Appraising Keene's Appraisal Taylor Kingston Aron Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal, by Raymond Keene, 1999 Batsford, Softcover, English Algebraic Notation, 256pp., $17.95. Along with Morphy, Steinitz, Tarrasch, and a very few others, the Latvian master Aron Nimzowitsch (1886-1935) is considered a major contributor to the theoretical foundation of chess. His writings, such as My System and Chess Praxis, are considered essential to a full understanding of the game. At his peak (circa 1926-31) he was one of the top four or five players in the world, and was always one of the game's more colorful and controversial personalities. It is a measure of his impact that books continue to be written about him. This one is making its third appearance. Earlier editions were published in 1974 and 1991, both in descriptive notation. This edition has algebraic notation and some additional games, some as recent as 1995, that show Nimzowitsch's influence. British grandmaster Raymond Keene, an extremely prolific but often careless author (he admits to having written entire books in a few days) this time appears to have some genuine passion and respect for his subject, and has taken more than usual care (though perhaps still not enough). Though this is a third edition, your reviewer will approach it as he would a new work. In his first chapter, Keene notes that Nimzowitsch's own major written works stopped before the most successful phase of his career (ca. 1929-31). Keene intends Reappraisal as "a continuation of his Chess Praxis covering the years 1928-1934." Even for someone of Keene's pretensions this is a tall order, but he does have some success. The result is an interesting though uneven work, part biography, part games collection, part historical and theoretical survey. Chapter 2 is of historical interest, consisting of excerpts from Nimzowitsch's hard-to-find autobiography How I Became a Grandmaster. It introduces us to his somewhat grandiose writing style and conception of himself, and goes far to explain the antipathy, both professional and personal, that developed between him and German grandmaster Siegbert Tarrasch. Chapter 3 includes a discussion of positional themes in Nimzowitsch's games, and a conversation with Danish GM Bent Larsen (logical, since Nimzowitsch lived in Denmark for years, and Larsen is considered something of a spiritual descendant). Chapter 4, "The Influence of Nimzowitsch on Modern Opening Play", discusses lines he either originated or enhanced, among them the Philidor-Hanham (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 Nf6 4 Nc3 Nbd7); the Nimzowitsch Defence (1 e4 Nc6); various lines, for both colors, in the French; the Caro-Kann, especially (after 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe4 4 Nxe4) the lines 4...Nf6 and 4...Nd7; some lines of the Sicilian, e.g. 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nf6; the Queen's Indian (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf6 b6); the Nimzo-Indian (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4); and the Nimzowitsch Attack (1 b3, or 1 Nf3 and 2 b3). Keene makes some interesting points along the way, e.g. "many of the original strategic ideas stem from Nimzowitsch himself while ... the actual variations we still employ were elaborated by the arch-realist Alekhine." However, as we will see, Keene's factual support for such points is spotty. Like some other writers, notably Fred Reinfeld in The Human Side of Chess or Reuben Fine in various works, Keene occasionally purports to psychoanalyze or even peer into "the very heart" of his subject and relate the insights thus gained to chess style. Chapter 5, "The Duality of Nimzowitsch" does this in a somewhat overblown manner, quoting Goethe (Zwei Seelen wohnen, ach! in meiner Brust / Die eine will sich von der andern trennen) and trying to illustrate how these 'two souls living within his breast' ("Prophylaxis" and "Heroic Defence") manifested themselves in Nimzowitsch's games. Such armchair insights are not always valid, but if handled with sufficient style they make for interesting reading. Whether one agrees that "with Nimzowitsch, we see a powerful awareness of the presence of the opponent as someone who must be restrained or provoked," or one associates "the direct, positive action of an Alekhine, or a Fischer, with a homogeneous, harmonious unity of chess style as opposed to the duality and indirection which pervade Nimzowitsch," one can at least enjoy Keene's polysyllabic prose. And an occasionally