I bought this book today, along with Chess Praxis Also by Nimzo...
I've read allot about this book(but not it) and have come to this conclusion:
The book is ment for about anyone under +-1800.
I've heard 1400 elo people say the book is too hard, and then another guy elo 1600 + who said it was too easy.
I think this book is for someone who wont have a problem with reading the Algebraic notation, and who is around the 1200-1400 elo range.
My elo on this website will probably be around 1350 or more since I beat 1300 players. My rating on playchess is about 1280.
I bought the book becuase I wanted to buy a book and I believe it can really improve a beginner like myself.
Just players around my elo should rather do tactics. I spend allot of time on that too.
I started playing chess 2 months ago, not even knowing the rules.
I thought Id share my story so it could help you.
Originally posted by pinkthunderI have read Nimzo books very late - only 7 years ago after becoming candidate of master and my chess strengh was about 2000 ELO (at least I think so because I havent got FIDE rating then. Also at the moment my FIDE ELO strenght could be about 2200-2300 - much lower my real ELO because I`m always haven`t played in international tournaments ) and his books were very useful.
What elo--roughly--is this book geared for?
This book is about strategy which I think is more difficult to learn then some others may think. Let's take space, teorritory or what ever you want to call it. In a lot of sources it is often said that space is good if you are able to defend it, but harmfull if you can't. So let's try to define this a little further... The experience that I have from my short chess career (2 years) is that if no pawns or possibly 1 have dissapeared for each side then space takes on great importance as it is closley linked to manouvering. If you can't manouver in a closed position then you are often lost. This further gives us more things to think about when evaulating space in the position. For instance, if my opponent can gain space with tempo but in doing so he has to open a line which my rook stands on, then maybe he is not actually threatening anything. Still it's often very hard to get a correct answer to this. Tactics you don't have to study, you either know it or you don't. But with strategy it's not so easy. I guess if you want to learn chess strategy it simply isn't enough to know for instance the basic defention of space.
Any comments on this is greatly appreciated and if someone has some games on space as a theme... when it's good and when it's not please share them.
Since people are remarking on Nimzovich's writing, I thought I'd add this. I was having a beer with a few guys many years ago after a chess tournament. Canadian Grandmaster Peter Biyiasas was with us. Very nice guy, by the way. We were talking a little bit of this and that about chess. And Nimzovich's writing came up. Peter, who was normally a very light-hearted and funny guy said very emphatically he thought that anyone who read My System was just going to get a lot of wrong-headed ideas and that the book was generally a perversion of chess theory. I know, pretty strong words.
Originally posted by DJanowskican you elaborate?
Since people are remarking on Nimzovich's writing, I thought I'd add this. I was having a beer with a few guys many years ago after a chess tournament. Canadian Grandmaster Peter Biyiasas was with us. Very nice guy, by the way. We were talking a little bit of this and that about chess. And Nimzovich's writing came up. Peter, who was normally a very l ...[text shortened]... s and that the book was generally a perversion of chess theory. I know, pretty strong words.
Originally posted by DJanowskiFunny, another canadian gm, Kevin Spraggett comes down hard on Nimzo as well.
Since people are remarking on Nimzovich's writing, I thought I'd add this. I was having a beer with a few guys many years ago after a chess tournament. Canadian Grandmaster Peter Biyiasas was with us. Very nice guy, by the way. We were talking a little bit of this and that about chess. And Nimzovich's writing came up. Peter, who was normally a very l ...[text shortened]... s and that the book was generally a perversion of chess theory. I know, pretty strong words.
http://www.kevinspraggett.com/Nonimzo.htm
There will always be those with different opinions.
I still think the book is worth buying. Many people have given it great reviews. I wont let a few others stop me from believing in it.
Though, I do believe he is wrong at some points, probably, but the book, and most of his ideas are still worth studying.
Originally posted by 93confirmedOne example would be 'overprotection'. Nimzo sells it as something you should do to your "strategically important points" and then you will find them "well posted in every respect".
Can anyone give an example or two off the types of flawed concepts in the book?
Modern theorists haven't bought into this idea, and some of his examples would suggest adopting really passive postions (like say pointing your rooks, queen, and knight at a center pawn for no concrete reason).
Also some of his dogmas about how to attack pawn chains and stuff have been challenged (like you always need to attack the base).
In general, he overgeneralizes. Modern chess is intractable in that you can't break it down into a simple set of rules. 'My System' tries to do this.
But I have read it and I did learn from it anyway.