To follow the great deflection game of ICCC#8 we have Samisch - Nimzowitsch which Lasker called “The Immortal Zugzwang”.
White has virtually all his pieces - only a knight and three pawns have left the board - but, astonishingly, no viable moves whatsoever.
Samisch - Nimzowitsch,
Copenhagen 1923
1 d4 Nf6
2 c4 e6
3 Nf3 b6
4 g3 Bb7
5 Bg2 Be7
6 Nc3 0-0
7 0-0 d5
8 Ne5 c6
9 cxd5 cxd5
10 Bf4 a6
11 Rc1 b5
12 Qb3 Nc6
13 Nxc6 Bxc6
14 h3 Qd7
15 Kh2 Nh5
16 Bd2 f5
17 Qd1 b4
18 Nb1 Bb5
19 Rg1 Bd6
20 e4 fxe4
21 Qxh5 Rxf2
22 Qg5 Raf8
23 Kh1 R8f5
24 Qe3 Bd3
25 Rce1 h6
0-1
So, why did Samisch resign?
BONUS QUESTIONS
BQ1: Make sure you have an answer for each of 26 Bc1; 26 Rc1; 26 Kh2 and 26 g4.
BQ2: Nimzowitsch sacrificed a piece with 20 … fxe4. Why does retreating with 20 … Nf6 fail?
BQ3: Since Nimzo’s day 7 … d5 has gone out of fashion at the top level. One reason for this is the natural response to 8 Ne5 is … Nbd7, but then 9 Nxc6 Bxc6, 10 exd5 exd5, 11 cxd5 Bb7 and now how does White get a clear edge/virtually winning position.