overblown style is perhaps appropriate when discussing Nimzowitsch. Chapters 6 through 11 are (along with chapter 4) the best sections of the book: about 70 games, most of them deeply annotated, from different phases of Nimzowitsch's career: First Steps 1904-06, Established Master 1907-14, Disaster and Recovery 1920-24, World Championship Candidate 1925-28, The Crown Prince 1929- 31, and The Final Years 1932-35. They are accompanied by tournament crosstables. The games often feature Nimzowitsch's own notes, which are among the most stylized, idiosyncratic, hyperbolic, and least humble ever written; as Keene's Danish translators put it, "each game [is] turned into a drama more than that, into a morality play in which Nimzowitsch becomes a very special character: an almost invincible crusader, an embodiment of all sapient virtues." For example, of this position (See Diagram), Nimzowitsch-Romih, San Remo 1930, after White's 22 Bd5-c6, we read "Now the white pieces, especially the two diagonal men, stand in as modern a guise as could be wished; one could almost be tempted to say that each on its own was misplaced, if their coordination did not make of them such an awe-inspiring unity." While grandmasters tend to be an egotistical lot, it's hard to think of many who would, with a straight face, describe their own moves as "awe-inspiring." Elsewhere Nimzowitsch rejoices in the "thorn- infested path to victory" that the complexity of his style forced upon him, masochistically regarding the "renunciation of lunch" as "a thoroughly welcome intensification of the pleasure". Not without reason was he considered a bit strange. Still, the instructive value of Nimzowitsch's games and the complex intelligence behind them cannot be denied. Keene perceptively points out many features of Nimzowitsch's play, such as the concept of "ambush." This means more than just a trap or combination, rather it is "a deep refutation of a course of action which the opponent is under no compulsion to adopt," yet one toward which Nimzowitsch's play strongly leads him. A prime example is Rubinstein-Nimzowitsch, Marienbad 1925 (See Diagram), where the key was the unusual and not at all obvious 18...Rfe8!!. Play proceeded 19 Bxf6 (precisely the move 18...Rfe8 was directed against) 19...exf6 20 Kf2 "Threatening 21 f4, frustrating all Black's plans." 20...f5!! 21 Qxd6 Bg7 22 Rb1 Bd4, and now White meekly submitted with 23 Kg2, rather than allow the full revelation of the ambush: 23 Rb3! Re6 24 Qf4 Qe7 25 Kg2 Re8 26 a3! Nc2! 27 Nd5! Rxe2+ 28 Kh1 Rxh2+!! 29 Kxh2 Qe2+ and wins. The games section, the bulk of the book, features many such instructive, perhaps even "awe-inspiring" moments. In other areas Reappraisal comes off less well. While emulating Reinfeld in the "psychological insight" department, Keene criticizes Reinfeld's book on Nimzowitsch (Hypermodern Chess, a/k/a Nimzovich the Hypermodern, 1948). For example, discussing the game Nimzowitsch-Salwe, Carlsbad 1911 (See Diagram), Reinfeld wrote that for playing 7 dxc5, "one of the deepest [moves] ever played, Nimzowitsch was roundly damned by the chess world." Keene cites Vidmar to show that "Unfortunately, the facts contradict this pleasantly romantic view." However, Keene has often been shown by Edward Winter and others to be one of chessdom's worst offenders against historical accuracy. Though in the above matter he may be right, for him to criticize Reinfeld is rather like Jackie Gleason admonishing someone to lose weight. For example, in discussing the Panov- Botvinnik variation of the Caro-Kann (1 e4 2 c6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 cxd5 4 c4) Keene says "Nimzowitsch used this against Alekhine at Bled 1931, and then Alekhine himself became its most enthusiastic practitioner. Why on earth we call it the Panov-Botvinnik I shall never understand!" (p. 77). Questions of opening nomenclature are often tricky; this line actually was first analyzed by Orland Krause of Denmark in 1911, and played and analyzed further by Russian Vasily Panov ca. 1929-30. But as far as it concerns Nimzowitsch and Alekhine, Keene appears to have cause and effect reversed! As far as I can find, their actual chronology with the line is: (1) Alekhine-Tartakower, Paris 1925; (2) Tartakower-Nimzowitsch, Liege 1930; and only then (3) Nimzowitsch-Alekhine, Bled 1931. In other words, Nimzowitsch may well have learned of the line from Alekhine, and not the other way around. The Panov- Botvinnik might be more accurately called the Krause-Panov, but for Keene to imply that