| Jan-26-05 | | mjk: The advantage of two  s in the endgame. |
 |
| Jan-14-06 | | woodenbishop: Go Sammy!! |
|
| Jan-14-06 | | madlydeeply: after 33...Nd5, the two Knights stand next to each other. Something good always happens when they stand next to each other. I've seen Reshevsky do that in other games. i've tried to do that and generally something good happens. Of course that means you have a great deal of central control already when you can stack Knights together like that so maybe its not the Knights. |
|
| Jan-14-06 | | woodenbishop: <Something good always happens when they (Kinghts) stand next to each other.> Yes, but in endgame theory, one must take caution (especially in won positions) to not stalemate the game, which can easily be done with two attacking/guarding Knights. |
|
| Jan-19-06 | | madlydeeply: Reshevsky doubles his knights smack dab in the middle of an open position seven times, on moves 28, 33, 35, 44, 52, 54, 61. There are all kinds of forking possiblities this formation sets up. It favors the fast calculating mind. Since Reshevsky's formal training consisted mostly of endless simuls when his family worked their child boy wonder genius, I wonder if he came up with this formation during the simul days, hoping the opponent would make a mistake. Or maybe its just a strong formation. I have become more and more interested in Reshesky since I found out that he never studied openings much (according to Silman's biography of Benko), therefore he was a natural genius that blazed his own trail, and according to Bronstein's book of the Zurich candidates tournament in 1953, the soviets were "concerned" about Reshevsky, apparently because he could come up with a theoretical novelty at any time, since he reworked his opening every game, which is what caused his chronic time trouble. I hereby dub this open game double knight formation the "Reshevsky Double Octopus". Try it sports fans, try it in simuls or even against that snotty kid that beats you every GD time you play! |
|
| Mar-17-06 | | RookFile: This is a very complex game. |
|
Aug-20-07
 | | keypusher: <Calli>, supposedly Botvinnik said that <Alekhine lost this game only because he drank a whole bottle of wine before dinner> (source: Soltis, The Great Chess Tournaments and Their Stories), so I nominate it for your <Alekhine was drunk!> collection. |
|
Oct-05-07
 | | Calli: Okay the collection is updated. Added a lot of games, but I am thinking not adding any more since the comments are getting redundant. The point has been made. Game Collection: Alekhine was drunk! |
|
Oct-05-07
 | | Benzol: I'm thinking of starting a new collection, titled "Drink Like A Grandmaster". Games featured will include those of Chigorin, Alyekhin and Tal. Any other suggestions? :) |
|
| Oct-05-07 | | Resignation Trap: <Benzol> Don't forget Kholmov and Lutikov! |
|
Oct-05-07
| | Calli: <Any other suggestions?> Yes, go down and get a pack of Lion's beer before you start. :-> Frank Marshall is another. |
|
Oct-06-07
| | Benzol: <Resignation Trap> <Calli> LOL. Isn't there a Russian proverb about Vodka and Chess being brothers? Other possible candidates include James Mason, Joseph Blackburne, Johannes Zukertort and Wilhelm Steinitz. |
|
Oct-06-07
 | | whiteshark: <Benzol> <Resignation Trap> <Calli> Don't forget a Swedish Grandmaster of the 40'/50', what's his name... ? |
|
Oct-06-07
 | | SwitchingQuylthulg: <whiteshark> Do you mean Gosta Stoltz
or Gideon Stahlberg? Both fit your description :) I'm afraid that a lot of Nordic GMs are heavy drinkers, perhaps it's the cold, dark winter days with nothing else to do...? |
