|Jan-15-04|| ||Whitehat1963: And another lesson! |
|Feb-21-04|| ||Hidden Skillz: lol whitehat id say akiba had lotta lessons too dont u think?? |
|Feb-23-04|| ||Shadow 812: Alekhines 23rd move Bxf3?? was a lemon,
he should have reteated the Queen to a safe square such as g5. This would have
allowed Alekhine to offer resistance as
well as avoiding the quick knockout that soon followed, however Rubinstein would still have a promising position, with an extra pawn and the possibility to break in the centre with e4 at some later stage:
|Feb-24-04|| ||drukenknight: I think your right on that, also what about: 15...Bxf3? |
|Feb-24-04|| ||Whitehat1963: <drunkenknight> besides weakening the pawns around the king, what else does 15 ... Bxf3 accomplish? |
|Feb-24-04|| ||drukenknight: Gee, ahhh, what do you think? |
|Feb-24-04|| ||TheTurk: granted rubenstein is who he is but, i still think this is uncharacteristically poor play by alekhine. |
|Feb-25-04|| ||Phoenix: I heard somewhere that Alekhine was actually not a particularly great player early in his career. |
|Feb-25-04|| ||drukenknight: I agree w/ Turk that this seems like a very listless performance by Alek. HIs counterattack just isnt there.|
Phoenix: It's true that Alek wasnt a great force early in his career, he was certainly a skilled master just not one of the greats. After WW I something happened.
|Jun-12-04|| ||Swindler: This is quite good play by Alekhine, even though he didn't win in the end. The pawn sacrifice on the twelft move give him good development and the bishop pair.|
According to Kmoch the losing move was 21...Qg4. Instead he should have played the Queen to f5 and if the Queens are exchanged the draw is close at hand.
|Feb-08-06|| ||woodenbishop: Rubinstein doing what he does best... destroying world-class competition.|
|May-15-06|| ||offramp: Alekhine beat Rubinstein +8 -4 =2 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... but three of his losses were the first 3 games they played, in 1910, 1911 & 1912. This is Alekhine's last loss to the great Akiva.|
Alekhine did much better than Lasker or Capablanca against Rubinstein but AR's form after 1912 was a bit up-and-down.
|Jan-06-07|| ||Brown: <offramp>
Alekhine's record vs Rubinstein has much to do with each other's primes.
Capa split their decisive games, whereas Lasker has the same winning ratio as Alekhine vs Rubinstein. Better, perhaps by number of wins, but not much better.
|Oct-18-07|| ||whiteshark: Aren't there good alternative moves for <12...b5>?
click for larger view
|Dec-03-07|| ||chancho: This was the last game that Rubinstein would win against Alekhine.
(he lost 5 of the next six meetings +0 -5 =1)|
|Dec-03-07|| ||RookFile: Poor old Rubinstein was not the same player after world war I.|
|Jan-23-11|| ||notyetagm: Game Collection: ALIGNMENTS! ALIGNMENTS! ALIGNMENTS! ALIGNMENTS!|
Rubinstein vs Alekhine, 1922 23 f2-f3! Bb7xf3?? lines up with Black f7-king for pin Rc1-f1
|Jan-23-11|| ||cunctatorg: Alekhine was indeed a relatively weak player in the beginning of his career; that's why Rubinstein left him qualify to the second part of St. Petersburg 1914 Tournament... |
I wonder who is believing that he can evaluate the players' relative strength by means of just a game in a 1922 Tournament ... which was -by the way- a post WW I Tournament...
This is nothing compared to other arguments; I heard once that Alekhine won the 1927 WCC due i) to Capablanca's surprise (in a ... 34 games match!!...) in conjunction with ii) his poor opening preparation!!... Well I didn't know any game of that match won by Alekhine due to Opening Preparation...
Of course I believe that we can't "retro-predict" Capablanca's performance in a, say... 1930 WCC match against Alekhine! It is also true that Akiba Rubinstein was much stronger than Alexander Alekhine from 1909 to 1914 ... though the real question is his comparison with Emmanuel Lasker and Jose Raul Capablanca back then...
|Jan-23-11|| ||cunctatorg: And last but not least, in 1922 these greatest players had four encounters; one draw, that Rubinstein's victory and two Alekhine wins... |
Anyway, you could judge by yourself the caliber of Alekhine's play (back then) by studying the famous 1921 Alekhine-Rubinstein game!...
|Jan-23-11|| ||aliejin: <Alekhine was indeed a relatively weak player in the beginning of his career;>|
The first two tournaments he played Alekhine
were two big tournaments (Hambourg carlsbad 1910 and 1911)
Alekhine, rookie was very good.
Even more , in 1911 carlsbad Vidmar said that Alekhine had
destination for world champion
( relatively weak player ? )
<that's why Rubinstein left him qualify to the second part of St. Petersburg 1914 >
and This is just stupid
|Jan-31-12|| ||optimal play: <whiteshark>< Aren't there good alternative moves for <12...b5>?>
12...Bd7 seems a simple-enough alternative, but Alekhine obviously had a plan. He signals 12...b5 with his novelty 11...a6 <Swindler>< This is quite good play by Alekhine, even though he didn't win in the end.
The pawn sacrifice on the twelft move give him good development and the bishop pair.> So his mistake came later. <According to Kmoch the losing move was 21...Qg4. Instead he should have played the Queen to f5 and if the Queens are exchanged the draw is close at hand.> Or perhaps even 21...Bf3 blocking the f-pawn and keeping the f-file closed.|
|Mar-17-12|| ||ephesians: Maybe 20....Rb8 and 21. Rb7 for black?|