\n\n\n\n
You would be forgiven for thinking that a book called The Philosopher and the Housewife<\/em> has nothing to do with chess. However, the subtitle Tarrasch, Nimzowitsch and the Evolution of Chess<\/em> gives the game away. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201cphilosopher\u201d and Tarrasch as the \u201chousewife\u201d. Other major players of the period covered by the lives of two protagonists, such as Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, R\u00e9ti and Tartakower, are also featured in the book. However, the surprising joker in the pack is Semyon Alapin (1856 – 1923).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Table of Contents below shows how the book interweaves the on- and off-board battles between Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The author, Dutch IM Willy Hendriks, explains the background to the book as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn my two previous books, I wrote about the chess history immediately preceding this book. In On the Origin of Good Moves<\/a>, I covered the entire history from (approximately) Greco to Steinitz. In The Ink War<\/a>, 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Read Sample<\/a> | Buy Book<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n Both Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch were searching for a unified chess theory, and both felt they had achieved this, as shown by the following quotes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI 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.\u201d Tarrasch (1912)<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cBut 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 \u2013 was me. And what I was lucky enough to find were strictly formulated laws of chess strategy expanded into a harmonious whole.\u201d Nimzowitsch (1913)<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Hendriks notes that: <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cTheir different ideas on the subject were the prelude to perhaps the fiercest and most compelling theoretical battle in chess history.<\/em>\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The book uses the twelve tournament games Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch played against each other over the period 1904 \u2013 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The book\u2019s title comes from a quote from Nimzowitsch as part of an article he wrote in 1913: <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cNever before has even the slightest attempt been made to fathom and formulate the laws of chess strategy since Tarrasch\u2019s postulates […] can really make no such claim; at best they are \u2018practical hints from an experienced housewife\u2019, as I call them<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 strateg<\/em>y.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Nimzowitsch\u2019s hostility toward Tarrasch started much earlier. He wrote in 1929: Because of the age difference, Tarrasch was initially the stronger player, and he didn\u2019t 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<\/em>. Nimzowitsch rejected Tarrasch\u2019s rules and wanted to develop a chess system, his system<\/em>, which of course became his famous book My System<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe 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<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s intellect, without considering that not every appeal is equally successful.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Interestingly, despite their battles over chess theory, many of their differences centred around openings, for example, the French Defence and Tarrasch\u2019s Defence in the Queen\u2019s Gambit Declined. In these two cases, the debate was mainly about pawn structures, namely White\u2019s e5-pawn in the Advance Variation of the French Defence and Black\u2019s isolated d5-pawn in Tarrasch\u2019s Defence. It\u2019s 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\u2019s Variation after 3\u2026dxe4, with his idea that this move entailed a \u201csurrender of the centre\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Nimzowitsch\u2019s opening ideas, with many backward moves and closed openings, were often seen as bizarre by Tarrasch, who favoured more open positions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com\/docsz\/AD_4nXe_lOG6Pwc6Tq2K5lgJE76B5eAs8SpLZ-dtCydCsEHTts9qHfqe06aOy8M4jeoyLjS5BhUHSH4yCpHzG0kOm00r7c29BQEAOip-OkE6GY7sQf4pvpRQKixv56lqOOGfEJD1nofVY2AAe0nRPPuDzjs?key=gypRWThtmnZ-G8P2qaBqQg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/forwardchess.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/the-philosopher-and-the-housewife-1738090072.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/figure>The Philosopher and the Housewife<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Author: Willy Hendriks
Publisher: New in Chess<\/h4>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/forwardchess.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/p2.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/forwardchess.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/p1.jpg\")
\u201cFor 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n