|Oct-23-04|| ||emilio martinez: note the move 23.Ng5ˇ |
|Aug-02-05|| ||Gypsy: AAA notes that 13.b4?! Bg7 14.Nd4 would not net a piece for White, because of the nifty excuse 14...Qa7!|
One can add that 13.b4?! Bg7 14.Bd4 Bxd4 15.Nxd4 Qe5+ also comes up short.
|Aug-02-05|| ||Gypsy: Incidentally, this game won a Brilliance Prize in the tournament.|
|Aug-02-05|| ||Gypsy: H. Wolf was good at traps and it was important for AAA to remain vigilant; note for instance 40.f3+ Kg3 41.Rg5+?? Qxg5! 42.hxg5 Ra1#.|
Btw. Kotov gives the game with an <underpromotion> 32.e8N+ -- which would be a more accurate way of playing it.
|Aug-15-06|| ||Sleeping kitten: I'm afraid there is a mistake in the score of the game ; Le Lionnais gives 32.e8=N+, which doesn't change much the following, true, but is more forcing.|
|Mar-02-07|| ||LIFE Master AJ: RxN/e6!!
Has this game ever been featured as the "Problem of The Day?"
|Sep-06-08|| ||sneaky pete: In the oldest source known to me, Kagan's Neueste Schachnachrichten 1922 # 4 (page 368/9), Alekhine presents this game with 32.e8=Q! and notes: "Am einfachsten" (simplest). I fail to see why the counterfeit underpromotion is more accurate or forcing.|
|Sep-07-08|| ||sneaky pete: Of course in <Meine besten (gefälschten) Partien 1908-1923>, which, I understand, first appeared in 1926, this had already become "32.e7-e8S+ Das Einfachste!".
Alekhine often suffered from recovered memories of moves or even complete games that were never actually played.|
|Sep-08-08|| ||Calli: <sneaky pete> The tournament book (Olms Reprint of the original 1923 Berlin ausgabe) gives 32.e7-e8S+ . Alekhine annotated the game and apparently changed the move at that point.|
My Best Games 1908-1923 was first released in English by G. Bell in 1927. It was written in French and finished by 1924, but apparently the publisher backed out of the deal. He probably thought that the French chess market for fiction was poor.
|Jan-13-12|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <sneaky pete>
Curiously, <Skinner and Verhoeven> list Kagan's Neueste Schachnachrichten 1922, p.368-9 as the oldest publication of this game, but the version of the score they include in their book gives
"<32.e8N+!> The simplest."
-<Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games 1902-1946>, p.160
Since you have the original German publication of <Kagan's... 1922>, I'm assuming that <Skinner and Verhoeven> have either made an error in transcription from that journal, or that they have judged the underpromotion to have been genuine, for some reason.
|Jan-13-12|| ||sneaky pete: <jfq> That's curious indeed. So they mention Kagan's as a source, but obviously haven't consulted the magazine.|
It says there:
No way they could transcribe D as N.
|Jan-13-12|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <sneaky pete> I agree partly with your assessment on this. Although Edward Winter (who loves the book) criticizes it for having too many typos, that doesn't smell right to me here.|
However, I doubt that <Skinner and Verhoeven> didn't actually read the original source.
Could they have decided, for some reason, to go with the revised underpromotion published in all sources after <Kagan's>?
That also seems unlikely to me, however.
<Calli> also has a copy of <Skinner and Verhoeven>, maybe he can check it? Could be a printing error of some kind.
At any rate, before submitting a correction slip for our database, I think we should ask <Edward Winter> about this, it's exactly the kind of issue he seems most interested in.
Particularly since he has already given a substantial review of <Skinner and Verhoeven>:
|Jan-13-12|| ||Calli: Skinner had Kagan's magazine because he used Alekhine's annotations and translated them into English for "Skinner and Verhoeven". One possibility is that Skinner simply didn't notice the difference between Kagan's score and the others. (S&V lists four other sources.) Another possibility is that Kagan's score is incorrect. Just because it is the first publication doesn't mean there can't be a mistake.|
Don't think we can know definitely what was played. All the sources have already been checked. I would lean to the underpromotion being correct for two reasons: 1) It is in the tournament book. Organizers have score sheets. 2) Alekhine's comment on 32.e8-N+! - "Am einfachsten" seems like a cover up. He might have realized that the knight promo was unnecessary, so, to deflect criticism, he says he only did it to simplify. Would he make such a comment after the more obvious Queen promotion?
|Jan-14-12|| ||jessicafischerqueen: Thanks <Calli> for shedding more light on this. If Skinner and Verhoeven decided the underpromotion was correct then they might just have altered the original Queen promotion listed in Kagan's original journal.|
I think that's more likely than Skinner not noticing the difference between Kagan and later published scores of the game.
|Jan-14-12|| ||Penguincw: Lesson learned by black for not castling.|
|Jan-14-12|| ||AlphaMale: <At any rate, before submitting a correction slip for our database, I think we should ask <Edward Winter> about this, it's exactly the kind of issue he seems most interested in.>|
Talking of Bad Pistyan, maybe you should take the opportunity to also ask him about the story of Alekhine's incongruous leak. Albeit, as I doubt this outrageous happening would ever have befouled its way into inglorious print, he probably won't be able to help. I believe the story owes its continuing existence to oral tradition. It was told to me, if memory serves, by Vlastimil Hort. Now, I pass it on to the wider chess world.
|Nov-21-12|| ||micartouse: Alekhine's remark after 10. Nf3 from <My Best Games of Chess>|
<The opening of this game offers some analogies with that of Game No. 61 played at the Hague against Rubinstein. Alekhine vs Rubinstein, 1921
In the one, as in the other, the advantage won results from repeated movements of the same pieces (here the first eleven moves contain four displacements of the Queen and three of the King's Knight).
But the possibility of like maneuvers in the opening phase is solely attributable, I must reiterate, to the fact that the opponent has adoped faulty tactics, which must from the first be refuted by an energetic demonstration. It is clear, on the contrary, that in face of correct development, similar anomalous treatment would be disastrous.
It cannot therefore be any question of a "Modern System," but just simply of exploiting in a rational manner the opponent's mistakes.
I cannot conceive why there is such an ardent desire to discover in a game of chess anything more subtle than it has to offer, for I am of opinion that the real beauty which it possesses should be more than sufficient for all possible demands.>