< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Nov-17-04|| ||beatgiant: <Alekhine should have played 44...Nb8!>|
White can then play 45. c2 (threatening 46. h4 ), and if 45...g7 46. b4 , penetrating with the king. This still looks like a win for White.
|Nov-18-04|| ||beatgiant: <This game simply proves that Knights are better than Bishops in closed endgames.>|
Yes, the knight is better than the bishop, but more importantly, it is a "bad" bishop hemmed in by its own pawns and leaving the dark squares unprotected. I think White is lost after the queen trade.
<Alekhine should have played 44...Nb8!>
I did a longer analysis of this and convinced myself that White is still winning after 44...b8 45. c2 .
Here are a few example lines:
44...b8 45. c2 e8 46. h4 g7 47. b4 d7 48. a4 , followed by 49. xd7 with a winning knight-vs.-bishop ending similar to the actual game. If not 47...d7 here, White plays the king march c5-d6-e7 and wins by piling up on the e-pawn.
Another possible line is 44...b8 45. c2 c6 46. h4 e7 47. b4 e8 48. c5 f8 49. f3 c8 50. g5 e7 51. h4 a7 52. h7 b5 53. b4 c7 54. f6 f7 55. a4 and Black is running out of moves .
|Mar-08-05|| ||goldthread: <Hanada> Someone once said about success in general that it is "99% perspiration and 1% inspiration". |
|Mar-08-05|| ||darook: One can say alot of things about Alekhine, but saying he has little 'native talent' is just ridiculous. Bear in mind that this game is between two top grandmaster of that time.
Hans Kmoch in his classic book "Pawn Power in Chess" analyses this game in depth.
Kmoch writes that Alekhine went for the queen exchange in move 25 thinking the whites pawn on c3 would soon fall. Alekhine also declined a draw offer from Burn at that point thinking he had a better position (and Burn 'agreed' at that point – hence the draw offer). Later it became apparent (to both) that white has the Ba4 maneuver exchanging it for the black knight, thus leaving black with a bad bishop. Only from that point Burn is actually going for a win, while Alekhine fully aware of what is going on of course, is trying to postpone the inevitable. Burn did make a few mistakes in the ending (according to Kmoch) but none too grave as to give black a chance to draw. BTW take a look at that game from 1926 (Alekhine vs Yates, 1926) where Alekhine has the 'mirror' position, i.e. a knight against a bad bishop and his winning technique is a lot shorter/better. |
|Mar-09-05|| ||Paul123: Alekhine was a late bloomer that’s for sure! Unlike most he didn’t reach his full potential until much later in his chess life…quite different from a modern GM. Except for Morphy, Alekhine has the highest lifetime wining percentage. |
Alekhine he was a combatant! A chess warrior!
“I do not play chess, I fight at chess!” Quoted Alekhine!
Some would say Capablanca was better but that’s like saying the best team lost the game…. The facts are that Capablanca made it almost impossible for anyone to challenge him to a match…(a bad trait he picked up from Lasker) Alekhine had to jump through hoops to get that match. Up until that point Capablanca for the most had a plus score against him. Right about then is when Alekhine came into his own and found his style of play. When he defeated Capablanca, he agreed to a rematch. But Capablanca disagreed with the rules saying they favored the champion (they were the same rules he forced upon Alekhine!) So Alekhine and the chess world moved on. Most of us would have done the same. (It’s all common knowledge)
Alekhine assaulted his opponents (I can find no other way to describe the way he played.) I don't think Capablanca was ready for that type of chess. Never before had Capablanca been in that type of position where his natural chess intellect couldn't get the job done. He had to bear down and fight Alekhine and he couldn’t, that’s why he lost.
|Mar-09-05|| ||soberknight: <Paul123> <Except for Morphy, Alekhine has the highest lifetime wining percentage.> Normally I don't make fun of other people's spelling errors, especially since many kibitzers are not native English speakers. However, you make it sound like Alekhine is the world's all-time drunkest knight. |
|Mar-09-05|| ||Paul123: Mar-09-05
"soberknight: <Paul123> <Except for Morphy, Alekhine has the highest lifetime wining percentage.> Normally I don't make fun of other people's spelling errors, especially since many kibitzers are not native English speakers. However, you make it sound like Alekhine is the world's all-time drunkest knight. "
Grammar Nazi alert!
