|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jan-18-03
 | | Sneaky: hmmm maybe this is half-baked but what do you think:
16.e3 Bxe3 17.fxe3 Nxe3 18.Qe2 Nxg2! 19.Qxg2 d4 (or 19.Kxg2 d4+) and Black is up material. |
 |
| Jan-18-03 | | Sylvester: Alekhine gives 16. cxd5 Bxd5 17. Ne4 as white's best moves. He says 16. h3 is no good because of 16…Nxf2 17. Rxf2 Qg5. He does not have anything on 16. e3. |
|
| Jan-18-03 | | drukenknight: 16. e3 Bxe3 17. Qxg4 |
|
| Jan-18-03 | | morphynoman2: Why not 16. e3 Nxf2!? 17. Rxf2 dxe3 |
|
| Jan-18-03 | | drukenknight: I think he recaptures w/ the K 17 Kxf2 but Im unclear on whether it is good or bad. |
|
Jan-20-03
 | | Honza Cervenka: 20.Ke1 seems to be slightly better as 20...Qxd2+ 21.Qxd2 cxd2+ 22.Kxd2 Bxa3 leads to an ending with bishops of opposite colour which gives white some drawish chances. |
|
| Jan-20-03 | | judokausa1: Honza Doesn't 20. Ke1 lose? After 20... cxd2+ 21. Qxd2 Qb6 seems VERY strong. with the triple threat of Qxb2, Bf2+ & Rd8? |
|
Jan-20-03
| | Honza Cervenka: You are right, 20...cxd2+ 21.Qxd2 Qb6 looks much better for black. But after 22.Be4 Bxa3 23.Qf4 (23.Qc2 Bb4+ 24.Kd1 Rd8+ 25.Bd3 e5 etc. or 23.Bxh7+ Kh8 24.Qc2 f5 etc. or 23.Qa2 Qa5+ 24.Kd1 Rb8 25.Qc2 f5 26.Bd3 Rb2 etc.) I don't see clear win for black yet. |
|
| Jan-20-03 | | judokausa1: 22.Be4! (allows white to block the open d file.) Bxa3 23.Qf4 Bb4+ 24. Kd1 f5 and white looks like it is about to collapse. 25. Bd3 Qa5 26. Qc1 Rd8 and the c pawn wil fall. |
|
Jan-21-03
| | Honza Cervenka: Yes, it looks quite convincing. |
|
| Aug-28-04 | | Whitehat1963: How much did Rubinstein decline after around 1911/1912 due to his psychological problems? Anyone hazard a guess? Clearly, by the time of this game he was no longer the same player who was playing Capablanca, Alekhine and Lasker so tough. |
|
Aug-28-04
 | | acirce: He never had another 1912 of course but in 1922 he won the Vienna tournament by a big margin ahead of Alekhine, Tartakower, Maroczy, Tarrasch and others, for example... http://www.alekhine.net/english/tab... |
|
| Aug-28-04 | | WMD: In John Nunn's introduction to the Batsford edition of Alekhine's Best Games he writes: "I was particularly struck by his game against Rubinstein from Semmering, 1926 (game 42 in this book), and the move 18...Nxf2! in particular. It seemed incredible that there might be a stronger move than the obvious recapture on c3, but after having checked the analysis several times, I had to admit that taking on f2 was a forced win. But how did this move even enter Alekhine's head? Today, finding this move doesn't seem so totally impossible as it did then, but it remains an enormously impressive game. In my opinion Alekhine's special genius lay in his ability to discover unexpected twists in positions where a lesser player would have made an automatic, conventional move." In his own notes, Alekhine says of 18...Nxf2, "By this pseudo-sacrifice Black forces the win of at least a pawn with a crushing position. Of course, the immediate 18...dxc3 would be ineffective because of 19.Ne4." Nunn has a footnote on this variation (18...dxc3 19.Ne4) which reads: "At first sight Black can continue 19...Nxf2 20.Nxf2 Bxf2+ 21.Kxf2 22.Qb6+, but White replies 22.c5! Qxb7 23.Qc2 Qb2 24.Rc1 Qxa3 25.Qxc3 Qxc3 26.Rxc3 with a very likely draw after the inevitable exchange of queenside pawns." The suprise is that Fritz finds the unexpected twist 19...Ne3! in Nunn's line and gives Black a large advantage. A sample line is 20.Qxd8 Rxd8 21.fxe3 Bxe3+ 22.Nf2 c2 23.Kg2 c1=Q 24.Rxc1 Bxc1 and Black is up an exchange. Question is, is this advantage decisive? What, if anything, is said about this line in the World's Greatest Chess Games by Messrs. Nunn, Emms and Burgess? I can't believe they missed it. |
|
| Aug-28-04 | | Whitehat1963: Thanks, <WMD> you're always making thoughtful posts (unlike me)! |
|
Aug-28-04
 | | Chessical: <WMD> Re <What...is said about this line in the World's Greatest Chess Games...?>. Nunn as the annotator mentionS: <18...dxc3 19.Ne4 Ne3!> 20.Qxd8 Rxd8 21.fxe3 Bxe3+ 22.Kg2 c2 23.Nc3 Rb8 24.Be4 c1(Q) 25.Rxc1 Bxc1 as the main line (he also gives several branching sub-variations). |
|
| Aug-28-04 | | WMD: And Black is definitely winning? |
|
Aug-28-04
