Aaron Nimzowitsch (2718) - Frank J. Marshall (2647) 
[A50]
Master's Invitational Tournament
Bad Kissingen, (GER);  (7)  1928

[A.J. Goldsby I]

**************************************************************

One of Marshall's best games, this near miniature also won the FIRST Brilliancy Prize at the 
Bad Kissingen Tournament in 1928.

The ratings are the ones that were assigned to this game when it was in the database.

According to Sonas, Nimzovich was Number Five (# 5) in the World, (behind Lasker, Capa, 
Alekhine and Vidmar); with a rating of 2697. Marshall is designated as the Number Ten (# 10)
player in the World with a rating of 2622. (Rating list: Dec. 31st, 1927.)

**************************************************************

1.d4 Nf6;  2.c4 b6!?;  (Maybe - '!')   
There are many myths about Marshall. The most popular ones are:
A.) Marshall only played swindles; and B.)  He could not play a wide variety of openings.

The simple truth is that Marshall was a tremendous player. While perhaps best known for a few 
famous swindles, he could beat you in ANY phase of the game!! (Opening, middle-game or even 
in an ending.) 

The other myth about Marshall is he played only certain lines ... and played them poorly. 
(Fine {in the U.S. chess magazine} once wrote: 
"He had a narrow repertoire, and was addicted to a few inferior lines.") 
Nothing could be further from the truth. This was a man who often took a small chess-board 
and a writing pad to bed with him at night, in case he came up with a new idea.

Here he plays Nimzo's own invention, and soundly thrashes him with it!! 

     [ Also popular is the move:  2...e6!?; {Diagram?} 
       which could transpose to several different openings, but usually 
       signifies the Nimzo-Indian. 

       Or Black could try:  2...g6!?;  {Diagram?} 
       leading to the Benoni, the Gruenfeld, or the King's Indian Defense. 
       (But masters did not begin playing these lines until the 1930's or even the 1940's.) ]   

3.Nc3 Bb7!?;   
Probably not the most accurate move order -  by the standards of modern theory, anyway. 
(But I don't think its that big of a deal.)  

     [ Normal is:  3...e6 ]  

4.Bg5!?,   
This move, while very popular in the early days of this line, is not considered dangerous by theory 
today. (The pin is not considered all that effective, but many players  - like GM J. Timman - regularly 
use Bg5 against the {regular} Nimzo-Indian Defense.) 

     [  In modern times, one could expect the following moves: 
         4.Nf3 e6;  5.a3!?, "+/="  {Diagram?}  transposing to the main lines.
         ( See MCO-14, beginning on page number # 555. 
           And see columns one through eighteen. {1-18} ); 

*******

       Soltis says the best line for White is to play Queen-to-c2 on his fourth move, with the 
       idea of a very quick pawn advance, e2-e4:  >/=  4.Qc2! c5!?;  {Diagram?} 
       Theory says this is best - but I am not convinced. 

         ( 4...e6; 5.e4 d5!?;  {Diagram?} This allows White to fix the pawn structure, 
           maybe ...d6 was better. 6.cxd5 exd5;  7.e5 Ne4!?; {Diagram?} 
           Hmmm, maybe ...Nfd7 instead? 
           8.Bb5+ c6;   9.Bd3,  {Diagram?}  ... "with an excellent game." 
            - GM Andrew Soltis.   

           GM S. Tartakower - GM F. Marshall;  Bad Kissingen, (GER);  1928.     
           (Later in this same tournament!);  

***

           The other way for Black to play this position is the following:  
           4...d5;  ('!?/?!')  {Diagram?}    
           This could be a very risky (dubious) concept, at least according to     
           GM Andrew Soltis.     
           5.cxd5 Nxd5;  6.e4 Nxc3;  7.bxc3 e6;   8.Nf3 c5!?;  {Diagram?}     
           Black might do better with ...Be7; followed by ...0-0; first.      
           9.Ne5! a6;  10.Rb1 Be7; "~"  {Diagram?}     
           and now White played Qa4+!, which according to Soltis gives White     
           a very clear advantage. (11.Qa4+!, Kf8!?;  12.Bd3, etc.)     

