< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 11 ·
|Nov-17-14|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Jadoubious: "Samuel Reshevsky should've been world chess champion" He had his chance in 1948 and several times afterward. It was Reuben Fine who was truly ripped off by chess politics (and the unrelated disaster of WWII)>|
Tojo and Hitler were notorious for their hatred of Reuben Fine. Some secret documentation of their Axis collusion suggests that they started the war to prevent Fine from becoming world chess champion.
|Nov-17-14|| ||Petrosianic: Reshevsky was actually a Soviet agent, planted by the KGB specifically to ensure that Fine would never win the US Championship, and so never get a title shot.|
|Nov-17-14|| ||perfidious: Little Sammy did his job well--so well that Fine could not even win the title in 1944, the year Reshevsky was absent.|
|Nov-17-14|| ||Petrosianic: Well, every conspiracy theory has to have a gaping flaw in it somewhere. I'm ashamed to say that mine only has this one.|
|Nov-17-14|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Petrosianic: Well, every conspiracy theory has to have a gaping flaw in it somewhere. I'm ashamed to say that mine only has this one.>|
I dunno, your analysis seems ironclad to me, except for the fact that Reshevsky was Polish and left his home country in 1920.
So obviously it must be that he met Lenin on the sealed train as the Bolshevik leader was headed to Russia during WW1.
Which means SR was a bolshevik agent, not a soviet agent! But let us not quibble over semantics.
|Nov-18-14|| ||perfidious: It is well known that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman, too.|
|Nov-18-14|| ||Tomlinsky: Wasn't he just a pastie?|
|Nov-18-14|| ||perfidious: <Tomlinsky> Ah likes pastries!|
|Nov-18-14|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Tomlinsky: Wasn't he just a pastie?>|
You mean, something women wear to cover their nipples when they are topless?
Well, Reshevsky was little, but not that little!
|Jan-07-15|| ||Ke2: this game is the actual source of move 10: Bastrikov vs L Shamkovich, 1958|
|May-13-15|| ||A.T PhoneHome: I think this game is a classic! Yes, I know, Mr. Reshevsky fell into an opening trap which lost him Queen, but his defensive play from then on was both stubborn and inspiring.|
The fact is that while Reshevsky faced such a heavy concession very early on, he kept on playing and he fought well.
I don't think many of us would've done the same in his shoes. But that's the man and player Samuel Reshevsky was; fearless and inspired.
|May-13-15|| ||Petrosianic: The game itself isn't that great, but it was the first time in history that someone both won the US Championship and beat Reshevsky.|
|May-13-15|| ||A.T PhoneHome: Understandably the queen trap affects the overall quality of this game; the later defending by Reshevsky may have had something to do with the fact he was playing against a 15-year-old.|
What is your executive take on this game, <Petrosianic>? How would you characterize Reshevsky's play after the Queen loss etc.? Sorry to bother you like this, just interested!
|May-13-15|| ||RookFile: Somebody made the comment that at the moment when Reshevsky resigned was as good as his position had been at any point after losing the queen.|
|May-13-15|| ||A.T PhoneHome: For some reason I think that Reshevsky played on and kept defending out of spite; losing in 42 moves looks better than losing Queen and resigning in 12 moves, if only the difference is purely numerical.|
But I still think that there is something to admire in such an effort by Reshevsky. Also the face value of 15-year-old springing a Queen winning trap on multi-time U.S Champion; a fitting example of Fischer's studying habits!
|May-13-15|| ||perfidious: <A.T> Then there is the flip side: Nunn vs Kiril Georgiev, 1988, while making it through the first time check, was published as ending round about move ten in some magazines, according to Nunn.|
|May-13-15|| ||A.T PhoneHome: Oh wow, had a quick look... That's another Queen loss in 10 moves!|
Was it published like that just because the resignation after move 10 would've been plausible?
And was there no explanation for those 32 omitted moves or what?
|May-13-15|| ||perfidious: Do not recall exactly what Nunn wrote: the one thing which surfaces in my tired old brain since the previous post is that he wryly noted that if Georgiev's motive was to make the game less publishable by playing on, he was not wholly successful, as some publications gave it as ending at move ten!|
|May-13-15|| ||A.T PhoneHome: Of course he would say that. :P I wonder what or who made some publications have it end at move ten.|
Speaking of moves omitted, to mention the opposite, aren't the last few moves of Anderssen-Kieseritzky game also added into the game? I think those moves demonstrate the finishing mate, however, they weren't played in the actual game.
|May-13-15|| ||A.T PhoneHome: By the way, thank you for sharing your valuable time, <perfidious>! It's really nice how informative people are around here.|
|May-14-15|| ||Howard: Well, some of us are (voluntarily) unemployed, plus we are diehard chess buffs, especially when it comes to chess trivia.|
Not only that, a few of us have been USCF members for.....40 years ! Need I say more ?
|May-14-15|| ||A.T PhoneHome: No, you don't! I've always thought that in chess, talking to older people is cool. You guys know a great deal! Lots of interesting trivia on numerous events, etc.|
|May-26-15|| ||m.okun: For the first time met (in russian):
|Sep-12-15|| ||zanzibar: Several have mentioned this before, but maybe without the reference to the <Bastrikov--Shamkovich(1958)> game:|
<'When Reshevsky played 8...Na5 the whispers in the tournament room at the Marshall Chess Club grew to a barely suppressed uproar. The move [from Bastrikov,Georgy - Shamkovich, Leonid, Sochi, 1958] had been analyzed just a few weeks earlier in Shakmatny Byulletin and many of the stronger players in the club were thoroughly familiar with it.'>
|Sep-12-15|| ||zanzibar: Here is Mato analyzing the <Bastrikov-Shamkovich> game which Fischer presumably knew of:|
Bastrikov vs L Shamkovich, 1958
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 11 ·