< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 13 OF 13 ·
|Feb-18-13|| ||Jafar219: Fantastic play by Alekhine.|
|Feb-19-13|| ||RookFile: Couldn't agree more, this is an amazing game.|
|Mar-11-13|| ||IndigoViolet: <The Dance of the Knights> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUmq...|
|May-19-13|| ||pawntificator: Amusingly, I just read an old article by C.J.S. Purdy on this game. In it he states that Alekhine mistakenly claimed a draw. So that answers the question I asked 11 years ago on this page.|
|May-19-13|| ||PurdyGUDsoFAR: I once submitted the move 27.Rd3 to Dworetski as a refutation of the combo,... He told me I was correct and this move along with several others would of refuted the entire idea. |
It is still marvelous though,... I mean alekhine's combo Re3
|Aug-26-13|| ||jerseybob: PurdyGUDsofar: Your 27.Rd3 looks pretty good to me. Any analysis on black's best after that: swap, retreat or fortify?|
|Sep-20-13|| ||poslednieje: For the sake of history move 26 Bf3! was extensively analysed in a paper on monday 28 february 1966 PZC. Dutch IM
C.B. v.d. Berg published the analysis from a kibitzer J.J.M.Gommers. The same analysis is given by Kasparov in his book nr. 1 "From Steinitz to Alekhine" Ed. 2003
BBK 75.581 Russian edition.|
|Sep-20-13|| ||thomastonk: <poslednieje> Interesting remark! In the English edition of Kasparov's book there is no analysis of 26.♗f3, but 27.♗f3 is analysed. So, I assume this was only a typo.|
The first part of the analysis of 27.♗f3 there is a quote of Alekhine's faulty analysis. The second part is the correction thereof, but nothing special, if one assumes that Kasparov and his collaborator applied an engine check.
Is the Russian edition more extensive? And, please, what does PZC mean? Thank you!
|Sep-20-13|| ||sneaky pete: <thomastonk> I think PZC means Provinciale Zeeuws(ch)e Courant.|
|Sep-20-13|| ||thomastonk: <sneaky pete> Thanks! It seems they don't have an online archive, where I could check the analysis myself.|
|Sep-21-13|| ||poslednieje: thomastonk correct, typo! It should be 27|
|Sep-21-13|| ||sneaky pete: "Een interessante ontdekking" (bottom of the page) from the Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant:|
|Sep-23-13|| ||thomastonk: <sneaky pete> I knew that the Netherlands are a very nice country, but obviously it is the paradise for online newspaper research, when even Zeeland has its own <searchable> krantenbank! Thank you for this link.|
|Oct-02-13|| ||PhilFeeley: A weird reverse Alekhine's Opening?|
|Oct-02-13|| ||Bdellovibrio: <PhilFeeley> A bad opening by Reti, which Alekhine failed to exploit to the utmost. Black has the option of 3...c5 4. ♘b3 c4 5. ♘d4 ♗c5, when white wishes he hadn't played g3!|
|Oct-02-13|| ||keypusher: <Bdellovibrio> It's not that bad.|
Larsen vs J H Donner, 1959
A H Wohl vs H Hamdouchi, 2003
|Dec-25-14|| ||Dave12: 26..Re3, Rook can't be taken (Qxg3+). 28..Nc3, N is protected. 30..Nxe2, N is protected. 31..Ne4, the Rook can't be taken (Nxd2 and then Nxc1, or Nxf3). 32..Nxf2, protects the B. 33..Be6, kicking the R back to the b file, not to win the N- because 34..Ng4+, and here comes the use of the Rook on a1, white must play Kh3. 36..Rxf3, the R can't be taken (Nxf3+). 40..Nxd4, winning... the N on b7!!! calculating all this is a miracle|
|May-11-15|| ||A.T PhoneHome: Haha, only now I realized how Alekhine wins here. I've had a brief look at this game every now and then; until now, I hadn't even considered the fact both White Knight and Bishop are on the same diagonal.|
NOW I know what is so brilliant about this game. Hooray!
|May-12-15|| ||Howard: Oh ! Talk about a horrible pun ! Who the hell came up with that one ?!|
It's based on, of course, a certain 1960's cartoon that I watched as a kid.
|May-12-15|| ||Howard: There's a PDF file available online which contains corrections/improvements to the games that Alekhine presents in his two classic books on his best games---I've looked at it several times.|
If I remember correctly, the computer agrees with all of his moves starting with 27.Nf3.
|Jul-11-16|| ||Howard: The book Alekhine Move by Move, mentions that on the 38th move, Alekhine did have an alternative winning move, but I don't recall what it was...|
....not that it really mattered!
|Apr-25-17|| ||Jeweller: Chess friends. Chess engines analyze this game here: http://proint.narod.ru/jeweller/jew...|
|Jul-08-17|| ||drollere: 32. pxe3? 32. Ne5? reti seems to take a very narrow path. |
alekhine was a magician in his knight combinations.
|Oct-02-17|| ||Howard: First, this issue may have already been addressed on this website, but I'm not gonna wade through 12 pages of commentary to find out---so I apologize if this is redundant.|
Back in April, 2003, someone posted a comment that according to Alekhine's book, the position did not occur three times. As I've read before, this is an example of how Alekhine was known to "fudge" several of the game scores in his books so as to boost his reputation.
In other words, Alekhine apparently omitted a pair of moves, so as to disguise the fact that Reti could have made a certain move and thus claimed a draw. Alekhine considered this game one of the two best ones he ever played..
...and he didn't want it to be known that Reti had had the opportunity to abruptly end the game around the 20th move !
|Oct-02-17|| ||tamar: Howard, you might check out page 4 of the kibitzing. It was Alekhine who insisted there had been a 3 fold repetition, according to the Andrew Solis story given by Shadout Mapes|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 13 OF 13 ·