           GM F.J. Marshall - S.B. Gothilf;  Moscow, (USSR);  1925. )     

*******

       (Returning to the main line of analysis of this opening.) 
       5.d5 e5!?;  6.e4 d6;  7.g3, "+/="  {Diagram?}   
       White has a solid edge, and went on to win a very nice game. 
       (But Black's handling of the opening was less than ideal, IMOHO.)

       GM V. Smyslov - GM A. Matanovic;  (FIDE) Interzonal Tournament  
       Biel, Switzerland;  1976. ]   

4...e6;  5.Qc2 h6!;   
Black  'asks the question'  of the Bishop without any delay.  

   '!' - GM Andrew Soltis.   '!' - GM F.J. Marshall  

6.Bh4 Be7!?; (Maybe - '!')   
 Black immediately breaks the pin.

While not necessarily smiled upon by modern opening theory, I like this move. 
It certainly makes sense ... Black develops a piece, gets ready to castle and breaks 
the pin without any further delay.  

     [ The more modern move today is ...Bb4; viz:  6...Bb4;  7.e3 0-0;  8.Nf3 d6;  
        9.Bd3 Nbd7;  10.0-0-0,  "+/="  {Diagram?} (when) White is thought to have
        a small but steady advantage. 

       IM B. Finegold - GM V. Tukmakov;  CAN - (open) Tournament,  
       Winnipeg, Canada;  1994. (Black won in under 30 moves.)  

       See also:  
       GM G. Serper - A. Bagheri;  FIDE WCS Tournament (knock-out)  
       New Delhi, India;  2000.  (White won in 26 moves.) ]   

7.e4!?,   
White immediately grabs the center, in a purely classical vein. 

     [ Or  7.Nf3!? 0-0;  {Diagram?} 
        when Black's chances are certainly no worse than White's. ]  

7...0-0; ('!')  8.e5!?,  (Probably - '?!')  {Diagram?}  
This is a natural reaction in this kind of position, the Knight on f6 is the natural defender 
of Black's entire King-side. (If it leaves, the second player's defenses have been weakened - 
or so the theory goes.)  

Modern opening theory, however, warns against prematurely crossing the  ... 
'line of demarcation,'  ... or advancing beyond the first four rows of the chessboard.

  '?' - GM Andrew Soltis.  (This looks a little harsh to me, but ...)  
  '?' - Fred Reinfeld.   '?' - Frank J. Marshall.  

Nimzovich also wanted to weaken Black's key dark squares, but here the idea simply 
costs too much time.

     [  After the ambitious:  8.f3!? d6;  9.Bd3!? c5!;  10.Nge2!? Nc6; "=/+"  {Diag?} 
         Black is already (a little) better.  

***

        White's best bet is probably: >/=  8.Nf3 d6;  9.Bd3 Nc6;  10.a3!, "~" {Diagram?} 
         with close to an equal position ... but Black certainly has little to fear here.  
         (...e5! Or even ...a5.)  ]   

8...Nd5!;   
An excellent move by Marshall ...  which Nimzovich {later} admitted he 
had simply missed. (or under-estimated)  

   '!' - GM Frank J. Marshall.  

     [ Nimzovich had expected a line like:  </=  8...Ne8;  9.Bxe7 Qxe7;  10.0-0-0 c5; 
       11.f4 cxd4;  12.Rxd4 Nc6;  13.Rd2 Nb4;  14.Qd1 Bc6;  15.Nf3, "+/="  {Diag?}  
       and White is slightly better - Black will experience problems with his Pawn structure 
       for quite some time. ]   

9.Bg3,  ('?!')   
White decides to keep pieces on the board - so that Black will feel his lack of space 
more acutely. But here White should already be thinking about a trying to equalize. 
(Notice White has made THREE moves with his QB already! And will have to move 
 once more!!)  

"Loses valuable time," says the respected "Grand, Old Man" of chess. 
 (- F.J. Marshall.)  

     [ Or >/=  9.Bxe7 Nxe7;  {Diagram?}  
        but Black is fine.  (This is probably better than the game, 
        White avoids any disadvantage.) ]   

9...Nb4; ('!')   
Many times better than other moves like ...Nxc3.  

10.Qb3,  {Diagram below.}  
The Queen must move - but cannot find a really safe and secure haven.

