< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Aug-09-07|| ||kevin86: The winner in this game really pressed the attack. Tartakower never could find the right counter-moves and he game crumbled to rubble. |
Doesn't it always seem in these positions that the player who sacrifices material always seems to be ahead? The loser's king always seems to be so "lonely".
|Aug-09-07|| ||Fezzik: This was a great early win by Botvinnik!
I found Alekhine's comments very interesting. By today's standards, even a world champion would never get away with all the "etc."s at the end of variations.
However, by the standards of the day, Alekhin's notes were <very> concrete.
Kevin86 mentioned that the player who sacs material seems to be ahead.
Well, yeah. Steinitz was the first to state it, but even the earliest chess games showed that once a player has the advantage, he has the obligation to attack.
This often means sacrificing to convert one sort of advantage into another. A sacrifice in a poor position may confuse, but it should not change the evaluation of the position. If it did, then the position wouldn't be poor!
|Aug-09-07|| ||Jack Kerouac: Another example of Botvinnik's 'Iron Logic'. The precursor to the 'Soviet School of Chess'. Finite, brutal, position. Stultify, hinder, encapsulate,suppress.
Prey on positional weakness; or settle for draw if advantageous. Do not instigate dynamics.
Safe, positional,chess. Works good overall.
Then Fischer who figured it out too.
Play smart defense, but upset the dynamics when position unclear or even.
Yeah. In a nutshell.......
|Aug-09-07|| ||Jack Kerouac: Neal and Allen want pizza. Why not?|
|Aug-09-07|| ||euripides: <The precursor to the 'Soviet School of Chess'. Finite, brutal, position. Stultify, hinder, encapsulate,suppress. Prey on positional weakness; or settle for draw if advantageous. Do not instigate dynamics.> then judging from 14.f4 and 21.Nxe7 Micky must have been a closet dissident.|
|Aug-09-07|| ||weisyschwarz: Nottingham forced.|
|Aug-10-07|| ||nescio: <weisyschwarz: Nottingham forced.> :-), but Americans won't understand.|
|Aug-10-07|| ||weisyschwarz: weisyschwarz: <nescio>, this may utterly surprise you, but the world does not revolve around us Americans. Actually many Americans will understand: chess enthusiasts who have seen/read Robin Hood, and Americans born in England! :-)|
|Aug-10-07|| ||Nasruddin Hodja: <Jack Kerouac: The precursor to the 'Soviet School of Chess'. Finite, brutal, position. Stultify, hinder, encapsulate,suppress. Prey on positional weakness; or settle for draw if advantageous. Do not instigate dynamics. Safe, positional,chess.>|
Sorry Jack, but this is wrong. Soviet writers who wrote about their approach to chess said that they were inspired by Chigorin and (after his death) by Alekhine, and both were better described as attacking rather than positional players. And Soviet school players understood dynamic play even before Tal came along, and applied dynamics to their opening innovations: Rauzer and Boleslavsky(Sicilian), Panov (Caro-Kann), Bronstein and Geller (King's Indian), to name just a few.
|Jan-17-08|| ||keypusher: <Jack Kerouac: The precursor to the 'Soviet School of Chess'. Finite, brutal, position. Stultify, hinder, encapsulate,suppress. Prey on positional weakness; or settle for draw if advantageous. Do not instigate dynamics. Safe, positional,chess.>|
Not much to add to Najruddin Hodja's response, except maybe this game:
Denker vs Botvinnik, 1945
If Botvinnik isn't "instigating dynamics," no one ever did.
|Aug-21-08|| ||Mrs. Alekhine: This game was judged the best of all 105 at the tournament-- it was awarded the <First Brilliancy Prize>.|
|Aug-21-08|| ||Gregor Samsa Mendel: <Mrs. A> Your husband obviously did not agree with the judges who awarded this game the brilliancy prize, as his annotations state that "The attack is from now on very easy to conduct" and that "The continuation is by no means difficult..."|
|May-15-09|| ||Honza Cervenka: 28.Ng7+ Rxg7 29.Qxd8 with unstopable threat Rd6 could have been different final here.|
|Jul-01-09|| ||JG27Pyth: <Bottvinnik massacred the "old masters" at Nottingham-Tartakover,Bogolubov,Vidmar- in games that seem more like exhibitions than tournament games.>|
<The two old masters whom Botvinnik did not massacre in Nottingham were Alekhine and Capablanca (who were as old as Bogo and Tartakower)...>
Botivinnik didn't massacre the oldest master of the bunch, 68 year old Dr. Emmanuel Lasker! Dr. L drew Botivinnik and finished 1.5 points back of co leaders Botvinnik and Capablanca.
