My System Chapter 4 - The Passed Pawn • page 1/2 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

Right, we're onto week four of the Forum Book Club on My System by Aron Nimzowitsch. This week we're looking at Chapter 4: the Passed Pawn. Have a look through it and come back with anything you found particularly enlightening or particularly mystifying.

Topics covered:
1 To get our bearings.
2 The blockade of passed pawns.
3 The blockader's primary and secondary functions.
4 The fight against the blockader.
5 Frontal attack by the king against an isolated pawn as a Kingly ideal.
6 The privileged passed pawn.
7 When a passed pawn should advance.
8 Endgames illustrating the passed pawn.

Links to previous threads:
Chapter 1 - On the Centre and Development
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/my-system-chapter-1-on-the-centre-and-development#1
Chapter 2 - On Open Files
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/my-system-chapter-2-on-open-files#1
Chapter 3 - The Seventh and Eighth Ranks
https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/my-system-chapter-3-the-seventh-and-eighth-ranks

Right, we're onto week four of the Forum Book Club on My System by Aron Nimzowitsch. This week we're looking at Chapter 4: the Passed Pawn. Have a look through it and come back with anything you found particularly enlightening or particularly mystifying. Topics covered: 1 To get our bearings. 2 The blockade of passed pawns. 3 The blockader's primary and secondary functions. 4 The fight against the blockader. 5 Frontal attack by the king against an isolated pawn as a Kingly ideal. 6 The privileged passed pawn. 7 When a passed pawn should advance. 8 Endgames illustrating the passed pawn. Links to previous threads: Chapter 1 - On the Centre and Development lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/my-system-chapter-1-on-the-centre-and-development#1 Chapter 2 - On Open Files lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/my-system-chapter-2-on-open-files#1 Chapter 3 - The Seventh and Eighth Ranks https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/my-system-chapter-3-the-seventh-and-eighth-ranks

RamblinDave

#2

I've gone through it but don't have in-depth comments ready to go yet - I'll probably put a few things up over time.

First impression though - this feels kind of like Nimzovich getting into his stride a bit? It's a big chapter and the ideas seem to go a lot deeper than they did in previous chapters, and (spoiler alert) to connect more into the stuff that he gets into in part 2.

I found it a really good read. I'll be interested to see whether and how it factors into my decision making in actual games...

I've gone through it but don't have in-depth comments ready to go yet - I'll probably put a few things up over time. First impression though - this feels kind of like Nimzovich getting into his stride a bit? It's a big chapter and the ideas seem to go a lot deeper than they did in previous chapters, and (spoiler alert) to connect more into the stuff that he gets into in part 2. I found it a really good read. I'll be interested to see whether and how it factors into my decision making in actual games...

RamblinDave

#3

One thing I will put in quickly - the bit at the beginning about why we care so much about pawns and pawn structure was aabut of an "Oh yeah, I'd never thought about that" moment for me. Why is it important whether or not a plan is supported by another pawn, or impeded by an enemy pawn, but not so much when it's supported or blocked by a piece? Answer, essentially: because a pawn is less likely than a knight or a rook to suddenly have something more important to do and abandon it's original job.

RamblinDave

#4

A couple more simple thoughts.

On section 1, the rule for generally advancing a pawn majority by pushing the candidate first is some good, simple, actionable advice.

Section 2 - there's a kind of symmetry or thematic unity to Nimzovich's way of thinking here that I really like. The unblockaded passed pawn is dangerous partly because it can be sacrificed to simultaneously activate all the pieces that had been protecting it. But the blockading piece and its defenders also gain strength from their connection to the strategically important blockading square, and gain a sort of collective manoeuvrability through it.

I haven't looked at this idea in action enough, though - I probably need to look at a couple of the illustrative games...

A couple more simple thoughts. On section 1, the rule for generally advancing a pawn majority by pushing the candidate first is some good, simple, actionable advice. Section 2 - there's a kind of symmetry or thematic unity to Nimzovich's way of thinking here that I really like. The unblockaded passed pawn is dangerous partly because it can be sacrificed to simultaneously activate all the pieces that had been protecting it. But the blockading piece and its defenders also gain strength from their connection to the strategically important blockading square, and gain a sort of collective manoeuvrability through it. I haven't looked at this idea in action enough, though - I probably need to look at a couple of the illustrative games...

jomega

#5

In my copy of the book (English translation by Hereford, May 1974) Nimzo's writing style is in full force in this chapter. Some examples...