**************************

**************************

  (Black to move:  rn1q1rk1/pbppbpp1/1p2p2p/4P3/1nPP4/1QN3B1/PP3PPP/R3KBNR)  

Now passive and safe moves might allow White to consolidate his space advantage ... 
but Marshall is NOT a routine kind of player!! 

     [ Or 10.Qd1 d5!; "/\"  {Diagram?}  with great play. ]   

10...d5!,   
Marshall had said he had studied all of Morphy's games. Here he shows that he clearly 
understands the idea of opening the center to exploit his opponent's lag in development. 

   '!' - FM Graham Burgess.  '!' - GM Andrew Soltis.   '!' - GM Frank J. Marshall.  

     [ After a line like:  </=  10...a5!?;  11.a3 N4a6;  12.Nf3, "="  {Diagram?}  
        White does not appear to have any real problems. ]  

11.exd6,   
This is virtually forced.  

     [ Even worse is:  </=  11.cxd5?! Nxd5; "=/+"  {Diagram?} 
        and Black is already (a little) better in this position. 
        (White has a backward d-pawn and a bad Bishop on g3.) 

                                                   ***

       Absolutely horrible is:  </=  11.a3? dxc4!;  12.Qd1,  {Diagram?}  
       This is forced. 

          ( </= 12.Bxc4? Bxg2; 13.axb4 Bxh1;  and Black should win. ("-/+") )   

       12...Nd3+;  13.Bxd3 cxd3;  "/+"  {Diagram?}  
        and Black is clearly better. (If Qxd3?, then ...Bxg2.) ]  

11...Bxd6;  12.0-0-0!? N8c6!;   
Marshall goes for Tal-like piece play ... in a position where many masters said  
...c5; was the best move.  (Maybe - '!!') 

   '!' - FM Graham Burgess.   

     [ Interesting was:  12...c5!?; "~"  {Diagram?} 
       ( Black is at least a little better. If d4xc5?!, then ...Qg5+. "=/+" ) ]  

13.Bxd6,   
One player - in a European newspaper  - very stupidly criticized this move ... 
but an extremely deep analysis of this position shows that it is probably forced. 
(I shall allow this person to dwell forever more in a state of blissful anonymity.)

     [ One writer said that exchanging here was bad, and that a3 ... 
       "was much better."  But after the following moves:  </=  
       13.a3? Na5!;  14.Qa4 Bc6;  15.Nb5 Qg5+!;  16.f4,  {Diag?} 
       This could be forced.  

          ( </= 16.Kb1? Be4+; 17.Ka1 Bc2; "-/+" )     

       16...Bxf4+;  17.Bxf4!? Qxf4+;  18.Kb1 Qf5+;   19.Ka1 Nc2+; 
       20.Ka2 Ne3;  ("-/+")  {Diagram?}  
       White will simply lose a great deal of material here. ]   

13...Qxd6;  14.a3,  ('!?')   
Nimzovich looks like he is daring Marshall to take .. and Frank gladly obliges him! 

Burgess allows this move to be played without comment ... or a mark of any kind. 

Soltis appends a question mark ('?') to this move, but does not trouble himself to inform 
the reader what move was clearly better than a3. Meanwhile, I have worked on this game 
for YEARS. My analysis indicates that White is in a bad way - no matter what move 
Nimzovich would have chosen to play in this position. 

I must say something here! First allow me to qualify the following statement by telling you that 
I am a big Soltis fan, and I own nearly every book he has ever written. However, this kind of silly 
and completely thoughtless annotation - attaching question marks to great players' moves without 
first verifying that there is a line or variation that is substantially better - is simply wrong and almost 
unforgivable. It also scars great games and makes it very difficult for subsequent generations to 
make an unbiased and honest judgment of these games for themselves!!!  

*************************

     [ Several writers have said that the move Nf3 was better ... but this has never been 
        carefully checked. For example:  
        RR14.Nf3 Na5!;  15.Qa4 Bc6;  16.Qa3 Bxf3;  17.gxf3 Qf4+;  
        18.Rd2,  {Diagram?}  This is probably forced.  

