Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 11:42:30 07/25/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 2003 at 10:30:59, Stephen Ham wrote: >Dear Readers, > >I was wondering when somebody would mention Nimzovich's "My System." I think >this is a controvercial choice. Many people love the book and recommend it >highly. Others, including myself, don't like it at all. > >"My System" is largely Nimzovich's thoughts and personal agenda favoring >"Hypermodern Chess" over the standard "Classical" approach of Steinitz, >Tarrasch, and Capablanca. In the book, Nimzovich went to great extremes to >advocate certain concepts that most modern players have long since rejected or >minimized (e.g. blockade, overprotection, prophylaxis, etc.). > >Now that's not to say that modern players don't use some of Nimzovich's >strategies. We all use the concepts of blockade and prophylaxis and somethimes >(although rarely) even overprotection. But Nimzovich over-emphasized these >hypermodern themes far beyond the level of practicality. I personally found that >trying to apply the concepts gleaned from "My System" to my chess probably hurt >my chess for several years. Others have said the same thing. Also Nimzovich was >a poor communicator and the English translations that I've seen used archaic >expressions. In short, the texts in English were poorly communicated. I agree. "My System" is best accompanied by John Watson's "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances since Nimzowitsch", a book which I'm currently reading, and frankly it is far more interesting and practical than My System. > >So my suggestion is that unless you wish to follow a "hypermodern" approach to >your chess, then forget about "My System." Instead, there are far better books >on the market from Watson, Silman, and Yermolinsky that will genuinely help your >chess abilities, rather than hurt you. They also have pointed out how much of >what Nimzovich wrote has been subsequently rejected or corrected, so one only >uses his concepts in certain positions, rather than at all times. They are also >much better communicators in English than the English translations of Nimzovich. > >The modern approach now is to calculate first and then then apply concepts >secondarily. This is a broad oversimplification, but specific calculation should >be given priority over broad and general concepts. Sure, we use some general >concepts to help guide and minimize what we calculate (we are not computers so >we need to keep our calculations qualitative and not quantitative), but the >emphasis must be on calculations and then using various concepts to help us >evaluation the terminal positions. Yermolinsky, for example, gave many examples >where the standard concepts of what to do in various positions would have lead >to disaster. Instead, the correct solutions are found by calculations. > >Now...if only I could practise what I preach. > >All the best, > >Stephen
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.