| | Chessical: <WMD> "...with an easy win for black" - Nunn. |
|
| Sep-05-04 | | beatgiant: <drukenknight: why not 16 e3?> I think the answer is 16. e3  xe3 17. fe  xe3+ 18.  h1 d4 . Note the discovered attack by Black's rook along the b-file cutting off the retreat of White's bishop. So the game might continue 19. xb7  xb7 20.  f3 dc 21. xb7 cd , and the result looks good for Black (two pawns for the exchange, strong d-pawn, active play, etc.) |
|
| Aug-28-05 | | A.Alekhine: Alekhine shows a very clear way to use the Queen Indian |
|
Jan-04-07
| | Honza Cervenka: <"I was particularly struck by his game against Rubinstein from Semmering, 1926 (game 42 in this book), and the move 18...Nxf2! in particular. It seemed incredible that there might be a stronger move than the obvious recapture on c3, but after having checked the analysis several times, I had to admit that taking on f2 was a forced win. But how did this move even enter Alekhine's head?..."> Well, I have to say that 18...Nxf2 is not so unobvious. White Queen is under attack. It is clear at first glance that after 19.Rxf2 dxc3 not only Rf2 but also Nd2 due to unprotected Queen are pinned and that white loses a lot of material. The grim consequences of 19.Kxf2 are obvious as well - dxc3 with discovered check. Everything else leaves white without Pawn and with very bad position. The only thing necessary to do is to watch carefully whether white has no hidden zwischenzug but it is not difficult to see that there is nothing too much good. The only candidate 19.Ba5 trades the Queens with clear edge for black: 19...Nxe1 20.Bxd8 d3+! 21.e3 (21.Kh1 dxe2 22.Re1 Rxd8  ) 21...Nxe3 22.Bg5 Nxf1+ 23.Kxf1 Rb8 etc. This line seems to be the only more difficult part of black's calculation here and it definitely was not difficult for Alekhine. |
|
| Apr-14-09 | | WhiteRook48: 18...Nxf2!! |
|
Jun-12-09
 | | Bridgeburner: <16...d4> sets a trap that Rubinstein walked right into with <17.Rxb7??> apparently failing to see the snake's nest of complications into which he was stumbling. After <17.Bb4>, White is perfectly OK. <<beatgiant> Note the discovered attack by Black's rook along the b-file cutting off the retreat of White's bishop.> The bishop can play <19.Bb4>, and White is fine. |
|
Jun-12-09
 | | visayanbraindoctor: It seems to me that Rubinstein had difficulties in handling Alekhine-induced complications. However, so did almost every one else (with the obvious notable exceptions of Lasker and Capablanca). Rubinstein vs Alekhine, 1922
Here is another classic case wherein Rubinstein finally loses his way after a magnificently complicated middlegame struggle, blundering right at the very end. IMO Rubinstein should have avoided such complex games with Alekhine in the first place, as he probably had better chances of winning in 'simpler' positions. In the 1930s, the great Paul Keres was the emerging young chessplayer whose style resembled that of Alekhine's. Assuming he wasn't 'throwing away games' to AAA as some kibitzers allege, I think the main reason why Keres kept on losing to Alekhine was that AAA was simply a better version of Keres at playing the same kind of positions they both loved. Had Alekhine died for example in 1938 and a World Championship tournament been immediately held, Keres IMO probably would have ended as World Champion. |
|
Jun-13-09
| | Bridgeburner: <visayanbraindoctor> <It seems to me that Rubinstein had difficulties in handling Alekhine-induced complications.> True, but it was in the simpler positions that Rubinstein often blundered against Alekhine. For example, in the game you cited where Rubinstein threw it all away with <50.f4??> in a single piece + 4 pawns each endgame. I recall reading somewhere that Keres had been under Soviet orders to throw some games (although when I don't know), and Bronstein had been ordered to throw his last game against Botvinnik in the WC match that he drew. It seems Bronstein was a second cousin of Leon Trotsky, and such suspect relations were under strict orders at the time. |
|
| Apr-07-12 | | Karpova: Though White is lost, Akiva actually lost on time.
Source: Page 184 of J. Donaldson and N. Minev 'The Life and Games of Akiva Rubinstein - Volume 2: The Later Years', 2nd edition, Milforld, USA, 2011. |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