            ( Obviously worse was:  </= 18.Kb1? Qxf3; 19.Bg2 Qxg2; 20.Qxb4 Nc6;     
               21.Qb5 Nxd4!; {Diagram?}    
              White is down two pawns ... and will probably lose more. ("-/+")     
              {If Rxd4??, then ...QxR/h1+.} )   

       18...Nbc6;  "/+"  {Diagram?}  
       and White will start dropping buttons.  

**********

       Reinfeld says Knight-to-Knt5 was better ... but his analysis is very unconvincing:  
       </=  14.Nb5!? Qe7?;  {Diagram?} 
       The only move given by Reinfeld, but both Q-B5+, (...Qf4+) and Knight-QR4; 
       (...Na5);  were much better than the simple ...Qe7.  

         ( After the moves:  >/= 14...Qf4+;  15.Rd2, {Diagram?}  
           This looks nearly forced.  

               ( Instead - after the moves:  15.Qe3? Qf5!; 16.Bd3 Nxd3+; 
                 17.Qxd3 Qxf2; 18.Nh3!? Qh4!; "/+" {Diagram?}     
                  Black is clearly MUCH better. )     

           15...a6;  16.Nc3 Rfd8;  17.Nh3 Qd6;  18.d5!? Na5;  "/+"  {Diagram?} 
            a strong IM - who used to give me Internet lessons - agreed (with me) that 
            Black is practically winning. (In this position.)  )   

       15.a3 Na6;  "~"  {Diagram?}  
        Reinfeld and Marshall conclude that  "Black has good attacking chances." ]   

*************************

14...Nxd4!!;  (Maybe - '!!!')  {Diagram?}  
An incredibly brilliant move, especially as Black had other moves that also conferred 
a clear advantage on the second player here. 

   '!' - FM Graham Burgess.   '!' - GM Andrew Soltis.   '!' - GM Frank J. Marshall. 

Most annotators give this just one exclam ... there is no doubt it really deserves two ... 
it is incredibly brilliant and daring. (Black goes down in material, in some lines if his attack 
gives out - - - he will simply be lost.) 

"An unexpected sacrifice which gives Black a lasting initiative because of his
opponent's backward development." - GM Frank J. Marshall.  

     [  Interesting was the simple move of  ...Qf4+; which seems to give Black 
        a very sizable edge:  14...Qf4+!;  15.Rd2 Rad8!; "=/+"  {Diagram?}  
        We could stop here and adjudicate this position as MUCH better for 
        Black. For example: 16.d5,  {Diagram?} 
        White cannot defend the d4-square. 

           ( White is lost after: </= 16.axb4? Nxd4; 17.Qd1 Nb3+!;     
              18.Kb1 Nxd2+; 19.Ka1 Nxc4; "-/+"     

              And an inferior line was: </=  16.Nf3?! Nxd4; 17.Nxd4 Rxd4;     
              18.Nb1 Be4!; "/+" {Diagram?}   
               Black is very clearly better if not just simply winning outright. )    

        16...exd5;  17.Qd1 dxc4!!;  {Diagram?}  
        A very brilliant piece sacrifice.  

           ( If  17...Na6;  then just 18.Nxd5, "+/=" )    

        18.axb4,  {Diagram?}  
         Now White is virtually forced to capture on b4 here. 

           ( 18.Nf3? Na5!; "-/+")      

        18...Nxb4;  19.Nh3 Qf6;  20.f3!? Rxd2;  21.Qxd2 Rd8;  22.Qe1 Qf5; 
        23.Qf2 Rd4;  24.f4 c5;  25.Rg1 h5!; "/+" {Diagram?}  
        Black is clearly better ... with three healthy pawns for a Knight ... and poor 
        White can move nothing. 
         (For example if Be2???, Black simply replies with  ...Qc2#.)    
        {I first came up with this line as a teen-ager and scribbled it in the margins of my book. 
          The amazing thing is 30+ years later, even the computer cannot find any real way to 
          improve on this line!!} ]    

15.Rxd4!?,  (Maybe - '?!')   
Nimzovich decides that he wants two pieces for the Rook. 

Burgess gives this move (Rxd4) a 'dubious'  appellation, but it is not really certain 
that White has anything that is clearly better. 