The first thing I thought to myself was “ What’s my grammar (written at 2 in the morning while instant messaging with a slew of friends, as if anyone really cared) have to do with what you think about Alekhine?”
Dude, I’ve played this game before. People on the internet who got nothing of substance to bring to a topic fire snaps at the poster.
Been there, done that, and burnt the T-shirt!
Lighten up! This is a news group not a college campus. People will start asking "Who voted you the official "Chess Games grammar police?" Yea, ok, you think he was a drunk and not the great player I think he was. Isn’t that what you really wanted to say? You can disagree with someone and still be constructive as long as it’s in the general theme of the topic. Stay on point!
|Mar-09-05|| ||percyblakeney: High whining percentage now... :-) |
|Mar-09-05|| ||soberknight: <Paul123> If you carefully examine my profile and the comments that I have made in the last several days, you will notice one very common phrase: "Serious pun potential." I love to make jokes. |
Yes, I hate Alekhine as a person, as I commented at length in P Potemkin vs Alekhine, 1912. However, I did not want to say anything more than I actually said, just to make a joke because Alekhine (whom Bill Wall once nicknamed Alekwine) liked to get drunk.
If you read my comments on the above link, you will understand why I object to using the term <Grammar Nazi>, even as a joke. Jokes like that are not funny.
|May-07-05|| ||sfm: Talent...
... is how good you become.
|May-07-05|| ||aw1988: I don't quite agree that Alekhine and Rubinstein developed slowly. Rubinstein was nearly perfect right away, while Alekhine just got better and better.|
|May-07-05|| ||RookFile: I think this idea comes from the fact that Capablanca and Lasker would routinely beat Alekhine before 1927.|
In NY 1927, Capablanca essentially
lapped the field, he dominated so much.
Yet when they played their world
championship match, there was a shocking upsurge in strength by
After 1927, he certainly was a favorite if he played old Lasker,
and he did put up a plus score
against Capa in the games they played
from 1927 on.
|May-07-05|| ||aw1988: Suprisingly, it was New York 1918 that Capablanca did his highest performance rating, against people like Janowski and Kostic, not Lasker or Alekhine. Odd.|
|May-07-05|| ||Gypsy: <and he did put up a plus score
against Capa in the games they played
from 1927 on> +1 -1 =1.
|May-07-05|| ||RookFile: From 1927 on includes the games
they played in 1927.
|Feb-21-06|| ||McCool: Black should have forfeit earlier because h had the wrong coloured bishop.|
|Apr-08-08|| ||Knight13: Extremely well performance by Burn!!|
|Jan-22-09|| ||WhiteRook48: Alekhine got Burned!|
|Feb-28-09|| ||WhiteRook48: Burn beats Alekhine. Amazing!|
|Mar-27-09|| ||WhiteRook48: so where was Alekhine's blunder? Or were there several? I don't like to analyze, and I have no chess engine|
|Apr-17-09|| ||YoungEd: I first saw this game in Reinfeld's "100 Instructive Games of Alekhine," which is quite good. Burn takes a while, but gets the job done!|
|Apr-17-09|| ||darook: >>> "The Burn Supremacy".|
|May-01-09|| ||WhiteRook48: <Except for Morphy, Alekhine has the highest lifetime wining percentage.>
Alekhine does not whine in chess!|
|Oct-04-09|| ||TheWizardOfOz: Kmoch, in the errata at the beginnig of the book, points out that instead of 26...Bc6, Black should have played 26...Nc8!, intending Nb6 and Ba4|
|Apr-23-11|| ||AVRO38: A text book demonstration of a good knight vs. bad bishop ending.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·