|Aug-08-03|| ||mandar: Nenark0 is unecesscary getting pawn d0wn & the game!!!! |
|Sep-28-03|| ||popski: Hmmm, I dont think that this game is only about one pawn... |
|Jul-29-04|| ||Knight13: Good game. Very interesting game. |
|Feb-17-06|| ||drnooo: The sort of game that Fischer was talking about when he said that he was more or less repelled by Alekhine's stuff: very ugly kind of thing that belonged to Alekhine alone. Even Tal might have found the early h pawn push repulsive. Around 1918 Alekhine was starting to be the bully of about everybody but Capa.|
|Nov-19-06|| ||arminsson: drnooo, Alekhines´s stuff - very ugly kind of thing - what are you referring to? Just interested.|
|Nov-02-09|| ||jmboutiere: 7.Nc6 + 0.02 Rybka 3
7...0-0 - 0.20;7...d5 +0.34
8.Be2 - 0.46 8...Ne5 - 0.41; 8...h5 +0.53
9.f3 - 0.21; 9...Bd7 + 0.23; 9...0-0 - 0.18
10...de4 - 0.10; 10.a6 +1.15
19.hg6 + 0.29
20...Qa5 +0.00; 20...Qd7 +5.18
24...Be6 mate in 5!!! Ugly or not.
Sometimes it is better to maintain the tension in the centre, this time it is wrong.
|Jan-17-16|| ||visayanbraindoctor: To me this looks like a classic looking White slaying of the Dragon, yet it was played in 1918!|
10. Qd2 a6
Now we enter the middlegame. What gives? It looks like a typical set-up that must have occurred in thousands of offhand, rapid, blitz, and classical Dragon games all over the world. (I have played out this kind of early middlegame position from both colors many times myself.)
What gives is that at this point in time not many Dragon games have been played. AAA probably had never played one himself on either color.
The way Alekhine slays the Dragon is just so archetypal. First he makes the common White Knight jump 11. Nd5
This eliminates Black's King Knight, which was defending g4 and h5, squares that White often thematically attacks in the Dragon set up, in order to open the h-file and degrade the Black King's pawn cover.
11... Nxd5 12. exd5
Later AAA does precisely the above mentioned attack on g4 and h5, typically throwing pawns at them.
15. g4! hxg4 16. f4! (disdaining recapture, knowing that throwing another pawn into the attack without loss of tempo is the right way to attack) Nf3 17. Bf3 gf3 18. h5
The Dragon slaying then continues to proceed in the exact thematic manner so well known to Dragon players. AAA swings his Queen over to the h-file, thus occupying the h-file with his R and Q, and he attacks Black's DSB by challenging it with his own (usually on h6 or d4, on d4 in this game)
20. Qh2 Qd7 21. Qh7 Kf7 22. Rh6 Rh8 23. Qg6 Kg8 24. Ne6 Be6 25. Bd4 1-0
How many White players have done this kind of thematic attack against the Dragon anyway?
Hundreds, maybe thousands. But not in 1918!
It just goes to show that basic chess rules and principles if followed correctly will often result in thematic lines of play. Alekhine probably had never played or even seen such an attack in his life before, yet given the appropriate positions, and using his inherent skills and adherence to basic chess principles, he concocted a thematic attack that later on was to be followed by thousands of other games.
So much for the coprolite speculations that pre WW2 masters supposedly are not able to comprehend 'modern' games. Such statements are precisely that - fossilized dung.
|Jan-17-16|| ||JimNorCal: "coprolite speculations"
|Jan-18-16|| ||perfidious: <visayan....So much for the coprolite speculations that pre WW2 masters supposedly are not able to comprehend 'modern' games....>|
Even the likes of Bent Larsen was dismissive of great players from that epoch in a 1972 interview:
<Lasker? He would lose terribly; he would always find himself in types of position he had never seen before--because of course none of us would play a simple Queen's Gambit or a Steinitz Defence to the Lopez against him. It is true that he had no difficulty against the hypermoderns in 1924 though he expected it [...] But the best theorists were not the best players--Réti, for example, was weak tactically. No, I think he would lose terribly to the ten best players of today. If he could get into positions with which he was familiar--then of course he would be a great player; but I think he would not be able to. Even Alekhine would have had to study for a year first; I am not sure, but I believe the man had never seen an exchange sacrifice on c3 in the Sicilian. Imagine that!>
Conel Hugh O'Donel Alexander
|Jan-18-16|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <perfidious> Larsen is spouting rotten baloney left, right, up, and down. It does not mean that he was an idiot. As I have theorized he was just a victim of the 'narcissistic generation syndrome', the attitude that everything in the here and now is better than in the [past. Not necessarily true. IMO for an intelligent man to spew out idiotic statements, there must be psychological blinders on him, most probably a bad attitude on certain things. |
At any rate let us examine his statements.