     [ After the moves:  = 15.Qxb4!? c5;  16.Qa4 Bc6;  17.Qa6 Qf4+;  
       18.Kb1 Qxf2; "/\"  {Diagram?}  
        Black has very obvious "compensation"  ...  and it is very hard 
        for White to move anything without dropping more material. 

        (Nimzovich saw this continuation ... and rejected it out of hand.) ]  

15...Qxd4;  16.axb4 Qxf2;   
White has two 'horsies' ... while Black has a Rook and a couple of buttons. 
But it is not the material balance that is important, but the extreme activity of 
Marshall's pieces that is the key to this position. 
(White's King is also somewhat exposed here.)  

17.Qd1,   
This is almost forced ... but it is much too late for White to be able to organize 
a successful defense.  

*******

     [ The noted author points out that: 
        = 17.Nh3!? Qe3+;  18.Kb1 Be4+!;  19.Ka2 a5!,  {Diagram?}  
        The sharpest and best.  

          ( Interesting was:  19...Bf5!?; "/+" )     

        20.b5 a4!; "-/+"  {Diagram?}  
        ... "gives Black an overwhelming attack." - FM Graham Burgess. 
       (This line is also in the original book of the tournament - 
         analysis by GM Savielly Tartakower.) 

***

        Also the move Nf3 was no good: 
        </= 17.Nf3? Bxf3;  18.gxf3 Qxf3;  19.Rg1 Qe3+; ("-/+")  {Diagram?} 
        (Black forks White's King and Rook.)  
        Analysis by ...   - GM Savielly Tartakower. ]   

17...Rfd8;  18.Qe2 Qf4+;  19.Kc2,  {Diagram below.}  
This is pretty much forced ... 
otherwise the Black Rook will penetrate to the seventh rank.

**************************

**************************

  (Black to move:  r2r2k1/pbp2pp1/1p2p2p/8/1PP2q2/2N5/1PK1Q1PP/5BNR)  

The only question now is ... how does Black proceed from here?  

     [ </=  19.Kb1? Rd2; "-/+" ]  

19...a5!!;   
Another very brilliant move ... that is less than obvious to the average player. 
(I have tested this position on literally dozens of my students ... most do not even 
 consider this move in this particular position.) 

"Black will keep pushing this pawn until lines are opened."  - FM Graham Burgess. 

   '!' - FM Graham Burgess.  '!' - GM Andrew Soltis.   '!' - GM Frank J. Marshall.  

It is interesting to note that I have found several different lines which all lead to a clear advantage 
for Marshall from this position. (No other author mentions these different possibilities.)

     [ Interesting was:  19...Qf5+; "/+" {Diagram?} 
       and Black is probably for choice. ]  

20.bxa5!?,  (Maybe - '?!')   
Nimzovich agrees to the immediate opening of the a-file, but he hopes to activate his pieces. 

This is an interesting concept, but it was probably wiser to play b5 instead.

     [ It was almost forced (best) for White to play b5, but this move 
        would not have saved him. Viz:  
        >/= 20.b5 a4!;  21.Nf3 a3!;  22.bxa3 Rxa3;  23.Kb2!? Qd6!; "/+"   
        Black is clearly MUCH better ... if not just plain old winning outright. 
        (Probably  "-/+") ]  

20...Rxa5;  21.Nf3 Ra1!;   
Now White cannot move his KB for a spell.  

     [ Black was also clearly better after moves like:  21...Qf5+!;  {Diag?} 
       forcing the King to b3. ("-/+");  

       Or even the move:  21...c5!?;  {Diagram?}  with the idea of ...b5 next, 
       is VERY promising for Black. ('/+') (If Qe5!?, then just  ...Rd2+!) ]   

22.Kb3,    
Nimzovich felt this was forced. 
("In order to parry ...Qc1; with the move Qc2." - Tartakower.) 

     [ 22.g3?? Qxf3; "-/+" {Diagram?}  
        and Black has a completely won game. 

        </=  22.h3? Qc1+;  23.Kb3 Bxf3;  24.gxf3 Rd2; "-/+" ]  

22...b5!;   
A very alert and sharp move. 
(Black opens more lines to the hapless White Monarch.)  

   '!' - GM Andrew Soltis.   "!' - GM Frank J. Marshall.  

