|Mar-07-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: A curious trademark of Rubinstein's style is that he oftentimes doesn't treat the knights as if they are pieces in and of themselves. |
|Mar-08-04|| ||Lawrence: <A curious trademark of Rubinstein's style is that he oftentimes doesn't treat the knights as if they are pieces in and of themselves.> Ben, could you expand on that a bit please? |
|Aug-09-04|| ||arielbekarov: PLEASE ! As a fervent admirer of Rubinstein, I am also CURIOUS !
|Aug-09-04|| ||iron maiden: <ariel> Benjamin Lau has left the site, so I don't think he'll clarify his point. I think what he's trying to say has something to do with Rubinstein's favoring of rooks and bishops in his games. |
|Aug-10-04|| ||arielbekarov: <iron maiden> Sorry to hear that he has left the site.
But your idea makes perfect sense to me. I have studied some of his endgames yesterday evening. There is one game I like especially and it was played between Richard Reti vs Akiba Rubinstein in Göteborg 1920.
It's a great game between two great players. Very refined !
|Mar-28-05|| ||Karpova: Tarrasch got probably inspired by Rubinstein vs M Lowtzky 1912 |
|Jul-16-07|| ||Karpova: Hans Kmoch:
14....Bxh2+ 15.Kxh2 g4 16.fxg4 fxg4 17.Kg1! gxh3 18.Rxf6! (18...Qxe2 19.Rxf8+ Rxf8 20.Bxe2 and white won a piece).
27.Nh5! is a beautiful move:
27....Qxd4+ 28.Rxd4 Bxd4+ 29.Kh1 Nf2+ 30.Rxf2! and 30...Bxf2 fails due to 31.Bb2+
|Mar-29-10|| ||Ulhumbrus: This game suggests the following question. Why does Rubinstein seem able to ignore Black's King side attack, when Black has won so many games with just this kind of King side attack? One possible reason is that White's King's Knight developed on h3 acts like a second pawn on h3, obstructing the h file. Without this obstruction, White might have to play h3 and expose his King side pawn cover.|
|Jan-29-12|| ||ketchuplover: 7...Qh4+ seems worthy of pondering imo.|
|Nov-12-16|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <ketchuplover: 7...Qh4+ seems worthy of pondering imo.>|
Zenon Franco says that 7. … Qh4+ would have been strong if White had played 7. Bd3 (?!), but further comments that after Rubinstein’s text (7. Nh3):
“Now in the event of 7...Qh4+ it is possible to play 8.g3 Bxg3+ 9.hxg3 Qxg3+ 10.Nf2, and although Black gains three pawns for the piece after 10. ... Bxf3, the compensation is insufficient owing to his lag in development. A possible continuation is 11.Ne2 Qd6 (or 11...Qg6?! 12.Nf4 Qg3 13.Rg1!) 12.Rh3 Bb7 13.Nc3 with the unpleasant threats of 14. Nb5 and 14. Qh5+ on the agenda.”
Franco, Zenon, <Rubinstein: Move by Move> (translated by Phil Adams), Everyman Chess ©2015, p. 77.
|Nov-12-16|| ||Peligroso Patzer: Apropos the posts by Karpova from March-28-05 and Jul-16-07, here is a link to Rubinstein vs M Lowcki, 1912 [Karpova used a different transliterated spelling in his post, viz., Lowtzky.] |
The (unsound) bishop sac at Black’s 14th was suggested by Tartakower, as observed in GM Franco’s annotations to this game. As quoted by Franco, the suggestion by Tartakower was: 14...Bxh2+ 15.Kxh2 g4 16.fxg4 fxg4 "with incalculable complications, unless White prefers a more or less equal endgame by playing 17.Kg1 gxh3 18.Qxh5 Nxh5 19.gxh3 etc." - Tartakower]
GM Franco mentions Kmoch’s refutation with the comment: “This variation has a serious hole in it, as Kmoch first pointed out. *** Instead of 18. Qxh5?, White can play 18.Rxf6! Qxe2 19.Rxf8+ winning a piece.”
Franco, Zenon, <Rubinstein: Move by Move> (translated by Phil Adams), Everyman Chess ©2015, p. 79.
|Feb-12-18|| ||goser: Wow! Dr Tarrasch tried to play a kind of hypermoderinst chess.|