesting, colorful, and provocative.

yes, I understand what you mean, that it would be a bit of a reverse Reti with the control for white. Well, apparently Wikipedia is of your opinion even if it surprises me given the character he was already at that pre-WW2 era.

but the paradox is that if hypermodernist openings are anything that takes indirect control of the center, through anything other than e4 d4, and with a prophylactic spirit, the bird opening and the Dutch opening as well as the Grob are hypermodernist openings?

@CSKA_Moscou said in #33:
> yes, I understand what you mean, that it would be a bit of a reverse Reti with the control for white. Well, apparently Wikipedia is of your opinion even if it surprises me given the character he was already at that pre-WW2 era.
>
> but the paradox is that if hypermodernist openings are anything that takes indirect control of the center, through anything other than e4 d4, and with a prophylactic spirit, the bird opening and the Dutch opening as well as the Grob are hypermodernist openings?

I personally don't consider 1.c4 or 1.f4 "hypermodern" - but maybe they have hypermodern concept follow-ups later if fianchetto bishops are involved. The same sort of controversy for "Hypermodern" is with the Catalan:

1.d4 Nf6
2.c4 e6
3.g3

which for me blends classical and hypermodern

Also if 1.c4 is considered Hypermodern - and it is a reversed Sicilian in effect then the question is also if the Sicilian defence is hypermodern.

There are some comments on your question here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ABird's_Opening

"Would Bird's Opening constitute as a hypermodern opening? Tommy Kronkvist talk contribs 20:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean 1.f4 by itself? Probably not(see the "Hypermodern" article on here). If anything it lends itself to occupation of the center, especially the theme of a white knight on e5, or in the stonewall formations. In certain lines involving fianchetto of the white queen bishop, i suppose it may be considered "hypermodern", especially if he fianchettos the kingside as well, but Bg2 is more for supporting a kingside assault or the center occupation Ne5, both of which are definitely not hypermodern concepts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.157.196 (talk) 06:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
"

@CSKA_Moscou said in #31:
> it would have been surprising if a player like Alekhine who hated hypermodernists had invented a hypermodernist opening. he himself claims that this opening was a joke but that it ended up in a newspaper the next day. hypermodernism is close to artistic surrealism. Alekhine was a neo-romantic who was a fine psychologist

BTW According to Winter in fact, Alekhine had played Nf6 in a consultation game earlier than the Budapest 1921 tournament.

Zurich Aug. 27, 1921
Consultation game: A Donegan / E Muller vs Alekhine / O Zimmerman

www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1012084

Budapest 1921 tournament earliest round for Alekhine playing Alekhine defence was played on September 10th:
www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1012059

See: www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/alekhinedefence.html

So it seems actually given he had played it before he might done some analysis on it. Or maybe Zimmerman played it. Okay in the consultation game, their opponent's didn't play e5 though as the critical test either.

But on even more Alekhine defence interest and trivia, the Alekhine defence seemed to be played a lot in the Budapest 1926 tournament. It was played 15 times - so more than the number of French and Caro-Kann defence combined. This is a bit of trivia which Winter has on his Alekhine defence page.

@Kingscrusher-YouTube said in #35:
> BTW According to Winter in fact, Alekhine had played Nf6 in a consultation game earlier than the Budapest 1921 tournament.
>
> Zurich Aug. 27, 1921
> Consultation game: A Donegan / E Muller vs Alekhine / O Zimmerman
>
> www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1012084
>

Close to a scandinavian structure, is the scandinavian was played by hypermodernists ?

> Budapest 1921 tournament earliest round for Alekhine playing Alekhine defence was played on September 10th:
> www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1012059
>
> See: www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/alekhinedefence.html
>
> So it seems actually given he had played it before he might done some analysis on it. Or maybe Zimmerman played it. Okay in the consultation game, their opponent's didn't play e5 though as the critical test either.
>
> But on even more Alekhine defence interest and trivia, the Alekhine defence seemed to be played a lot in the Budapest 1926 tournament. It was played 15 times - so more than the number of French and Caro-Kann defence combined. This is a bit of trivia which Winter has on his Alekhine defence page.

Nice to know, thx

Thank you KC for a great article!

Another great read on the topic is Raymond Keene's "Aron Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal"

It includes a discussion with Bent Larsen, about Nimzowitch's influence on modern chess players and on Larsen's own chess.
There is a long chapter about Nimzowitch's influence on modern opening play, which is very enjoyable and instructive.
The second part of the book is an account of Nimzowitsch's career in chronological order, with selected games, mostly
thoroughly analyzed, and all kinds of tournament tables etc. Highly recommended!

@HpRmDrNsT said in #37:
> Thank you KC for a great article!
>
> Another great read on the topic is Raymond Keene's "Aron Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal"
>
> It includes a discussion with Bent Larsen, about Nimzowitch's influence on modern chess players and on Larsen's own chess.
> There is a long chapter about Nimzowitch's influence on modern opening play, which is very enjoyable and instructive.
> The second part of the book is an account of Nimzowitsch's career in chronological order, with selected games, mostly
> thoroughly analyzed, and all kinds of tournament tables etc. Highly recommended!

It is an honor to have you post here with your nickname :)

Thanks for the info :)

siuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu