< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Dec-28-08|| ||Phony Benoni: <Owl: Is this game the fifth game match of their 1926 match they had?>|
Yes, this is game #5.
|Jan-10-11|| ||Aulendil: I this realy Remis??? I dont think so !
Maybe thats the reason because Im not a Grandmaster ! LOL
I think white wins
|Dec-04-12|| ||Mrs. Alekhine: Skinner and Verhoeven have this game ending on the move |
<Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games, 1902-1946. Skinner and Verhoeven. McFarland 1998, p293.>
|Dec-04-12|| ||Mrs. Alekhine: This game was played in Amsterdam. I've submitted a correction slip.|
|Dec-05-12|| ||jessicafischerqueen: I also submitted a correction slip for the game score.|
|Dec-05-12|| ||Pawn and Two: <jessicafischerqueen & Mrs. Alekhine> According to Euwe's book, "From My Games 1920-1937", the final move for this game was 49...Rf3.|
After the move 49...Rf3, Euwe reviewed two other continuations, 49...Kh7 & 49...Re2+, and then commented: <After the text move the game was abandoned as a draw...>.
Euwe then provided a variation to show the draw after 49...Rf3: 50.Rg4 d3 51.e6, (51.Rxe4 d2 52.Rd4 Rf4 53.Rxd2 Rxb4), 51...Rf8 52.Rxe4 Re8 53.Kg3 d2 54.Rd4 Rxe6 55.Rxd2 Re7.
Based on Euwe's gamescore and his comments, I believe the gamescore with the move 49...Rf3 is correct.
|Dec-05-12|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <Pawn and Two> thanks for the post. Given that your source is <Euwe> himself, I think it much more likely the existing game score is correct. Skinner and Verhoeven make mistakes sometimes. They actually list the same source as you just posted, so I'm assuming they've made an error in transcribing the score into their book. |
Hopefully the admins will have a peek at the kibbutzing in here before they make any changes. I don't think they change game scores without first investigating the game page.
|Dec-05-12|| ||thomastonk: <jessicafischerqueen, Pawn and Two> I have checked the contemporary Dutch newspapers "Algemeen Handelsblad", "Het volk", and "Het Vaderland". According to all of them the last move of this game was 49.Rg6.|
<sneaky pete: The game was adjourned after 41 moves.> The same sources as above state that the sealed move was Euwe's 42.. gxf5.
<Mrs. Alekhine: This game was played in Amsterdam. I've submitted a correction slip.> Again according to the Dutch newspapers, the first part of this game has been played on Dec-29-1926 in a building called "Parkzicht" in the chess club of Parkwijk, where the next day also the sixth game of that match has been played. The game has been finished on Dec-31-1926 in "Bodega-Oporto" in Amsterdam. I assume that Parkwijk is not a part of Amsterdam, but here surely a Dutch chessfriend will help.
|Dec-05-12|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <thomastonk> fascinating news on this game being adjourned on 29 December and then completed on 31 December at a different location. That would mean that game six was played before this adjourned game was finished? Game six was played on 30 December also in Amsterdam.|
Are you sure that <Parkwijk> is not a suburb of Amsterdam?
According to <Skinner and Verhoeven> and also <Complete Games of Alekhine 3d Volume 1925-1927 by Fiala and Kalendovsky, House Moravian Chess 1998, p354-386> the round venues are consistent with this match collection: Game Collection: Alekhine-Euwe match 1926/7.
As far as the score of this game goes- <Pawn and Two> can you check your source again, and especially the edition and year?
Here's what I've got on the end of this game from <From my Games 1920-1937 by Max Euwe, London 1946, p38-42>, notes by Euwe:
White cut off the black king which made victory impossible."
|Dec-05-12|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <Skinner and Verhoeven> also list this source for the score of this game ending on <49.Rg6>:|
<Tijdshrift van den Nederlandsch-Indischen Schaakbond 1927, p44>
|Dec-05-12|| ||sneaky pete: The Parkwijk club was in Amsterdam, near the Vondelpark:
Kmoch (in <Euwe Slaagt>, 1937) gives the game including 49... Rf3
|Dec-05-12|| ||jessicafischerqueen: Thanks <sneaky pete> so the game was indeed started and finished in Amsterdam.
I should note that I wouldn't have put in 10 correction slips for the locations of this 10 game match if all of them had been listed as <NED>, as most of them are in our database.|
However, our database has game 8 of the match listed as <Amsterdam>, but it was in fact played in <The Hague>.
So if I was going to send in a correction slip for that game- which I think was necessary- then I should send in slips with the city location for all 10 games of the match, to be consistent.
Also, city locations for this match are more precise, because two other games were not played in <Amsterdam>.
Game 4 was played in <Zutphen> and game 9 in <Rotterdam>.
With regard to <Kmoch's> biography of Euwe agreeing with the <49...Rf3> score, maybe that means there might not be a definitive answer to the conflicting sources on the score.
I'm loath to trust <Kmoch> on anything myself, but that may be a personal bias.
I'm very interested to hear back from <Pawn and Two> to see if he is citing a different edition of Euwe's <From My Games 1920-1937> than the one I'm looking at right now, which has Euwe pronouncing the draw with an exclamation mark after <40.Rg6!>
|Dec-05-12|| ||thomastonk: <sneaky pete> Thank you for clarification and the link! Google maps sent my to Almere ...|
|Dec-05-12|| ||thomastonk: Since all contemporary newspaper messages possibly have the same source, it proves nothing to mention that two more Dutch newspapers (De Tijd and Rotterdamsch nieuwsblad) report 49.Rg6 to be the last move.|
However, I have also found an early occurence of 49.. Rf3. On January 8, 1927 appeared B Van Trotsenburg 's weekly chess column in "Algemeen Handelsblad" with an extensive analysis of this endgame. He starts with the position after White's 48th move. After 48.. d4 49.Rg6 he gives two lines as examples, the first one with 49.. Kh7 and the second one with 49.. Rf3. Although he did not mention the end of the game at all, I would think this indicates rather that the move has not been played. However, this is nevertheless speculation.
The major part on the endgame analysis is about 48.. Rf3 (sic), and is based on Alekhine, who - according to Trotsenburg - needed seven hours to find a continuation that gave him at least some drawing chances. If somebody is interested in this stuff, please let me know.
|Dec-05-12|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <thomastonk> of course we are interested, and it seems that your primary research is getting closer to the heart of the matter.|
|Dec-05-12|| ||whiteshark: To ad some more confusion, the Münninghoff biography on Euwe, which includes/quotes Euwe's analysis, has <49.Rg6> as last move. (p.88)|
|Dec-05-12|| ||whiteshark: It seems that there is also a <Matchboek 1927> about this match. (p.93)|
|Dec-05-12|| ||thomastonk: <whiteshark> That's interesting. The English edition by "NEW in CHESS" has only the 8th, 9th and 10th match game, and only the 8th has some comments. But Münnighoff gives a very interesting source of these comments: "Match book 1927"! That's a case for <sneaky pete>'s library, I hope.|
BTW, Euwe analysed 5 of the 10 games in his own chess column in "Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad" in January-Februry 1927. These are no. 1, 2, 6, 7 and 10.
|Dec-05-12|| ||Pawn and Two: <jessicafischerqueen> It appears we have generated some interesting questions! My edition of Euwe's book, "From My Games 1920-1937", is a Dover publication from 1975. It is an unabridged republication of the original 1939 copyright by Harcourt, Brace and Company. The book includes a Preface by M. Euwe, and the notes to the games are by M. Euwe. However, the book's translation, and the introductory notes to each game are by F. Reinfeld. |
My book states this 1939 copyright was also published in the United Kingdom by Constable and Company, Ltd.
In my book, the gamescore shows 49.Rg6!. Euwe then comments why this move will make the draw clear, <An unexpected reply, after which the game is a draw.> Euwe then explains why 49.Rg6! is so effective, White is threatening to queen his e-pawn ahead of Black's d-pawn, forcing Black to have recourse to ...Rf3, after which Rg4 will render the passed pawns harmless.
This comment by Euwe, may be one of the reasons for thinking this game ended after 49.Rg6!. However, he later states the draw was not final until after move 49...Rf3.
