| Nov-25-02 |
| drukenknight: Game resembles a nightmare from about move 16 and on. I dont need the pawns in front of my K breaking down like that. |
 |
| Feb-28-03 |
| pawntificator: So how do you pronounce Savielly Tartakower? |
|
| Feb-28-03 |
| kostich in time: Bottvinnik massacred the "old masters" at Nottingham-Tartakover,Bogolubov,Vidmar- in games that seem more like exhibitions than tournament games. |
|
Jul-09-06
 |
| nasmichael: At 29... the question "why?" behind the move pxQ is a good one for newer players. To set up the position from 27 and play forward will help the vision of a young player in terms of consequences. I think I'll write it down. |
|
Aug-09-07
 |
| RandomVisitor: black's last chance to hold was 15...Ng6, and if 16.fxe5 then 16...Nxe5=. If 16.f5, then 16.Nf4 Bxf4 17.exf4 black threatens Qb6+ and Qxb2. |
|
| Aug-09-07 |
| CapablancaFan: Interesting as early as move 13...g5 Alekhine believes black is positionally lost. I was looking for a way to prove him wrong, but could not find any. I actually believe 11...h6 was a horrible move. Good game by Botvinnik. |
|
| Aug-09-07 |
| syracrophy: I think that <chessgames.com> missed that this pun is already used: Tylor vs Lasker, 1936 |
|
Aug-09-07
|
| RandomVisitor: The sequence 15...Ng6 16.fxe5 Nxe5 17.Nf3 Nxc4 18.Bxh6 Qb6+ 19.Rf2 cxd5 20.Nxd5 Nxd5 21.Qxd5 Be6 22.Qh5 Bf6 does not look good for black. Neither does 15...exf4 16.Bxf4 |
|
Aug-09-07
 |
| Nasruddin Hodja: <kostich>: The two old masters whom Botvinnik did not massacre in Nottingham were Alekhine and Capablanca (who were as old as Bogo and Tartakower). It's a question of objective playing strength, not age. Alekhine and Capablanca were still quite strong in 1936, but no longer so much two years later, both probably due to health problems. Botvinnik's playing strength, however, steadily increased throughout the 1930's. |
|
| Aug-09-07 |
| gmgomes: Nottingham 1936 => one of the most strong and important tournaments, ended in August 28, 1936. Bill Wall: The tournament saw a two-way tie between Capablanca and Botvinnik (10 out of 14). 3rd through 5th place went to Euwe, Fine, and Reshevsky (9.5). Alekhine took 6th place (9). Lasker and Flohr tied for 7th-8th place (8.5). Vidmar took 9th place (6). 10th-11th place went to Bogoljubow and Tartakower (5.5). 12th place went to Tylor (4.5). Alexander took 13th place (3.5). Sir George Thomas took 14th place (3)and Winter took 15th place (2.5). Botvinnik and Fine were the only unbeaten players.
The tournament was probably the closest race in the history of top class tournaments. Only one point separated 1st place from 6th place. Only 1.5 points separated 1st place from 8th place. It was the last big victory of Capablanca and the first big victory of Botvinnik. It was Lasker's final tournament. |
|
Aug-09-07
 |
| Chessmensch: I agree with <nasmichael> only more so. While Black's play was poor, studying white's attack is very instructive for newer players. |
|
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 Tal.
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. |
|
Annotations by 
sac: 22.Rxf6