"The neighbor who is somewhat disturbing and the vis-a-vis who is wholly unpleasant."

"... the Pawn, our foot soldier, is worthy of all respect."

"The passed Pawn is a criminal, who should be kept under lock and key."

"The beginner only 'rejoices' when he can call checkmate to his opponent, or perhaps still more if he can win his Q (for in the eyes of a beginner this is if possible the greater triumph of the two)."

"It must now be clear that an officer in no sense compromises his dignity by answering the summons to act as a blockader, for the post proves itself to be a most honorable one, safe, yet allowing full initiative."

"Many a stout fellow who has grown gray at chess will gasp at this: What? Is the "opposition" also to be abolished now? Yes, I am sorry, but this blow must fall."

"And first, to get our bearings, let us remark that to conceive the center arithmetically means counting the Pawns standing there, and regarding a numerical majority as giving a guarantee of preponderance. A wholly untenable conception."

"Thus like two trusty comrades on a battlefield, they will advance together, step by step, and it will be but seldom, and then only if far advanced, that it may happen that one of them will push on alone, ruthlessly leaving his friend to be slaughtered."

In my copy of the book (English translation by Hereford, May 1974) Nimzo's writing style is in full force in this chapter. Some examples... "The neighbor who is somewhat disturbing and the vis-a-vis who is wholly unpleasant." "... the Pawn, our foot soldier, is worthy of all respect." "The passed Pawn is a criminal, who should be kept under lock and key." "The beginner only 'rejoices' when he can call checkmate to his opponent, or perhaps still more if he can win his Q (for in the eyes of a beginner this is if possible the greater triumph of the two)." "It must now be clear that an officer in no sense compromises his dignity by answering the summons to act as a blockader, for the post proves itself to be a most honorable one, safe, yet allowing full initiative." "Many a stout fellow who has grown gray at chess will gasp at this: What? Is the "opposition" also to be abolished now? Yes, I am sorry, but this blow must fall." "And first, to get our bearings, let us remark that to conceive the center arithmetically means counting the Pawns standing there, and regarding a numerical majority as giving a guarantee of preponderance. A wholly untenable conception." "Thus like two trusty comrades on a battlefield, they will advance together, step by step, and it will be but seldom, and then only if far advanced, that it may happen that one of them will push on alone, ruthlessly leaving his friend to be slaughtered."

Player1365

#6

I think "My System" is probably one of the most over rated chess books in history!

jomega edited

#7

I'm waiting for studies to come back before posting more.

What I find the most interesting in chapter 4 from a theory and historical perspective is Nimzo's attempt at getting rid of the chess idea of "opposition". Most chess teachers still use the idea of opposition to help the student understand certain endgames. They augment this with Nimzo's advice that at times the King must play the role of leader.

As always, once the chess ideas have been internalized, you just know what to do and you do not usual consciously think of those chess ideas to find your move.

I'm waiting for studies to come back before posting more. What I find the most interesting in chapter 4 from a theory and historical perspective is Nimzo's attempt at getting rid of the chess idea of "opposition". Most chess teachers still use the idea of opposition to help the student understand certain endgames. They augment this with Nimzo's advice that at times the King must play the role of leader. As always, once the chess ideas have been internalized, you just know what to do and you do not usual consciously think of those chess ideas to find your move.

dboing

#8

writing style.
I think the singularity or surprising aspect of the writing is not just about words or sentences* but about the stage where the explanations take place. It is heavily using anthropomorphism, pathos, and theatrical notions, to elicit full attention on the essence of what is his thinking. Also, i would guess (?) that in a context where people may have been fighting over the necessary divergence between words and concept, in a still expanding chess tree knowledge (I wonder about demographics, and scale of exploration rate across 2 centuries), some of the fights may have appeared like distractions from what he was understanding intuitively as being systematic aspect of chess playing as he had experienced it. Dropping previous convened lecturing styles, or words choices, and tapping on human social and emotional ability to project onto characters such as the annoying neighbor or the bitter enemy, would allow full attention to the mechanics he wanted to share, using such theatrical convention opens the reader mind to use imagination and try to approach what is staged with fresh mind. thinking on ones feet with the author. Hence the multiple paragraphs (2) that seem to be re-phrasing each other to some extent (possibly going further with iteration?).

