GM KEENE REVIEWS THE REVIEWER (2)

Questions of opening nomenclature are often tricky; this line actually
was first analyzed by Orland Krause of Denmark in 1911.

Yes, we know about Dr. Krause, the Danish theoretician -- remember
Denmark? --where Nimzo emigrated after the first World War. Nimzo even
gives a game by Krause with this very line in his Chess Praxis.

--and played and analyzed further by Russian Vasily Panov ca. 1929-30.

Much later.

But as far as it concerns Nimzowitsch and Alekhine, Keene appears to
have cause and effect reversed! As far asI 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 linefrom Alekhine, and not the other way around.

Try Nimzo-Jokstad, Bergen 1921 which as far as I can see normally
comes BEFORE 1925 and 1930. It seems pretty likely that when Nimzo went
to Denmark he became interested in this line by association with Dr.
Krause, whom he writes of very positively in Chess Praxis.

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.

I did not write this at all! I merely wrote that I was surprisedit
was christened after Panov and Botvinnik. But to call it the
Panov-Botvinnikas I supposed we now must -- as sanctioned by usage --is
just another sadexample of Soviets hacks hijacking an opening system
worked out by others.It reminds of of Commander Chekhov, the Russian
Star Trek officer who automatically claims that everything was invented
in Moscow.

Other errors are more subtle.

What other errors? He hasn't found any at all yet!!

While Reappraisal is better researched than many other Keene books,
it still showsa certain superficiality, for example in its discussion
of the genesis ofthe
Nimzo-Indian Defense.

Superficiality is it now ? This had better be good!

Nimzowitsch first played 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6
3 Nc3 Bb4 against Janowsky at St. Petersburg 1914. Keene rightly notes
thatit 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.

I neglect to mention a game from 1854! I am here saying thatNimzo
neither invented the opening nor had a monopoly on its development.
Both true!

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'sc3/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).

And now I am allegedly unaware of an even more important mirror image
-- this time from 1867.

Interested readers please consult the database 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.

No, Keene is not ignorant. I just thought everyone knew
aboutStaunton's win vs. the Bristol Chess Club of 1844-45 by
correspondence --a game far predating any references cited by TK! It's
#25
in my book on Howard Staunton, a pure mirror image Nimzo-Indian. TK
missesthe point. I wasn't trying to find the earliest reference, which
is in factStaunton's game, but simply showing that a well known 1883
game had reachedthe Nimzo basic position, which GMs of that era would
probably know and thatothers (Tartakower) also deserved some credit. I
am sure Winawer does too, but if we are playing the game of going as
far back as we can I doubt anyone will trump Staunton vs. Bristol. If
they do, please let me know!

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.

Wake up Taylor Kingston. Anyone at home up there? Paulsen vs.
Tarrasch is on page 53 of my book!
And brain child doesn't mean Nimzo played it first, though it could. It
meansthat Nimzo nurtured and proselytised for it like no other GM ever
did. Heworked out a complete theory for 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 in the
French, contributingmore than anyone else.

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.

Salt? The belief that New York 1927 was a candidates' tournament was
widespread when I wrote the first edition. And no, I did not get it
from Reinfeld.
In fact I accepted the truth of a memoir of Capablanca by J. DuMont. It
is now believed that New York 1927 was almost certainly NOT a
candidates' tournament as we now understand the phrase, though heaven
knows how they would have handled matters had Nimzo won or come second.
But I certainly felt it safer to delete this based on what had been
unearthed since the first edition.

Now what's this assertion about
"at least deleted one error, implying there were lots more. I have
proved here that there aren't. I would even say, given the state of
knowledge at the time of writing, that referring to New York 1927 as a
candidates' tournament was NOT an error. Changing the description
showed an awareness of and sensitivity to more recent research. This
slur about a pleasant surprise to see Keene correcting himself is
unworthy of an objective reviewer. It would be more typical of a
reviewer with a preset agenda. I am always ready to correct something
if it can be done. For example, if a mistake occurs in my daily Times
column I always try to get it corrected as quickly as possible. Anyone
who reads it can verify this fact. TK"s pleasant surprise insult is
just another generalised attack without foundation.

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.

This bit is more or less okay. TK even admits I mention Praxis
wherethe 1924-25 Krause game occurs, thus conceding that I did know
about Krause's contribution to the so-called Panov-Botvinnik Attack.

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

For all his uusual sloppiness?? Outrageous slur with no evidence at
all. Who has been sloppy here with his research? Me or the reviewer
whooverlooked Nimzo vs. Jokstad 1921 and Staunton vs. Bristol 1844?
Come offit. TK has not found one single instance of so-called
sloppiness, whereas I have unearthed several in his review.

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.

Damning with faint praise yet again. No historical reference? What
about all the tournament tables. What about unearthing Nimzo's "HowI
Became a GM" with his fabulous early game with Tarrasch?

Yet TK mentions respect and enthusiasm. My verdict on his review? Three
on a scale of ten. Not yet ready for prime time (as GM Evans puts it in
his 4/24/06 column at WCN). Taylor Kingston is evidently lying
throughout. Even worse, he is lying to himself, thus defeating the
purpose of his review.

His language at times betrays that he likes my book but he knows that
Winter now disapproves of Keene and he must toe the party line or be
hurled himself into outer darkness with the non-Winterians -- Parr,
Evans, and the redoubtable Innes. TK tried desperately to demolish my
book in spite of the fact that in truth he liked it! But he had to
dance to the official tune, hurl slurs and fire insults.

He either has to invent claims I patently never made and says I
overlooked games that are in my book (Paulsen vs. Tarrasch) and alleges
I showed historical ignorance. He could actually make a decent chess
writer if he didn't have such an agenda.

Finally I ask you, Mr. Kingston, what have I done to deserve this
attack from you?
You don't know me and I certainly had no idea of who you were before I
noticed your insulting material. What is wrong with my book, which many
consider a classic. and which has gone through three editions to
deserve this kind of shoddy treatment at your hands?

-- GM Ray Keene