|Nov-22-04|| ||Hidden Skillz: weird nobody posted anything on this game yet..or is there a copy? |
|Nov-22-04|| ||sneaky pete: In the note to move 12 "the unpleasant .. d4" should read "the unpleasant d5 .." (descriptive to algebraic transcription mistake). When in Alekhine vs F Lazard, 1933 black played 12... Be7 however, Alekhine preferred 13.dxc5 .. to 13.d5 .. (and still won).|
In the Kussman game, from a simul in January 1924, would 13... 0-0-0 offer black sufficient defensive chances?
|Jun-09-06|| ||blingice: Good notes by Alekhine and an amazing end. What is the profundity of 8. e4 though?|
|Jun-09-06|| ||Calli: This, by the way, is not A S Kussman. Abraham S Kussman was a New York player of master strength who played a draw against Alyecky in 1929. See Alekhine vs A S Kussman, 1929 The unknown player of the Black pieces in this game is listed in Skinner/Verhoeven only as "L Kussman".|
|Jun-10-06|| ||borisbadenoff: <blingice: Good notes by Alekhine and an amazing end. What is the profundity of 8. e4 though?> Well is see the idea to break open the center and reposition the knight to the center and disturbing blacks queen. Also Alekhine with 9. Bb5 counted on his opponent not to play the equalizing move for black which would be 9. .. Nc6|
But other explanations with a deeper understanding are welcome
|Jun-11-06|| ||goldenbear: <Blingice> In every case I know of when 1.d4 d5 is played, if e4 is a tactically sound idea, then it is always the best move (after all, that was the idea from the start). There are cases when "tactically sound" becomes fuzzy, but not here. Alekhine would have played this in about 1 second. So that's the "profundity" I guess, that Alekhine knew all this and spotted Be6 as a major error. Be7 is correct.|
|Feb-19-07|| ||Ybrevo: <sneaky pete> I really think 13 . - 0-0-0 is worth trying. The Black King is a bit safer in the corner, and the Nd4 could get into trouble if the White Queen doesnīt get away from the Rd8 "X-ray"... I donīt see a quick attack in this position.|
|Jun-06-07|| ||sanyas: So if 6...e7 then not 7.xf6 xf6 8.e4 dxe4 9.b5+ f8 10.xe4 a5+ 11.c3 g4 12.O-O cxd4 13.e1 c6 (or even 13...a6) 14.xc6 dxc3 15.d6+ g8 16.xb7 d8 17.bxc3 h5 18.a6 xa6 19.xa6 xf3 20.gxf3 xc3; but rather 7.dxc5 O-O 8.xf6 xf6 9.xd5 xb2 10.b1 a3 11.e4 e8 12.a4 c6 13.e2 xc5 14.b5 d6 15.O-O a6 16.b2 a7 17.c2 f5 18.exf5 xd5 19.f6 d4 20.xd4 xd4 21.f3 e6 22.xb7 ac8 23.d2 c3 24.d7 xd7 25.xd7 xf6 26.b7, or something like that.|
|Jun-06-07|| ||sanyas: Also of course 17...e7 18.ed6+ f8 19.xe7 gxf5 20.d5.|
|Jun-06-07|| ||sanyas: As for <Ybrevo>'s 13...O-O-O, it does seem to be an improvement but 14.c1+ b8 (14...c7 15.e3; 14...c5 15.b3 d5 16.c4 c6 17.ac1 b6 18.d4 d7 19.fd1) 15.f4+ a8 16.ad1 f6 17.f5 should be very good for White.|
|Jun-06-07|| ||sanyas: <borisbadenoff> against 9...c6 White might try 10.a4 f5 (10...d7 11.xe4 g6 12.O-O cxd4 13.fe1 e7 14.c5 h3 15.h4) 11.e5 cxd4 12.xc6 dxc3 13.d4+.|
|Oct-04-08|| ||notyetagm: Wow, this Alekhine could *really* play some chess.
And this was from a *simul* game.
|Feb-25-09|| ||WhiteRook48: Qe8# Qg7# and Qxh8#
Nice dual mate threats.
|Mar-12-10|| ||donehung: Players where much more chivalrous in defeat in those days.|
|Apr-25-11|| ||ughaibu: This is a famous game, yet, according to this database, nobody before or since Alekhine has played 7.Bf6, despite this being recommended by Maroczy in the tournament book annotation of this game: Alekhine vs Vidmar, 1922|
|Apr-25-11|| ||Calli: <ughaibu> some transpositions |
J Stocek vs A Cioara, 2001
B Lalic vs T Nieus, 2001
|Apr-25-11|| ||ughaibu: Thanks, and the first is a win for black, interesting.|
|Sep-19-11|| ||Cemoblanca: Alekhine on 20.Qe5!: "Threatening this time three different mates. That is too much!" :D|