Aron Nimzowitsch My System & Chess Praxis
Sort:
Who's actually read this book and how was it???
I think Nimzo was a great player, but not a great teacher.
I think many people admire his knowledge and ideas, but can not find them well-explained.
Capablanca ridiculed Nimzovich, probably underservedly.
In spite of his charming exterior, I have come to believe that Capa had a very nasty streak, and perhaps was a cynic.
It is a pity that Nimzo was not a better teacher.
I was luckily taught Maths, my favorite subject, by not more than average mathematicians, who however had the genius for explaining things well, which really means they know their pupils, and how best to express things in terms they know the pupil will understand.
The same thing happens in Music in the case of Rameau, a great theoretician, but awful and long winded in explanation. So, teachers who somehow took the trouble to "get" Rameau now teach what he said in easily understandable terms.
This is written in love, and if trolls come and spoil things I cannot stop them, but you, dear reader, will probably appreciate ny efforts, poor though they be.
Perhaps I too are a sort of Nimzovich or Rameau. Please do not play the charming, but a bit snakey, Capablanca.
The book is controversial, several strong players love it. I tried to read it several times. Somehow I didn't like his humour, although some of his analogies are really great, like the one where he compared the exchange of a figure which moved several times with an undeveloped figure to pigs: if you had to feed a pig during months, if this pig would die this would be much worst than a young pig. A lot of analogies are related to war, what is not a surprise.
Little Charles, thanks for your courteous reply.
I know some of the points you are making, and I agree in part.
Perhaps I am a bit wrong about Capablanca, as I thought he was a lazy party animal, but he reckon that Nimzo was not really a great endgame player.
The one thing I really got from Nimzo, because I could see there was gold among the gravel, was his section on Rooks, not just a Rook, on the 7th and 8th ranks. I have won a lot of games form that. People around my rating are orten unaware of the danger of allowing "pigs on the 7th".
I find Tarrasch a very good teacher, who is writing for players at my level. After 2000, Nimzo straight, or better predigested, a la the interpeters of Rameau in music, is vital for those who do need the "higher learning".
But, your input is very valued, and you have modified my criticism.
Thank you.
My 2000-rated friend has My System by Aron Nimzowich....and he says that it's a great book.....for all levels....including1191 rated players like me
One can get some idea of the lasting scope of the respect for My System by looking at:
https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-best-chess-books-ever
Still, it might be noted that My System apparently did not occur to GM Yasser Seirawan as something to include in his list of personal favorites, and Aaron Nimzowitsch was not identified by the GM as a very worthy author.
Also, My System has accumulated some direct negative commentary over the years.
"... I found [the books of Aaron Nimzowitsch to be] very difficult to read or understand. ... [Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal by Raymond Keene explains his] thinking and influence on the modern game in a far more lucid and accessible way. ... The books that are most highly thought of are not necessarily the most useful. Go with those that you find to be readable; ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2010)
About a year ago, IM pfren wrote:
"My System is an iconoclastic book. A lot of things in there is sheer provocation, and it does need an expereienced player to know what exactly must be taken at its face value.
I love 'My System', and I have read it cover to cover one dozen times, but suggesting it to a class player is an entirely different matter."
"[Some things] ARE wrong, and it's not easy for a non-advanced player to discover those wrong claims.
Nigel Short has claimed that 'My System' should be banned. Stratos Grivas says that the book is very bad. I don't share their opinion, but I am pretty sure that there are more useful reads for class players out there."
Although he is a fan of My System, IM John Watson similarly acknowledged (2013) that:
"... Not everything in it has stood the test of time, ..."
http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/john-watson-book-review-108-of-eplus-books-part-2-nimzowitsch-classics
One last point to keep in mind is that, even if My System would eventually help a player, it might not necessarily be helpful to a player now.
"... Just because a book contains lots of information that you don’t know, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be extremely helpful in making you better at this point in your chess development. ..." - Dan Heisman (2001)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626180930/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman06.pdf
I found both books excellent. I required my high school chess players to read the chapter on Overprotection.
Thank you everybody for all your insight....I've decided to add such masterpiece to my collection later this week. I like the pawn structure info it contains...
