|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Sep-10-08 |
| Dr. J: <PhilFeeley> Alekhine himself explained it in his book, saying that Bogolyubov was right to concede the a-pawn and not the d5 square. |
 |
Sep-10-08
 |
| whiteshark: The Steeplechase! |
|
Sep-10-08
 |
| sleepyirv: I forgot how much I love this game. A lot of fireworks to lead to a winning endgame. |
|
| Sep-10-08 |
| tommy boy: At the end GOTD. Great play by Alekhine |
|
| Sep-10-08 |
| YetAnotherAmateur: I'm particularly impressed by Alekhine's 41 ... Kg8, given the line that looks dangerous but really isn't: 42. Nh1 Ng4! 43. Rxe2 fxe2 and white cannot e1=Q White obviously correctly passes up this approach, but that leaves him in zugzwang. |
|
Sep-10-08
 |
| Once: We are not worthy.
We are not worthy.
We are not ... |
|
Sep-10-08
 |
| Marmot PFL: <Maybe somebody's already explained this: Why not 25.Qxc4 in order not to lose a pawn?>
Good question. Black plays Nf6-d5 I guess, followed maybe with Ra6-c6-c3 and a huge positional edge, but no forced win so far as I can tell. |
|
| Sep-10-08 |
| RookFile: This game is pretty, but closer examination wil show that all these queen sacrifices were not strictly necessary, and black could have won by prosaic means. |
|
Sep-10-08
 |
| kevin86: It seems that I am not the only person who holds this game in high regard. Black sacrifices or exchanges three queens and two rooks. I especially enjoy the three moves by each:black's 29-31 and white's 30-32. Black advances a pawn three times,capturing a queen-while white captures a rook,queen,and rook. Black promotes twice and with all of the fireworks-ends ahead by a mere pawn. Of course,resignation denied black of a FOURTH queen-only this one,Alek would have mated with. |
|
| Sep-10-08 |
| Awraq Elmater: oh my god!!!!!!!!!!!!
inconceivable
unbelievable
incredible
unthinkable Game
this is what i call imagination
illusion,phantasy,Games
|
|
| Sep-21-08 |
| GrahamClayton: <Honza Cervenka>The position after 40... e2 is very nice zugzwang.Honza,
White cannot move any pieces, eg
41.  h3 or h1  g4
41. g4 g4 42. e2 fe2
41. h3 g4
Source: Edmar Mednis, "King Power in Chess", McKay Publishinbg, 1982 |
|
| Nov-06-08 |
| ChessApplet: 28...Nd3 is amazing. It supports the b4 pawn thrust and inviting Rxa5 that leads to a pawn attack and later, a knight invasion on e1 and f3. And also 40...Qe2 is very strong. Regardz to GrahamClayton and Honza Cervenka for the analysis. |
|
| Dec-16-08 |
| WhiteRook48: How to sac Queen 3 times!!! Click here!!! :)
By Alexander Alekhine |
|
| Dec-17-08 |
| WhiteRook48: Sac Queen: I wonder why none of the Queen sacs are in the Sacrifice Explorer. |
|
| Dec-23-08 |
| WhiteRook48: throwing Bogo away with one pawn |
|
| Jan-29-09 |
| WhiteRook48: well, probably because sac one was a Q trade, sac two wasn't much since that Q was a pawn, sac 3 won a pawn |
|
| Feb-01-09 |
| WhiteRook48: can anyone explain 45 d6? |
|
Feb-02-09
 |
| cu8sfan: This game is mentioned in Pascal Mercier's beautiful book Night Train to Lisbon. |
|
| Feb-02-09 |
| laskereshevsky: After Alekhine's 31th move...... c2!!
click for larger view Bogoljubov nearly fell of from the chair.... Bogo created a lot of sharpe games, thanks to his compromiseless style, but in other hand he was often outplayed by the opponents... at a first thought i can remember 3 painfull defeats from the same tournament: Mahrisch Ostrau 1923 ( http://xoomer.alice.it/cserica/scac...: ) Bogoljubov vs Tarrasch, 1923 Bogoljubov vs Reti, 1923
Bogoljubov vs A Pokorny, 1923
No mention how many time Efim was "squeezed" by Capablanca and Lasker!.. |
|
| Feb-08-09 |
| WhiteRook48: ...c2!! would have a reason to shock white... sacs a whole and then promotes |
|
| Feb-12-09 |
| WhiteRook48: the fort for the king failed |
|
| Feb-21-09 |
| WhiteRook48: where did white go wrong? |
|
| May-22-09 |
| amitg: Great game!
Why not 41. Ng3?
41. Ng3 Kg8
42. Nxe2 fxe2
43. Nd3
How would Black proceed after 41. Ng3? |
|
| May-22-09 |
| shalgo: <amitg> <Why not 41. Ng3?> Perhaps just 41...xe3, threatening ...g4. |
|
| Jun-01-09 |
| Bishops Gambit: One of Alekhine’s most famous victories - it’s very difficult to see any loosing mistakes by Bogoljubov - He was a little passive in the first couple of moves, making no direct threat to Alekhine’s set up, he also fell in a little too readily with Alekhine’s preference of swapping off the dark squared Bishop’s in the Dutch. While I wouldn’t go as far as to call it a blunder, I think 6.Nxd2 instead of Qxd2 is an inaccuracy - it landed him in trouble at move 10 when 10.Qc3 doesn’t stop 10…e5 because 11.dxe5, dxe5 12.Nxe5, Nxe5 13.Qxe5, Qxd2 loosing a piece. But playing 11.e3 to try and prop up his centre pawns and not lock the Bishop on g2 wasn’t great either, because Alekhine could have played e4 on the next move anyway. In this position it was definitely time for 11.d5 - kicking the Knight on c6 and claiming his share of the centre at the cost of being a bit gummed for a while (unavoidable anyway). |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