"A new and more powerful stroke."  - The Tournament Book.
(Repeated by - GM A. Soltis.) 

Black's last move ... "freshened up the attack." 
 - GM Frank J. Marshall.

     [ Good was:  22...Bxf3!?; "-/+"  which also clearly favored Black. ]  

Now it might be best to take on b5 - with the Knight, but White is definitely lost in any case. 
23.Qe5,   
Nimzovich understandably wants to exchange the Queens to relieve the pressure and slow 
Black's attack.  

     [ After the moves:  23.Nxb5 Qc1!; {Diagram?} 
        This is probably best.  

         ( Some sources only give: </=  23...Be4!?; "/+" instead. )     

        24.h3!? Rd1!;  "-/+"  White could throw in the towel. 

***

       And after the moves:  </=  23.cxb5? Bd5+;  24.Nxd5 Qa4+;  
       25.Kc3 Rxd5;  ("-/+")   ... "and mates." - GM Andy Soltis. 
       (And also Marshall gives this line as well.) ]  

23...bxc4+;  24.Kb4[],   
This is forced. 

     [ Bad was:  </=  24.Kc2?? Qc1#;  {Diagram?} 

                                         ***

       Also unattractive for White was the following continuation: 
       </= 24.Bxc4? Qxe5;  25.Nxe5 Rxh1;  {Diagram?} 
       because Black is winning. ("-/+") ]   

24...Qc1!;   
Once again Marshall finds the very best move. 
(Several other tries were good enough to win, but this is definitely best.) 

     [ Or  24...Qxe5!?; 25.Nxe5 Rd2; "-/+" ]  

25.Nb5 c5+!;  {Diagram?}  White ... Resigns!  

Of  ...c5+;  says  Tartakower - "Elegant to the end." (and  ... "Marshall at his best.") 

I like this - it is witty. (Nimzovich can either get mated ... or lose his Queen. I.e, Kxc5, Rd5+.  
Or Qxc5, ...Qxb2+ and mates. But ...Qc2!;  would have worked as well. GM A. Soltis - as 
well as Marshall - also gives Black's 25th move {...c5} an exclamation point here.) 

This is definitely one of Marshall's best games and clearly showed why - when he was ... 
'firing on all cylinders' - he was one of the World's most feared and respected tacticians!! 
(Soltis jokingly calls it a "humiliating situation" for poor Nimzovich's King!) 

"A whole series of surprising moves, intertwined with a positional sacrifice (14...KtxP); 
 leads to a winning attack by Black. A game of outstanding merit."  
 - GM Savielly Tartakower and James du Mont

 ************************************************************** 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:  
I used to have an old book - in German I think - on this tournament. 
But I primarily used the following books to annotate this game: 
# 1.)  "My Fifty Years of Chess," 
('The triumphs of an American Chess Champion.') by  GM Frank J. Marshall.
Copyright (c) 1942 by the author. Copyright (c) 2002 by the publisher.
(Hardinge Simpole, Classic Reprint.)  ISBN: #  1-84382-053-6
# 2.)  "Chess Highlights of The 20th Century," by  FM Graham Burgess.
Copyright (c) 1999, by the author. Published by Gambit Books. 
ISBN: # 1-901983-21-8
# 3.)  "Collected Brilliancy Prize Games,"  by  Drazen Marovic.
(This book is in Yugoslav. I can't read the words - I do well to follow the variations.)
# 4.)  "Great Brilliancy Prize Games of The Chess Masters,"  by  Fred Reinfeld.
Original hard-back edition. Copyright (c) 1955 by the author. 
Published by Collier Books. (NY)
# 5.)  "Frank J. Marshall, United States Chess Champion," 
(A Biography with 220 Games)  by  GM Andrew Soltis.
(c) 1994, Published by McFarland.  ISBN: # 0-89950-887-1 (hard-back) 
Chapter 16 , pg. # 306; Game # 182.
# 6.)  "500 Master Games of Chess,"  by  GM S. Tartakower  and  J. du Mont. 
(1975 - Dover reprint.)

**************************************************************

  Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby I. Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby, 1989-2004. 
  Copyright (c) A.J.G;  2005.  

  0 - 1