talking only about the little i just read in that chapter, and not what is precisely and explicitly revising previous (word X concept) such as opposition (not yet there). All of that from reading only 1 or 2 pages. but having been primed by reading here.

writing style. I think the singularity or surprising aspect of the writing is not just about words or sentences* but about the stage where the explanations take place. It is heavily using anthropomorphism, pathos, and theatrical notions, to elicit full attention on the essence of what is his thinking. Also, i would guess (?) that in a context where people may have been fighting over the necessary divergence between words and concept, in a still expanding chess tree knowledge (I wonder about demographics, and scale of exploration rate across 2 centuries), some of the fights may have appeared like distractions from what he was understanding intuitively as being systematic aspect of chess playing as he had experienced it. Dropping previous convened lecturing styles, or words choices, and tapping on human social and emotional ability to project onto characters such as the annoying neighbor or the bitter enemy, would allow full attention to the mechanics he wanted to share, using such theatrical convention opens the reader mind to use imagination and try to approach what is staged with fresh mind. thinking on ones feet with the author. Hence the multiple paragraphs (2) that seem to be re-phrasing each other to some extent (possibly going further with iteration?). * talking only about the little i just read in that chapter, and not what is precisely and explicitly revising previous (word X concept) such as opposition (not yet there). All of that from reading only 1 or 2 pages. but having been primed by reading here.

LloydThompson

#9

This one is long ! Longest chapter of the book, and I'm on vacation this week. I'm exactly half way through, but at least it seems the remainder is mainly simplified K + P positions. So I'm through the hardest stuff, the complex middlegames. The idea I enjoy the most is the pawn sacs for clearance / piece activity, such as in diagram 41. I want to work on incorporating that into my play. I can see the possibilities in real games, but often can't evaluate the positions well enough to know if I'm getting enough compensation for the material.

When it comes to passed pawns in bare endgames, I've noticed that bare K + P positions can be quite deceptively more difficult than the position suggests. At least for me, it can be extremely difficult to figure out :

lichess.org/HVAstG59#58

In this game from last week, after 25 moves we exchanged down into a bare endgame where I had the minutest of advantages. It probably should end in a draw with correct play. But then on move 30 black made one of those incorrect pawn pushes that Nimzovich talks about on page 32 / diagram 39. I thought I should have some winning chances, and tried to creep my pawns up the board, thinking that eventually black might run out of pawn moves and be forced to give ground with his king, allowing mine to infiltrate his position. Perhaps the right idea, but i could not execute it properly. The crucial point came at move 37. I've done all the positioning I can do, and the BK has just shifted to the Kside. I looked for a sequence of pawn pushes and exchanges on the queenside that would force the win and could not find it. So i simply made a pawn push i knew did not LOSE and offered a draw -- I've so many games where I forced the issue, over-optimisticly, and ended up losing, that I was gunshy. But in fact the position at move 37 is winning for white with 37. a5. I looked at it but thought on move 39 i'd have to keep getting my king closer to the queenside, which draws......instead first 39. a6! cutting off squares for the BK is a sure win.

The lesson I took was that I need to improve my visualization skill and force myself to imaginine more possibilities than I do now

This one is long ! Longest chapter of the book, and I'm on vacation this week. I'm exactly half way through, but at least it seems the remainder is mainly simplified K + P positions. So I'm through the hardest stuff, the complex middlegames. The idea I enjoy the most is the pawn sacs for clearance / piece activity, such as in diagram 41. I want to work on incorporating that into my play. I can see the possibilities in real games, but often can't evaluate the positions well enough to know if I'm getting enough compensation for the material. When it comes to passed pawns in bare endgames, I've noticed that bare K + P positions can be quite deceptively more difficult than the position suggests. At least for me, it can be extremely difficult to figure out : lichess.org/HVAstG59#58 In this game from last week, after 25 moves we exchanged down into a bare endgame where I had the minutest of advantages. It probably should end in a draw with correct play. But then on move 30 black made one of those incorrect pawn pushes that Nimzovich talks about on page 32 / diagram 39. I thought I should have some winning chances, and tried to creep my pawns up the board, thinking that eventually black might run out of pawn moves and be forced to give ground with his king, allowing mine to infiltrate his position. Perhaps the right idea, but i could not execute it properly. The crucial point came at move 37. I've done all the positioning I can do, and the BK has just shifted to the Kside. I looked for a sequence of pawn pushes and exchanges on the queenside that would force the win and could not find it. So i simply made a pawn push i knew did not LOSE and offered a draw -- I've so many games where I forced the issue, over-optimisticly, and ended up losing, that I was gunshy. But in fact the position at move 37 is winning for white with 37. a5. I looked at it but thought on move 39 i'd have to keep getting my king closer to the queenside, which draws......instead first 39. a6! cutting off squares for the BK is a sure win. The lesson I took was that I need to improve my visualization skill and force myself to imaginine more possibilities than I do now

