“By some ardent enthusiasts, chess has been elevated into a science or an art. It is neither; but its principal characteristic seems to be – what human nature mostly delights in – a fight.” – Emanuel Lasker.
You would be forgiven for thinking that a book called The Philosopher and the Housewife has nothing to do with chess. However, the subtitle Tarrasch, Nimzowitsch and the Evolution of Chess gives the game away.
The major theme of the book is the struggle between Siegbert Tarrasch (1862 – 1934) and Aron Nimzowitsch (1886 – 1935) both on the board, but especially off the board in their writings. In the book, Nimzowitsch is cast as the “philosopher” and Tarrasch as the “housewife”. Other major players of the period covered by the lives of two protagonists, such as Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Réti and Tartakower, are also featured in the book. However, the surprising joker in the pack is Semyon Alapin (1856 – 1923).
The Table of Contents below shows how the book interweaves the on- and off-board battles between Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch.
The author, Dutch IM Willy Hendriks, explains the background to the book as follows:
“In my two previous books, I wrote about the chess history immediately preceding this book. In On the Origin of Good Moves, I covered the entire history from (approximately) Greco to Steinitz. In The Ink War, I focussed on the rivalry between Steinitz and Zukertort and the birth of modern chess. A number of topics from these books return in the current book. Together, you could consider them a trilogy with the central theme of how we have become better chess players throughout history.”
The Philosopher and the Housewife
Author: Willy Hendriks
Publisher: New in Chess
Both Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch were searching for a unified chess theory, and both felt they had achieved this, as shown by the following quotes:
“I do not limit myself to the game at hand, but search for the stable point in the flight of the appearances, most often I abstract from the specific case towards the general, and I set up a number of principles and doctrines, whose knowledge will improve the level of play enormously.” Tarrasch (1912)
“But in the quiet lived and searched someone who loved the truth in chess and, in a tough fight, endeavoured to discern its everlasting laws. And that person – was me. And what I was lucky enough to find were strictly formulated laws of chess strategy expanded into a harmonious whole.” Nimzowitsch (1913)
Hendriks notes that:
“Their different ideas on the subject were the prelude to perhaps the fiercest and most compelling theoretical battle in chess history.”
The book uses the twelve tournament games Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch played against each other over the period 1904 – 1928 as a backdrop to their bitter feud. Just twelve games over 24 years would be unthinkable today, but of course chess life was very different back then. While these twelve games are the backbone of the book, many other relevant games are included.
The book’s title comes from a quote from Nimzowitsch as part of an article he wrote in 1913:
“Never before has even the slightest attempt been made to fathom and formulate the laws of chess strategy since Tarrasch’s postulates […] can really make no such claim; at best they are ‘practical hints from an experienced housewife’, as I call them.
From this point of view, my present attempt to formulate the results of years of research, to which I was urged by an innate inclination to discover principles, is likely to open up a new era in chess. What I want to offer here is a harmoniously structured series of laws on chess strategy.”
Nimzowitsch’s hostility toward Tarrasch started much earlier. He wrote in 1929:
“For the present I must say that, had it not been for a feeling of hostility towards Tarrasch, I would never have learned to play chess properly. To play stronger than Tarrasch, that was the impulse behind all my desires during the period 1904-1906. I can therefore pass the following pleasant advice to all my readers: If you wish to achieve results, select an arch rival and attempt to punish him by toppling him from his pedestal.”
Because of the age difference, Tarrasch was initially the stronger player, and he didn’t consider Nimzowitsch as a serious rival. He was more focused on winning the world championship against Lasker, although he failed to do this. Off the board, Tarrasch also wrote books that were didactic, rather than broad overviews of chess theory. For Tarrasch, chess theory needed to be codified as a set of rules, and his task was to provide those rules, such as in his book Three Hundred Chess Games of Chess. Nimzowitsch rejected Tarrasch’s rules and wanted to develop a chess system, his system, which of course became his famous book My System.
However, in fairness to Tarrasch, he knew that his rules were not absolute. One of his famous rules is: rooks belong behind passed pawns. Following some criticism from correspondents, he clarified his rule and humorously wrote:
“The rook may only go behind the pawn if it is not captured, or if it does not immediately lead to mate, or otherwise immediately lose the game, or if you have a better move. But this formulation would be far too broad for a rule that has to be as short as possible. The precise and clear formulation is as follows: The rook may only go behind the pawn if it is good. I believe that I have now completed the endangered rule perfectly and would like to express my sincere thanks to the Deutsche Schachzeitung [a chess magazine] for giving me the inspiration to improve my formulation.
To apologize for my carelessness in the earlier formulation of the above sentence, I will only state that in chess it is actually very difficult to lay down generally valid rules. When I once explained in a lecture on general opening theory that one should avoid bringing the queen into play early, I was replied that this was sometimes very good, and when I defended my opposing view, the opening 1.f3 e5 2.g4 was held up to me, where obviously the development of the queen was very favourable for Black, since it immediately mates on h4! I was brilliantly led ad absurdum.
I am an ardent optimist, and so, in everything I write, in newspapers as well as in books, I tend to appeal to the reader’s intellect, without considering that not every appeal is equally successful.”
