My System Chapter 2 - On Open Files

Section 6...

I like that Nimzo has an example of an "outpost" on h7, and it is a Rook, not a Knight, that occupies it. So many of the definitions I see for "outpost" (aka "support point") have that it is a square on the fourth, fifth, or sixth rank. Why leave out the 7th?

Silman uses Nimzo's idea that an enemy pawn may be able to attack the piece on the square, but that it would then weaken his position in some way. But Silman also says 4th, 5th or 6th rank.

I don't see it in My System, but there is also an idea called an "artificial support point". In that, the enemy pawn that might attack the piece on the support point, cannot advance; usually because a friendly pawn on the adjacent file would capture it.

Diagram 26 is interesting. Many people would look at it and play 1.Nd5 and reason that the Knight is occupying an outpost, and forking a Bishop and pawn. This is short sighted. The Bishop will check at c5 gaining a tempo to protect the c-pawn with Rfc8. Black will eventually play c6 and White's Knight advance has gained nothing. There is no Black d-pawn weakened by the advance of the c-pawn, and beside that, White does not have a half-open d-file!

A very good discussion of "outpost" is in the book "Point Count Chess" by Horowitz and Mott-Smith. They call this an "outpost station" and use the word "station" to refer to the square itself. They give examples of the station at various specific squares. They also talk about the idea of "plugging the station" from the defenders point of view.

Section 6... I like that Nimzo has an example of an "outpost" on h7, and it is a Rook, not a Knight, that occupies it. So many of the definitions I see for "outpost" (aka "support point") have that it is a square on the fourth, fifth, or sixth rank. Why leave out the 7th? Silman uses Nimzo's idea that an enemy pawn may be able to attack the piece on the square, but that it would then weaken his position in some way. But Silman also says 4th, 5th or 6th rank. I don't see it in My System, but there is also an idea called an "artificial support point". In that, the enemy pawn that might attack the piece on the support point, cannot advance; usually because a friendly pawn on the adjacent file would capture it. Diagram 26 is interesting. Many people would look at it and play 1.Nd5 and reason that the Knight is occupying an outpost, and forking a Bishop and pawn. This is short sighted. The Bishop will check at c5 gaining a tempo to protect the c-pawn with Rfc8. Black will eventually play c6 and White's Knight advance has gained nothing. There is no Black d-pawn weakened by the advance of the c-pawn, and beside that, White does not have a half-open d-file! A very good discussion of "outpost" is in the book "Point Count Chess" by Horowitz and Mott-Smith. They call this an "outpost station" and use the word "station" to refer to the square itself. They give examples of the station at various specific squares. They also talk about the idea of "plugging the station" from the defenders point of view.

LloydThompson edited

#12

I tend to be a lazy studier, and to skip around themes, planning to get back to them in depth "sometime later".....the ill-defined and usually never-reached future. So I'm glad we're going through this book. I'm making myself be a bit more disciplined -- just as you would with readings in a regular book club.

I think this is a really good chapter. I skimmed through the whole thing first, and am now half way done going back through diagram by diagram, making sure I understand the lines (or at least the ideas), and will get out a board if I need to. Most of the topics are things that I already look for in analyzing a position, even if more visually/instinctively, than consciously thinking. But Nimzovich is helping me understand some of the finer points that I sometimes miss, and to consciously integrate the different ideas in my head....more holistic I guess -- connecting all the ideas together. I tend to be a lazy studier, and to skip around themes, planning to get back to them in depth "sometime later".....the ill-defined and usually never-reached future. So I'm glad we're going through this book. I'm making myself be a bit more disciplined -- just as you would with readings in a regular book club.

RamblinDave

#13

@jomega - Some really interesting thoughts, again. Thanks!

On the "boasting" - this is maybe my stylistic preference, but I think I'd find the book much more approachable if Nimzovich had included a sort of autobiographical preface to talk about how his ideas evolved, how and he introduced them and how they were received rather than mixing it in with the body of the book. Because while I'm actually really interested in that stuff, I sometimes find it breaks up the flow of the presentation of the ideas themselves.

Section 3 I find a bit odd - the "marauding raid" and the "enveloping operation" here feel like two tactical patterns that are occurring in this one very specific situation. I'm not really getting why he feels the need to name and classify them here without further examples.

I think when I read the book previously I felt a bit similarly about the "revolutionary attack" - like, hey, in some very specific situations you've got a cool sacrificial attack, that doesn't sound very positional, does it? But now I think I get it a bit more - we're basically talking about the fact that sometimes you can use an open file to build up long-term pressure against a weak point, and sometimes you can use it to take advantage of an immediate tactical idea. I think the point about chronological order is that increased long-term pressure will tend to subsequently lead to tactical possibilities as the opponent's defensive resources get stretched, rather than necessarily talking about the order in which you should calculate.

I've definitely heard "biting on granite" before, although for some reason I really associate it with the bishop in the Fischer-Sozin attack. Which is odd, because I know practically nothing about that line beyond the fact that it exists and that the bishop "bites on granite" in it.

@LloydThompson - I'm glad it's helping! That pretty much echoes what I was hoping to get from it myself...

@jomega - Some really interesting thoughts, again. Thanks! On the "boasting" - this is maybe my stylistic preference, but I think I'd find the book much more approachable if Nimzovich had included a sort of autobiographical preface to talk about how his ideas evolved, how and he introduced them and how they were received rather than mixing it in with the body of the book. Because while I'm actually really interested in that stuff, I sometimes find it breaks up the flow of the presentation of the ideas themselves. Section 3 I find a bit odd - the "marauding raid" and the "enveloping operation" here feel like two tactical patterns that are occurring in this one very specific situation. I'm not really getting why he feels the need to name and classify them here without further examples. I think when I read the book previously I felt a bit similarly about the "revolutionary attack" - like, hey, in some very specific situations you've got a cool sacrificial attack, that doesn't sound very positional, does it? But now I think I get it a bit more - we're basically talking about the fact that sometimes you can use an open file to build up long-term pressure against a weak point, and sometimes you can use it to take advantage of an immediate tactical idea. I think the point about chronological order is that increased long-term pressure will tend to subsequently lead to tactical possibilities as the opponent's defensive resources get stretched, rather than necessarily talking about the order in which you should calculate. I've definitely heard "biting on granite" before, although for some reason I really associate it with the bishop in the Fischer-Sozin attack. Which is odd, because I know practically nothing about that line beyond the fact that it exists and that the bishop "bites on granite" in it. @LloydThompson - I'm glad it's helping! That pretty much echoes what I was hoping to get from it myself...

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.