Just working my way through the current set of questions.
For those that are interested I see that Dvoretsky also covers the first position (Nimzowitsch - Rubinstein) in 'The Instructor' at http://www.chesscafe.com/dvoretsky/dvoretsky.htm this month (April 2009 - The Worst-Piece Principle).
(NB The article will probably be found in the archives in the future.)

? Just working my way through the current set of questions.
? For those that are interested I see that Dvoretsky also covers the first
? position (Nimzowitsch - Rubinstein) in 'The Instructor' at
? http://www.chesscafe.com/dvoretsky/dvoretsky.htm this month (April 2009 -
? The Worst-Piece Principle).
? (NB The article will probably be found in the archives in the future.)
Yes, writers have been using that example for nearly 100 years now!
I can't imagine any of Dvoretsky's articles finding there way here, in my opinion they are far too advanced for anyone below, say, 2400 strength.

? Yes, writers have been using that example for nearly 100 years now!
? I can't imagine any of Dvoretsky's articles finding there way here, in my
? opinion they are far too advanced for anyone below, say, 2400 strength.

That's a relief! The current material is more than enough.

I do find articles, such as Dvoretsky's, helpful though. I tend to concentrate on the verbal descriptions as I know I will get lost in the maze of variations. For example, Dvoretsky points out the reasoning for the suggested move quite clearly. I suppose my point is that I think you can glean advice from a variety of sources but it can be difficult to find the salient point without getting lost in the variations. Knowing what level an article is aimed at can be difficult to determine, especially for us novices. I reckon a lot of the available chess material is pitched at a level way too advanced for the majority of chess players.