Interestingly, despite their battles over chess theory, many of their differences centred around openings, for example, the French Defence and Tarrasch’s Defence in the Queen’s Gambit Declined. In these two cases, the debate was mainly about pawn structures, namely White’s e5-pawn in the Advance Variation of the French Defence and Black’s isolated d5-pawn in Tarrasch’s Defence. It’s interesting to note that these two openings are still topical in the modern era. Another bone of contention was 3.Nc3 in the French Defence. Nimzowitsch rejected this move as a mistake, while Tarrasch rejected Rubinstein’s Variation after 3…dxe4, with his idea that this move entailed a “surrender of the centre”.
Nimzowitsch’s opening ideas, with many backward moves and closed openings, were often seen as bizarre by Tarrasch, who favoured more open positions.
Tarrasch wrote of Nimzowitsch’s game against Rubinstein in 1912 (see above):
“From an aesthetic point of view, the defence chosen by Nimzowitsch leads to the most ugly style of play there is. Nimzowitsch has a pronounced preference for ugly opening moves, fortunately he is thoroughly refuted here by Rubinstein, who always plays in fine style, because it would have been a downright scandal if the unaesthetic play had been crowned with the first prize.”
Commenting on the position after Nimzowitsch’s 10th, Hendriks writes:
“Nimzowitsch would later blame this move for his defeat: ‘The “diversion”, which merely cost me 2500 francs and the first prize!’ Centralization would become a ‘central’ principle in his later theories.
Even for Nimzowitsch, this position was still unexplored territory and he did not manage to solve the problems with his development. Nowadays, Black players often opt for a set-up with …a6, followed by …b5 and …Bb7.”
The author also humorously notes:
“Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch possessed a rare talent for providing each other’s exclamation mark moves with question marks and vice versa.”
Alapin entered the debate by criticizing both Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch. He wrote in 1913:
“A recurring theme throughout my essay is the fact that both the one who gets reviewed [Tarrasch] and, to an even greater extent, his reviewer [Nimzowitsch] seek to make up for the lack of variation-based elaborations by purely dialectical means. […] Nevertheless, if they want to be conscientious (!) towards their readers, they will also be forced, just as they always do for their own game plans, to justify themselves in chess literature (if it is not to be trashy literature!…) publicly before the reader at every (!) step by means of variations (!). Of course, you have to be prepared for inevitable mistakes: because ‘to err is human’. The kind reader, however, will then be more likely to accept some gross miscalculations and blunders; for in the pure dialectic of general considerations, he will get off even worse!”
Here, Alapin basically says that the moves, or variations, are essential in practice. While theories can provide guidelines, ultimately games are won and lost by the moves played. In this sense, Alapin described how modern chess is played over one hundred years ago.
IM John Watson calls this approach to chess “rule-independence.
Hendriks writes:
“Watson described this in Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy as a movement towards rule-independence. As we get stronger, rules and principles offer us less and less guidance. More and more exceptions are found, and the only thing that helps us move forward is concrete study and judging each position on its own merits. In the balance between the general and the concrete, the focus shifts towards the concrete. This is not to say that no ‘general’ pole remains, but it can no longer be meaningfully translated into rules or principles.
Ironically, although chess students are always warned to see the big picture rather than get lost in a morass of variations, the reality is that the modern player derives his perspective and intuition from the detailed analysis of great numbers of positions. Watson (p. 12)”
Naturally, by his nature, Nimzowitsch couldn’t leave Alapin’s criticism alone, and so replied:
“Nimzowitsch reacted indignantly, writing that, of course, Alapin’s variations could not threaten his philosophy. A ‘Variantenkünstler’, he condescendingly called him, a word that does not translate so well in English. An artist of variations, but an artist in the sense of, say, a conjurer.”
Hendriks notes that Lasker, Réti and Tartakower also weighed into the debate with their own ideas, and this aspect of the book extends the discussion into a broader context. The influence of world events, notably World War I and the rise of Nazi Germany, also adds to the historical perspective.
Two examples from the book are given below, with annotations from the book.
So, who won the battle between Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch in the end? On the board, Nimzowitsch won by the convincing score of 7.5 – 4.5. Off the board, modern players mostly agree that Nimzowitsch also convincing won, although Nimzowitsch still has his critics among top players. In addition, Nimzowitsch’s two major books, My System and Chess Praxis, continue to be reprinted with new translations and updates, while Tarrasch’s books languish in comparison.
However, in terms of how the top players currently approach the game, the author makes a convincing case that the clear winner was Alapin (!) and his groundbreaking idea that ultimately, it’s the moves that are essential. Or as Bobby Fischer wrote:
“All that matters on the chessboard is good moves.”
In conclusion, this is an exceptional book on a fascinating period of chess history. It’s clear that Hendriks has done an enormous amount of research on the rivalry between Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch, as well as putting their battles into the broader context of the development of chess theory during that period, particularly with the rise of the hypermodern school. The book can be enjoyed by all chess enthusiasts for both its instructional and entertainment value.
The Philosopher and the Housewife
Author: Willy Hendriks
Publisher: New in Chess
Other books by Willy Hendriks:
- Best Pirc and Modern Defense Books: Complete Guide - October 25, 2026
- Best Italian Game Chess Books: Complete Opening Guide - October 20, 2026
- Best Books on the English Opening: A Complete Guide - October 15, 2026