|
Oct-06-07
| | whiteshark: Thank you <SwitchingQuylthulg>! Yes, I meant <Stoltz>, wasn't sure about the 2nd GM. In addition to it, <cold, dark winter days with nothing else to do> applies to all people living in northern countries, not saying that all <are heavy drinkers> :D |
|
Dec-11-07
 | | SuperPatzer77: Reshevsky's two black knights really baffled Alekhine although Alekhine was drunk. I show you something interesting - after 58...Nxe5! (instead of Alekhine's reply of 59. Ng2) below: 59. Nxg6 Nxg6, 60. Bxh6 Ne5! (threatening Nc3+), 61. Bd2 Nc4!, 62. h4 Kd4!, 63. h5 Nc3+, 64. Bxc3+ Kxc3 (threatening b2 - b1=Q), 65. Kc1 b2+, 66. Kb1 Kb3, 67. h6 Na3# . 59. Nxg6 Nxg6, 60. Bxh6 Ne5!, 61. Bc1 (only move) Nxc1, 62. Kxc1 Nc4!, 63. h4 Kd4, 64. h5 Kc3, 65. h6 b2+ 66. Kb1 Kb3, 67. h7 Na3# . |
|
Dec-15-07
| | SuperPatzer77: Addition to the previous analysis: 58...Nxe5! (instead of Alekhine's reply of 59. Ng2), 59. Nxg6 Nxg6, 60. Bxh6 Ne5! (threatening Nc3+), 61. Bd2 Nc4!, 62. Bc1!? Nxc1, 63. h4 b2!, 64. Kc2 Ne2!, 65. h5 Nc3! (with idea of 66...b1=Q)  .58...Nxe5!, 59. Nxg6 Nxg6, 60. Bxh6 Ne5!, 61. Bd2 Nc4!, 62. h4 Kd4! (threatening 63...Nc3+), 63. Bc1!? Nxc1, 64. h5 b2!, 65. Kc2 Ne2!, 66. h6 Nc3! (with idea of 67...b1=Q#) . What two Black beauties! - Sammy Reshevsky's two Black knights really baffled Alexander Alekhine. Alekhine showed all of us what Alekhine analyzed in this game so, it is not my analysis - just Alekhine's. |
|
Dec-15-07
| | Calli: <SuperP> After 59.Nxg6 Nxg6 60.Bxh6 , the simplest is just 60...Nc3+! 61.Kc1 Ne5 winning |
|
Dec-17-07
| | SuperPatzer77: <Calli: After 59.Nxg6 Nxg6 60.Bxh6 , the simplest is just 60...Nc3+! 61.Kc1 Ne5 winning> Calli, you're right. After 59. Nxg6 Nxg6, 60. Bxh6 Nc3+!, 61. Kc1 Ne5!, 62. Kb2 Kc4, 63. Bc1 Nd3+, 64. Ka3 Nxc1, 65. h4 Nd3!, 66. h5 b2, 67. h6 b1=N#!!! - Three Black knights keep White King at bay!!! |
|
May-06-09
 | | chancho: The way Sammy used his two steeds is as noteworthy as it gets. |
|
Jul-11-09
 | | Peligroso Patzer: Alekhine is excoriating in his criticism of his 49. Ba3? in the following position 
click for larger viewHe wrote as follows regarding 49. Ba3? in the tournament book (“Nottingham 1936”, by Alekhine, Alexander, Russell Enterprises, Inc. ©2009, at page 87): "Another terrible move! - instead of which 49. Bd4 was still good enough for a draw, as the exchange at d4 would lead to the loss of Black's passed pawn. From now on to the end Black’s play is of high class." Of Reshevsky's reply, 49. … e5!, Alekhine says: “White should never have allowed this advance.” (Ibid., page 87.) Alekhine seems to assume that White’s position is now lost, and he does not comment on his 50. Ke3 (although he does comment regarding 52. Nh4 as follows: “Black would also have had excellent winning chances had White exchanged on e5.”) To return to the position after 49. … e5!, I wonder if White might have had some chance to hold by exchanging immediately on e5 with 50.fxe5 (instead of 50.Ke3?). After 50. fxe5, the continuation Ndxe5+ 51.Nxe5+ Nxe5+ 52.Ke4 Ke6 53.h3 h5 54.Bf8 would have left Black with the following position: 
click for larger viewwhich is difficult, but perhaps not yet lost. |
|
Jul-11-09
| | Peligroso Patzer: As an illustration of how White might defend from the position posted above (after 54.Bf8), play could continue: 54. ... Nf7 55.Kf4 Kd5 56.g4 hxg4 57.Kxg4 Nd6 (or 57...Kc4 58.h4 b4 59.Bxb4 Kxb4 60.h5 g5 61.h6=) 58.Kg5 b4 59.Kxg6 b3 60.Bg7 Nc4 61.Bc3, and Black should hold from this position without great difficulty. |
|
|
 |
|
