|Aug-09-05|| ||bomb the bishop: Was 9. Nd5 forced or could black have taken the knight on g5?|
|Aug-29-05|| ||jorgegatica: The standard answer is to take the knight on g5 and after Bg5 to develop the Qn to d7.
Black was experimenting with an alternative which seems to be worse.|
|May-09-08|| ||Samagonka: Very good game to watch.|
|Jun-02-08|| ||vonKrolock: <21...c2> Now this is at least unnecessary. Euwe commented that white was threatening ♗h5-♕f3 "with a quick decision", but this is wrong. Black could play now 21...♕a7! and, after, say 22.♗h5 ♖c4 23.♕f3 ♖h7! and his position is a fortress... More probably, Stahlberg overlooked 23.♗a6! when he played 21...c3-c2 - actually, giving away a whole ♙ for almost nothing. Even so, the game is very interesting, and an excellent sample of Flohr's style|
|Jan-24-11|| ||Kazzak: Maybe Flohr should have considered a move other than 10.Nf3?
Maybe the implications of 10.Nxf7 didn't appeal to him.|
|Oct-19-12|| ||superstoned: <Kazzak> check out Belavenets vs Ragozin 1939 for 10.Nxf7. Great game.|
|Jan-13-14|| ||sorokahdeen: I can just imagine what Flohr must have thought after 27...00. |
"Yes, thank you. Castle *into* it..."
|Jul-23-14|| ||lanfeust: why 24 don't take the Q ?|
|Dec-21-17|| ||FSR: At least according to chessgames.com's database, Stahlberg was the first to play the "Botvinnik Variation." Unfortunately it didn't go too well. 9...Nd5, though it has even been played by Kasparov, is not a good line after either the calm 10.Nf3 (as Flohr played) or the sharper 10.Nxf7!, which is considered the refutation. Gruenfeld improved with 9...Nbd7! in T van Scheltinga vs Gruenfeld, 1936. Unlike Stahlberg in this game, he won rather than lost. Ironically, the Gruenfeld Defense, which he was not the first to play, was named after him, while the Botvinnik Variation was named after Botvinnik, who may have been the fourth player to play it (after Stahlberg, Euwe and Klaus Junge).|
|Dec-21-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: 9... hxg5 seems to be ok.|