LloydThompson

#10

I just closed out this chapter. Sorry to be so far behind the class, but my vacation really set me back, and despite it being the extremely long chapter, I decided to go through the whole thing, and all the recommended games move by move. I'll probably never have motivation to do it again if I don't follow through now. But the following chapters are much shorter so I plan to be caught up very soon !

Of note :

The 2nd passed pawn example used in Part 6 (c), page 47, is just plain wrong. Nimzovich gives 1. h4 which he says "induces" 1....g6, and white goes on to win. I could never figure out why black couldn't simply play 1....Kc5. After plugging it into Stockfish my confusion was explained. His given move for black isn't induced in any way : Black simply plays 1....Kc5 and the game is a dead draw b/c both sides queen pawns on back to back moves ---> and black's new queen comes with a check that skewers white's king in front of his new queen.

( Also, in Nimzovich - Rubinstein [ diagram 56a ] the improvement for black he suggests as winning in doesn't actually win -- I was trying to understand, so I put his suggestions through stockfish 12 and white holds the draw. Either easily after his 10. Kf4 or with difficulty after his alternative 10. Kf3. But unlike the 6c problem, these aren't crucial mistakes. They weren't a critical part of a key lesson of the book. Any master can get a non - computer analysis wrong. Lasker, Capa, Tal, Fischer, Kaspy, they all got lines wrong before the best computers came along )

I have to confess there was one example he gave that was completely over my head, leaving me thoroughly confused : Diagra, 57, page 50. If anyone can help my understand some key principle underlying this position is, I'd appreciate it.

From the computer I found out that if white has the move white wins. However the winning move might have eluded me without AI help. If black has the move, as Nimzo presented it, he has one very strong winning move (Kc7), but another move that looks quite reasonable (c5), yet where white is instantly winning. I think that during a game I could look at these positions from either side for several minutes, and still not fully understand what was happening.

I just closed out this chapter. Sorry to be so far behind the class, but my vacation really set me back, and despite it being the extremely long chapter, I decided to go through the whole thing, and all the recommended games move by move. I'll probably never have motivation to do it again if I don't follow through now. But the following chapters are much shorter so I plan to be caught up very soon ! Of note : The 2nd passed pawn example used in Part 6 (c), page 47, is just plain wrong. Nimzovich gives 1. h4 which he says "induces" 1....g6, and white goes on to win. I could never figure out why black couldn't simply play 1....Kc5. After plugging it into Stockfish my confusion was explained. His given move for black isn't induced in any way : Black simply plays 1....Kc5 and the game is a dead draw b/c both sides queen pawns on back to back moves ---> and black's new queen comes with a check that skewers white's king in front of his new queen. ( Also, in Nimzovich - Rubinstein [ diagram 56a ] the improvement for black he suggests as winning in doesn't actually win -- I was trying to understand, so I put his suggestions through stockfish 12 and white holds the draw. Either easily after his 10. Kf4 or with difficulty after his alternative 10. Kf3. But unlike the 6c problem, these aren't crucial mistakes. They weren't a critical part of a key lesson of the book. Any master can get a non - computer analysis wrong. Lasker, Capa, Tal, Fischer, Kaspy, they all got lines wrong before the best computers came along ) I have to confess there was one example he gave that was completely over my head, leaving me thoroughly confused : Diagra, 57, page 50. If anyone can help my understand some key principle underlying this position is, I'd appreciate it. From the computer I found out that if white has the move white wins. However the winning move might have eluded me without AI help. If black has the move, as Nimzo presented it, he has one very strong winning move (Kc7), but another move that looks quite reasonable (c5), yet where white is instantly winning. I think that during a game I could look at these positions from either side for several minutes, and still not fully understand what was happening.