<Lasker? He would lose terribly; he would always find himself in types of position he had never seen before--because of course none of us would play a simple Queen's Gambit or a Steinitz Defence to the Lopez against him.>
'Simple' QGD is still in the vogue and is still being played more than ever IMO, with the trend toward unpretentious openings nowadays. True Steinitz defense is not anymore, but that is not proof that Lasker can't play against other closed Ruy systems. It's as if Larsen is saying, 'Because Steinitz defense isn't being played, Larsen would play terrible'. A nonsensical statement.
<It is true that he had no difficulty against the hypermoderns in 1924>
Larsen unwittingly gives proof that Lasker can and did adapt to new opening systems instantaneously. I call it 'theory generational leveling phenomenon', the observation that all masters, young and old, regardless of age quickly learn to play whatever new opening is in the vogue. Or is he saying 'Because Lasker adapted to the hypermoderns, he cannot adapt to 'modern' KIDs and Sicilians?' I can't even make sense of what Larsen is trying to say. There is no logic in his statements.
<But the best theorists were not the best players--Réti, for example, was weak tactically.>
What the crap is this? Maybe Larsen should have taken a look at these games first. (Reti does the ultra rare double rook sacrifice against a future World Champion, in the same year. Twice!)
Reti vs Euwe, 1920
Euwe vs Reti, 1920
Good strong tactics I must say. I wonder, has Larsen ever done two double rook sacrifices in serious classical competitions in his career?
<Even Alekhine would have had to study for a year first; I am not sure, but I believe the man had never seen an exchange sacrifice on c3 in the Sicilian. Imagine that!>
E Schultz vs Alekhine, 1914
Thanks for the link to this game. Seems it is poor tactically inferior Alekhine who had <never seen an exchange sacrifice on c3> who invented he 'modern' way of sacking on c3 in the Sicilian in the first place. Imagine that!
|Jan-18-16|| ||visayanbraindoctor: The above begs the question. Why would an intelligent man such as Larsen spew out a load of nonsensical statements on a specific topic?|
My post in Jose Raul Capablanca
Larsen IMO was a victim of the 'narcissistic generation syndrome'. Same as Watson, and his followers here in CG. People who have been infected by this attitude see everything in the here and now as better than in the past just because it's in the here and now. That's not necessarily true.
I have commented before that Larsen of all people should have thought twice before saying such a thing, given his own personal record against two of the greats who honed their skills pre WW2 and during WW2.
First against Botvinnik:
After a decade and a half of trying to beat a Botvinnik on the decline, Larsen finally won two games in 1970, the year Botvinnik retired.
Against the archaic Keres, Larsen never won a game.
Note that most of the games he played against these old masters were played when they were way past their peaks, and Larsen was on his own peak in the 1960s and early 70s. Yet they were still good enough to beat him. I think at their peaks (1938 to 1943 for Keres and 1941 to 1948 for Botvinnik IMO), they would have beaten Larsen even more resoundingly.
The interviewer should have asked Larsen 'What would Botvinnik and Keres have to say about your opinion, given that they are essentially 1930s masters whose careers crossed into the 1970s, and you could hardly beat them in their old age?" And then before Larsen can answer, reveal that Botvinnik and Keres were in the next room listening to him say that they are obsolete, and then invite them in to hear Larsen's reply. He would have to answer then in front of two of the greatest of the 1930s generation. I would have loved to see what reply Larsen would have to stutter out.
The only reason IMO why Larsen would say such an illogical thing to say about Botvinnik's and Keres' generation is because he was so infected with the 'narcissistic generation syndrome', that he could not even recall his own games against them or that they are in fact 1930s masters who happened to continue playing post WW2.
|Jan-18-16|| ||john barleycorn: <Larsen unwittingly gives proof that Lasker can and did adapt to new opening systems instantaneously....>|
Lasker said once "you show me 3 opening variants and show you mistakes in 2 of them". Lasker knew openings but he did not weight them that highly as far as I know.
(Don't remember the source)
|Jan-19-16|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: A nice revenge on an opponent who had beaten him 3-0 in a match.|