it should be named for Nimzowitsch is ludicrous. Other errors are more subtle. While Reappraisal is better researched than many other Keene books, it still shows a certain superficiality, for example in its discussion of the genesis of the Nimzo-Indian Defense. Nimzowitsch first played 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 against Janowsky at St. Petersburg 1914. Keene rightly notes that it had been played earlier (with a slight transposition), in Englisch-Blackburne, London 1883, but neglects to state that it had appeared even earlier, in Singleton-Casswell, correspondence, England 1854. Admittedly not a point of great importance, but a harbinger of further omission when Keene discusses the Nimzo- Indian's strategic ancestry. He correctly notes that an important theme of the defense, Black's pressure against White's c3/c4/d4 pawn complex, may not have been completely original with Nimzowitsch, citing this position (See Diagram), from a Dutch Defense, Salwe-Tartakower, Carlsbad 1911. Keene says "the manner of play against the doubled c-pawns and the whole concept of blockade ... [clearly shows] there was some cross-fertilization between the livelier minds of the pre-1914 chess world. The new ideas were not the sole intellectual property of Nimzowitsch!" True indeed, but Keene seems completely unaware that the idea can be traced back much further. Consider this position (See Diagram) from Winawer-Neumann, Paris 1867, where the Polish master continued 22 Ba3 Qf7 23 Nc3 a5 24 Na4 Na6 25 Rac1, pressuring the c5-pawn in a perfect mirror image of the Nimzo-Indian strategy, nearly 50 years before Nimzowitsch "originated" it. This is not the only Winawer game with such ideas. As we noted in the February 1999 Inside Chess, it is very hard to believe that Winawer's games were unknown to the Latvian Nimzowitsch (not to mention the Pole Tartakower), especially since (1) they all moved in Russian chess circles at the time Nimzowitsch was formulating his opening ideas; and (2) Nimzowitsch was very fond of the line 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Bb4, i.e., the Winawer French. Nimzowitsch's affinity for Knights over Bishops is another sign of Winawer influence. Winawer lived until 1920 and Nimzowitsch almost surely knew him personally. I strongly doubt Nimzowitsch was ignorant of Winawer's games, but it's clear Keene is. He is further guilty of worse superficiality in discussing the Advance French (1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 e5), calling it "another of Nimzowitsch's brain children," when it is well known that Louis Paulsen (1833-91) was playing it years before Nimzowitsch was born. Keene has at least deleted one error from his 1974 edition (repeated from Reinfeld), that New York 1927 was a "candidates tournament" in which, had Nimzowitsch finished first, or second to Capablanca, he could have gained a world title match. While it is a pleasant surprise to see Keene correcting himself, on the whole one should not read Reappraisal as an historical work without substantial salt at hand. As an instructional book, it is somewhat problematic, though not through any fault of Keene's. As R. E. Fauber said, "If there were a difficult way to play a chess game, Nimzovich would find it." Few masters are harder for the amateur to emulate than the eccentric Latvian. However, Keene deserves credit for making some Nimzowitsch concepts easier to understand, and for providing relevant illustrative examples. By itself, or used as Keene recommends, in concert with My System and/or Chess Praxis, Reappraisal should have instructive value, at least for players of above-average strength. For less advanced players I would recommend (at the risk of making Nimzowitsch spin in his grave!) that they first try a book by his arch-rival Tarrasch, whose more direct theory of the game is easier to grasp. It is as a games collection that this book stands out: about 100 Nimzowitsch games, both famous and little-known, some with his own annotations (hard to find anywhere else), others with good notes by Keene. For all his eccentricity and bombast, Nimzowitsch loved and understood chess as few men have ever done, and for all his usual sloppiness Keene's respect and enthusiasm for Nimzowitsch have motivated him to produce a book well above his norm. As long as one does not regard it as an historical reference, Aron Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal will do little harm, and will provide a good deal of interesting reading and educational study material.