< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|May-29-14|| ||perfidious: Lasker was actually 67 that year; the only reason I mention this is because at 66, he had good results, whereas one year later, his powers had clearly weakened. Scoring +3 was not terribly impressive for a strong foreign master in this event, and Lasker made 5.5 from six games against the bottom of the table, losing horribly to Reshevsky and Flohr.|
|Oct-10-14|| ||devere: <plang: Lasker may have intended 18..Nf4 and then realized that after 19 Qe3..Nxd3 20 Rc7!..Bc6 21 Rxc6..N3e5 22 Rc7 Black is much worse.(Fine's conclusion in this line is markedly different than Alekhine's) >|
It seems that Fine mistakenly has Black playing N3e5 instead of N7e5, and Alekhine's analysis is correct.
|May-29-16|| ||bernardchinshin: "ArturoRivera: at move 14, Kh7 stills drops a piece."|
After 14...Kh7 15. e5 Bxf3.
|May-29-16|| ||offramp: <bernardchinshin: "ArturoRivera: at move 14, Kh7 stills drops a piece."
After 14...Kh7 15. e5 Bxf3>
But 15.e5 is check.
|May-30-16|| ||RookFile: Why black didn't play 18...Nf4 is hard to understand. The h5 knight is a liability, and you've got a chance to get rid of it for the cannon on d3. I guess Lasker wanted to win by confusing the issue. It didn't work.|
|May-30-16|| ||Retireborn: It's interesting to compare this game with this one:-|
Fine vs A Dunkelblum, 1937
where Fine wins from a similar opening in a similar way. In both games Black plays ...b4, giving White something to work with on the Q-side.
|May-30-16|| ||perfidious: <Retireborn> Another game of interest is the QGA Alekhine vs Flohr, 1931, where Black responded to a4 with the seemingly appropriate ....b4, only to discover his opponent got all the play on the queenside.|
|May-30-16|| ||Retireborn: <perfidious> That's a good point, probably Fine was very familiar with Alekhine's games.|
Incidentally Flohr wasn't totally convinced (continued on that page.)
|Jan-24-18|| ||offramp: I really hope that today's pun, "Every Fine Boy Does Good", is not based on the mnemonic <Every good boy deserves favours>. That would be negatively funny. It would reduce the net amount of humour in the universe.|
I hope I am missing something,
|Jan-24-18|| ||ChessHigherCat: <Plang: Fine:"..Lasker was then the Grand Old Man of chess. He was a serene, philosophical individual who impressed one with his calm indifference to the outcome of the battle. When he lost to me he laughed good-naturedly and said:"Young man, you play well."">|
Why didn't you finish the quote?:
"Let that be a lesson to you! replied the young whippersnapper: "I played well, but you played Fine".
|Jan-24-18|| ||Check It Out: <offramp> I’ve always read it, “Every Good Boy Does Fine”, the lines of the treble clef, I think. Useful in music education, not so much for this pun.|
|Jan-24-18|| ||Richard Taylor: I saw this annotated by Alekhine in a book the other day. But I cant find or recall where it was. |
Clearly the Ndf6 is bad. According to the spiel above that year Lasker was 67 and the year before had played well but that year seemed to decline quickly. Perhaps he had those (many) very small strokes that cause the brain to deteriorate at that age in general.
Fine did well that year and the next was de facto with Keres the World Champion as they both polished off Alekhine and Capablanca or at least finished ahead of the both to win.
|Jan-24-18|| ||goodevans: <Check It Out>, <offramp>|
I think <Every Good Boy Does Fine> is a less popular variant of the mnemonic <Every Good Boy Deserves Favours>. The existence of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Every... would seem to back up that belief. I also think the latter makes more sense.
On the other hand I think the idea of swapping "Good" and "Fine" in the first variant works so well I'm willing to overlook the use of "Good" as an adverb.
In short, the pun gets thumbs up from me.
|Jan-24-18|| ||TheFocus: <Richard Taylor: I saw this annotated by Alekhine in a book the other day. But I cant find or recall where it was. >|
Perhaps it was the Nottingham tournament book? AA annotated all the games.
|Jan-24-18|| ||Cheapo by the Dozen: Evidently you don't like today's mnemonic, <offramp>. Duly noted. Perhaps you should take up your complaint with the staff.|
|Jan-24-18|| ||offramp: <Check it out>, <GoodEvans> I had not realised that there was an alternative for that 𝄞 mnemonic. I suppose the pun is not too bad.|
A mnemonic I used at school was "Richard of York gave battle in vain". The modern version is "Run over your granny because it's violent." Things evolve!
|Jan-24-18|| ||ughaibu: Rubbed out your grafitti because it's vituperative.|
|Jan-24-18|| ||thegoodanarchist: <ughaibu: Rubbed out your grafitti because it's vituperative.>|
it is too late for pun submissions - the winner has been chosen already.
|Jan-24-18|| ||ughaibu: But it's not a pun?!? It's a reply to Offramp.|
|Jan-24-18|| ||morfishine: I like that word 'vituperative'
I wonder how its pronounced
|Jan-24-18|| ||zanzibar: <morfishine: I like that word 'vituperative'
I wonder how its pronounced>
|Jan-24-18|| ||chesst: alekhine has the art
of proper ly show ing
the bears paw & the
spring of... the
|Jan-25-18|| ||Richard Taylor: <TheFocus: <Richard Taylor: I saw this annotated by Alekhine in a book the other day. But I cant find or recall where it was. >|
Perhaps it was the Nottingham tournament book? AA annotated all the games>
I've seen an old copy of that but I don't have one. I have only been playing games from a book by Eric Schiller on defence, a book of Spassky's games, Beim's book on Chess Strategy and Euwe and Kramer's vol 1 and 2 about the Middle Game.
Fine appears in some of the lists but I am sure it was "inside" another game. It might be one of those false memories but often you see something in a book and cant find it later....all of which reminds me of the story by Borges 'The Book of Sands' in the book of the same name...
Paul Morten (Benzol) has been pointing out that Alekhine did that book as prep for his match against Capablanca. Or was that Hastings? If he annotated a book of the Hastings tournament it might be the one but I don't have that...
But this game really only has one move the bad N move to the side so I suspect it was an elementary point made. It is clearly a relatively trivial game.
These days I only study chess for the ideas and compare them. But only when I have a spare moment. Chess takes up too much time and at my age I am unlucky to improve now:that said the IDEAS remain interesting.
|Jan-25-18|| ||Richard Taylor: Alekhine annotated many of his own games. But some of his annotations are a bit suspect. He won a famous game and I checked it on a computer only to find his "great" moves were dubious and shouldn't have won.|
He also used psychology to upset Bogoljubov in I think the first match. In most games B was clearly better. But he followed up a game where B, in time trouble, only drew instead of winning with a (deliberately) unsound attack in the next game. The desired result was that B got into time trouble and went wrong (he probably should have won) and lost.
|Jan-25-18|| ||Richard Taylor: I recall Alekhine's comment which I thought was important that the exchange of Qs would have meant the Ns couldn't protect the Q-side pawns. That is " 25. Qc2 ("Decisive..." Alekhine).|
I recall "fiddling with it":
25...Qxc2 26. Bxc2 Kf8 27. Nc6 Ke8
28. Nxa5 Kd7 29. f3 Kd6 30. Kf2 Kc5
31. Ke3 Nd7 32. Ba4 Nb6 33. Be8...
The exchange emphasises the really bad placing of the Ns which I suppose should be obvious, but then we all lose games overlooking such 'obvious' things.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·