I have had My System for 12 years, and never got around to it. Can we get an informal vote here, should I work on other things or read it?
Ooooooh those are good books. Especially art of war.
"My System" was a great book when it was written. The understanding of dynamic play has changed a lot of the theory, so his dogma is only part of chess understanding.
NOTE: it's been over 30 years since I've read it, but I read Alekhine's best games first, so I;m a little prejudice.
Alekhine using Nimzowwitsch's ideas against him http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1012683
Kasparov said Nimzo did well against amateurs but not so good against the elite of his day. He never beat Capablanca,
so why would you want to read his books? At least 24 must-reads have been written since 1930 and of those about 10 or 12 are must-owns. Grab something from this century.
camter wrote:
In spite of his charming exterior, I have come to believe that Capa had a very nasty streak, and perhaps was a cynic.
What the Cynics actually believed 
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_(philosophy)
"Cynicism (Greek: κυνισμός) is a school of thought of ancient Greek philosophy as practiced by the Cynics (Greek: Κυνικοί, Latin: Cynici). For the Cynics, the purpose of life is to live in virtue, in agreement with nature. As reasoning creatures, people can gain happiness by rigorous training and by living in a way which is natural for themselves, rejecting all conventional desires for wealth, power, sex, and fame. Instead, they were to lead a simple life free from all possessions.
The first philosopher to outline these themes was Antisthenes, who had been a pupil of Socrates in the late 5th century BC. He was followed by Diogenes, who lived in a tub on the streets of Athens.[2]Diogenes took Cynicism to its logical extremes, and came to be seen as the archetypal Cynic philosopher. He was followed by Crates of Thebes, who gave away a large fortune so he could live a life of Cynic poverty in Athens. Cynicism spread with the rise of the Roman Empire in the 1st century, and Cynics could be found begging and preaching throughout the cities of the empire. It finally disappeared in the late 5th century, although similar ascetic and rhetorical ideas appear in early Christianity.
By the 19th century, emphasis on the negative aspects of Cynic philosophy led to the modern understanding of cynicism to mean a disposition of disbelief in the sincerity or goodness of human motives and actions."
I read My System years ago, and find myself quoting from it or referring back to it often. One of the greatest books on chess ever. Essential reading I would say.
I have Chess Praxis, but I haven't dipped into it as much. Hope to read it some day.
Asylum also suffered the same fate as Cynicism.
Yeah, and another word as well. Happened to many, I guess.
The Greeks get very upset when the meaning ot their words change. Problem with being ancient, I guess.
The Chinese words may suffer the same fate. But, we will probably never know.
That video is very good.
Why?
Because the commentator is a teacher.
The ideas in general are not what I criticised in "My System".
He criticised the "dogmatic" Dr. Tarrasch. He was therein unwittingly drawing attention to his own worst fault.
Think about it!
I MAY have more to say later. That will do for now.
A few things I will add.
(1) It may be he publisher's fault. It may have been an omssion by Nimzovich. There should have been more diagrams in the book.Today, it is probably easier to put diagrams in a book.
(2) Much of what Nimzo said has been absorbed into the common knowledge. Perhaps a lot of what he said was revolutionary at the time. Now, it is "common sense".
(3) Theorists have queried the idea of "pawn base". It seems that it is useful sometimes, but is not of universal application.
Lastly, thank you to those who have posted. I think just a bit more kindly about Nimzovich than I did a few weeks ago.
He was a pioneer in many ways, and it is on them that we build or reconstruct.
Thank you, GM Aron Nimzovich.
my wife bought me a new copy of My System/Chess Praxis for father's day.... Thank you everybody again for your insight on both titles.
Are you guys kidding me ? Most of you MUST be uneducated amateurs to chess. It is common knowledge that the principles that Nimzowitach taught in his book " My System" is the road map used by every single World class GM for chess strategy. My opinion is a player keen on improving their chess skills CANNOT advance to the titled levels until they completely understand what is taught by Nimzowitach. In "My System". It is recommended reading for every serious chess players library and should be a constant book for reference. I, personally, didn't understand or appreciate all the intrinsic beauty and style of studying GM games until I began understanding Nimzowitch principles in his book "My System".