Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Standard member Natural Science
    blunderer of pawns
    12 Feb '12 20:10
    Which grandmaster used to annotate the key move of a complicated, forcing variation as "the point"? I thought it was Nimzovich, Lasker, or a grandmaster from their day, but amazingly enough I couldn't find the answer through a Google search. Many thanks.
  2. 12 Feb '12 20:39
    Originally posted by Natural Science
    Which grandmaster used to annotate the key move of a complicated, forcing variation as "the point"? I thought it was Nimzovich, Lasker, or a grandmaster from their day, but amazingly enough I couldn't find the answer through a Google search. Many thanks.
    Off the top of my head it seems like I remember Tarrasch spoke this way. I don't remember it necessarily for forcing variations - but I think he cited many things in this manner.
    The other player I can remember talking about the point in a game is Nimzo. Nimzo had some strange quotes regarding overprotected pawns as "the point".

    Q
  3. 12 Feb '12 20:54
    Alekhine. Nimzowitsch, too.
  4. Standard member Natural Science
    blunderer of pawns
    12 Feb '12 21:05 / 1 edit
    Thanks to you both! I'm actually analyzing and annotating one of my games for a class I'm taking in college (Critical Thinking and Chess), and I wanted to be clever and say, "The point, as Alekhine (or Nimzovich) used to say." Just needed to be sure who to attribute it to.
  5. 12 Feb '12 21:24
    Originally posted by Natural Science
    Thanks to you both! I'm actually analyzing and annotating one of my games for a class I'm taking in college (Critical Thinking and Chess), and I wanted to be clever and say, "The point, as Alekhine (or Nimzovich) used to say." Just needed to be sure who to attribute it to.
    We would be absolutely delighted to have a copy of this no doubt outstanding work. I know I'll be awaiting it most impatiently!

    Q
  6. 12 Feb '12 23:02
    Originally posted by Natural Science
    Which grandmaster used to annotate the key move of a complicated, forcing variation as "the point"? I thought it was Nimzovich, Lasker, or a grandmaster from their day, but amazingly enough I couldn't find the answer through a Google search. Many thanks.
    Possibly Rueben Fine?
  7. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    12 Feb '12 23:51
    Originally posted by Natural Science
    Which grandmaster used to annotate the key move of a complicated, forcing variation as "the point"? I thought it was Nimzovich, Lasker, or a grandmaster from their day, but amazingly enough I couldn't find the answer through a Google search. Many thanks.
    I suspect that it was first used by a local chess writer for a magazine or newspaper in the late 1800's in Europe, and then copied by a GM when annotating one of his own games for an article or book.

    If you read Edward Winter enough, it seems like every good chess quote or innovation from 1870-1930 started out that way!
  8. 13 Feb '12 01:48 / 1 edit
    Tartakower uses it.

    Q mentioned the Tartakower 500 games book(s) and he also mentioned
    the Alekhine v Book game from the same book.
    The point quote is in that game (and others.)

    As I mentioned in another thread some of the game are noted
    up by du Mont, but it's Tartakower doing this game.

    The note in the main game (I'm going to show a variation Tartakower gives
    where he uses 'the point.'😉 Tartakower writes here: (White has just played 22.Ne4-d7.)


    The sanctions!

    And nothing more. Pure Tartakower.

    I'll give a few of Tartakowers notes to the game. Comments in () are mine.

    Alekhine - Book Margate 1938. (a variation)

    (rather than type in the game in I googled 'Alekine v Book' to get the score.
    All I got what Amazon hits trying to sell me Alekhine's books! I had to add Margate 1938.)



    Here is how the actual game went.

  9. Standard member Natural Science
    blunderer of pawns
    13 Feb '12 16:03
    Originally posted by PhySiQ
    We would be absolutely delighted to have a copy of this no doubt outstanding work. I know I'll be awaiting it most impatiently!

    Q
    Are you sure you want that? It's a class assignment intended for players with far less chess experience than me, and thus EVERY full move (one White and one Black move) is annotated. But I do write fairly well, and feel comfortable writing about chess, so I can assure you that most of it won't be boring. 😀
  10. 13 Feb '12 16:51
    Go ahead, you're far above average on this site. Worst case is that someone else might teach you something. 🙂
  11. 13 Feb '12 17:33
    Originally posted by Natural Science
    Are you sure you want that? It's a class assignment intended for players with far less chess experience than me, and thus EVERY full move (one White and one Black move) is annotated. But I do write fairly well, and feel comfortable writing about chess, so I can assure you that most of it won't be boring. 😀
    Absolutely. I think it'd be great. These types of annotations are actually very useful for newer players. They're not bad for experts either - it never hurts to see someone else's thought pattern. It makes for some great self edification.

    I won't hold you to a Chernev level as he was a great annotator, but I'm not so secretly expecting that style. 😉

    Q
  12. Donation ketchuplover
    G.O.A.T.
    13 Feb '12 18:15
    I believe The Art of Attack(or whatever it's called)uses similar terminology.
  13. 14 Feb '12 01:35
    Originally posted by ketchuplover
    I believe The Art of Attack(or whatever it's called)uses similar terminology.
    The Art of Attack in Chess by Vukovich refers to "focal points" as squares toward which attack is directed.