|Sep-23-11|| ||FSR: <JG27Pyth: ... Botivinnik didn't massacre the oldest master of the bunch, 68 year old Dr. Emmanuel Lasker! Dr. L drew Botivinnik and finished 1.5 points back of co leaders Botvinnik and Capablanca.>|
Lasker was a god. This was his last tournament, and the only one ever in which he finished outside the prize list. This tournament and Moscow 1936 (his next-to-last tournament) are the only tournaments in which he ever failed to finish ahead of Capablanca, 20 years his junior. (Lasker finished ahead of him at St. Petersburg 1914, New York 1924, Moscow 1925, and Moscow 1935). Poor Lasker even lost to Alekhine at this tournament, for the one and only time in his life (he beat Alekhine thrice). Of course, even at age 68 Lasker was strong enough to beat World Champion Euwe, against whom he had a perfect 3-0 score. Lasker knew that when he finished below Capablanca and lost to Alekhine, it was time to retire.
|Sep-23-11|| ||perfidious: FSR: <....Poor Lasker even lost to Alekhine at this tournament, for the one and only time in his life (he beat Alekhine thrice)....>|
Lasker's loss to Alekhine was at Zurich 1934: Alekhine vs Lasker, 1934.
Did the old master's minus score at Moscow '36 (+3 -5 =10) get him a prize?
|Sep-23-11|| ||FSR: <perfidious> I'm screwing up everything tonight. You're right about Alekhine beating Lasker at Zurich '34, not here. And maybe I had it backwards, and Moscow '36 was the one tournament where he didn't win a prize. He didn't do <too> badly at Nottingham, thanks to beating Euwe and all the Brits.|
|Sep-23-11|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: @<FSR>
just checked the Dover edition of the tourney book. In his introduction, W. H. Watts mentions there were only four official prizes,so Lasker did miss out.
However £200 was shared between the non-prize winners in proportion to their scores; and all were given the hospitality of the British Chess Federation, had their travel expenses covered and given an allowance. Not bad conditions, of course!
|Sep-23-11|| ||perfidious: <FSR: <perfidious> I'm screwing up everything tonight...>|
You don't often, so this was a surprise.
<...He didn't do <too> badly at Nottingham, thanks to beating Euwe and all the Brits.>
The home contingent indeed served as the foil for the foreign masters, with one major exception, in which White survived a poor opening and middlegame: C H Alexander vs Flohr, 1936.
|Sep-23-11|| ||TheFocus: Of Moscow 1936, Lasker had this to say: <This latest Moscow tournament was an especially difficult one for all its participants, since among them there was not one whose play might be deemed unworthy of this serious event.|
The Soviet masters, especially Botvinnik and Ragozin, confirmed the opinions others have formed about them. Had it not been for the terrible time control, Botvinnik would have undoubtedly beaten Capablanca in his first round game, and gone on to win the tournament.
The time control proved a burden to myself as well. I hope to do better at Nottingham, Lasker and His Contemporaries #3.>
|Sep-23-11|| ||TheFocus: And at Nottingham, Lasker, going on sixty-eight, defeated Dr. Euwe and drew with Capablanca, Botvinnik and Dr. Alekhine! 2.5 out of 4 against world champions, past and future!|
<I did not prepare for this tournament, and this explains my poor result. Despite my lack of practice, however, I did manage to score a few victories. I attempted, with what strength I could muster, to uphold the honor of the Soviet Union. The most pleasant result for me was my win over Bogoljubow, Lasker and His Contemporaries #3.>
<to uphold the honor of the Soviet Union>
Lasker was living in Moscow at the time.
|Sep-23-11|| ||perfidious: <TheFocus> Do you know what the time check at Moscow was?|
At Nottingham, they were allotted two hours for the first 36 moves.
Whatever the cause, Botvinnik blew that game, no question.
|Sep-23-11|| ||TheFocus: <perfidious> No, I have the book at home.|
|Feb-21-12|| ||backrank: The game has recieved a brilliancy prize and is rather well-known. However, in my opinion it doesn't rank among Botvinnik's best efforts. Its esthetic value is somewhat reduced by the fact that Tartakower's play was so weak here. It looks almost like a 'Botvinnik vs NN' game, his position is easily won (for a GM, of course!) from move 17 on, so that he can afford to play a little cat and mouse with his opponents: here a sac and there a sac, and everything with no risk at all. Pretty, but not very significant. On the other hand, such a superiority on someone like Tartakower is impressive enough ...|
|Jul-23-12|| ||Ulhumbrus: Botvinnik said that Tartakower was weak in positional play and gave this game as an example. This suggests the question of how Lasker might have handled the black side of this game. Perhaps Lasker would not have disturbed his king side pawns without necessity by the moves 11...h6 and 13...g5 and so invited the king side attack 14 f4. It is also conceivable that in some variations Lasker would have played for the advance ...d5|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·