Euwe continued the gamescore with 49...Rf3, and provided two fairly long variations for other continuations: 49...Kh7 and 49...Re2+.
After 49...Rf3, Euwe stated the game was then abandoned as a draw, and he provided a variation showing the draw <see my last post>.
In your edition, perhaps a decision was made to shorten the comments, and the gamescore.
The game itself is interesting, and appears to be fairly evenly balanced, with a draw likely until the excitement starts with 36...Kh8.
Euwe thought 36...Kh8 was necessary to remove his king from the g-file, due to future break by White with f5. However, Euwe admitted he had not considered White's response 37.Bh4.
After 37.Bh4, fortunately for Black, he was still able to keep an equal position, with counter-chances on the h-file.
Euwe incorrectly indicated that 41.Qg2 was a losing move. However, Fritz verifies the position was still equal after 41.Qg2.
Euwe stated that Alekhine took 40 minutes for his move 42.f5. Euwe considered this move was White's best practical chance to save a lost position. Euwe stated that 42.Re1 was inadequate because of 42...Rf3 to be followed by Rhh3. However, Fritz shows that White can still draw: 42.Re1! Rf3 43.g5 Rhh3 44.Qe2!, or 42.Re1! Rf3 43.Qe2.
After 42.f5??, Black had a winning position, which he maintained until his error 48...d4??.
Euwe stated that he expected his king would be able to hold back the White e-pawn, and therefore he immediately advanced his d-pawn, 48...d4??. As Euwe pointed out, 48...Rf3 would have enabled him to win quickly. Fritz indicates Black's top winning choices are 48...Rf3!, 48...Rb3! or 48...Rc3!.
|Dec-05-12|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <whiteshark> good to see you chime in with yet another source. I have a feeling that this mystery has no solution. With such an even split on two different scores, I don't think the admins will change this here game score. |
I'm still very curious if <Pawn and Two> has a different edition of the Euwe book <From my Games 1920-1937>.
|Dec-05-12|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <Pawn and Two> Aha! Extremely interesting eh? Thanks for posting such detailed information on your edition, and the precise contents of it concerning this game.|
|Dec-06-12|| ||thomastonk: As already mentioned yesterday, Trotsenburg published an analysis of the endgame in "Algemeen Handelsblad", January 8th, 1927. The main ideas are due to Alekhine.
The analysis begins after White's 48th move and considers the best reply 48.. Rf3!
click for larger view
In the following lines, both sides have
serious alternatives which are not mentioned by Trotsenburg. I will add a few of
them (TT), when necessary, but my main aim are the very interesting positions at
Here Trotsenburg continues with 49.Kg2 Rf5 (TT: Kg7!) 50.b5! This great breakthrough is Alekhine's
idea for counterplay. Thereby, White changes the character of the position dramatically.
In a first variation, Black takes on b5: 50.. axb5 (TT: cxb5! is stronger) 51.a6 bxa6 52.Rxc6 e3 53.Rxa6 e2
54.Ra1 d4 55.c6 d3 56.c7 Rf8 57.Rh1+ Kg7 58.Rg1:
click for larger view
Five passed pawns instead of three in the last diagram! Here Trotsenburg shows that 58.. d2? is a mistake, and thereby he has proved what
he announced before: White has created some chances to save.
But what is the correct evaluation of this position? Here my analysis starts. Black wins!
Black has indeed 5 winning moves! No rook move wins! The only winning pawn move is 58.. b4.
Four (of six) king moves win! One of the wrong king moves is easily found: 58.. Kf7?, because
of 59.Kf2(3) Ke6+ 60.Ke3. The other one is not too difficult to find: 58.. Kg8? 59.e6! (only move)
and now White can force the rook to leave the f-file with e7, and then White's king stops the opposite
pawns. This plan doesn't work with Black's king on the h-file, say 58.. Kh8 59.e6 d2,
and here 60.Kf2 gives no check. Finally, 58.. Kg6 wins, because Black reaches the
White's e-pawn via f6 or f5, respectively.
The second variation given by Trotsenburg deals with 50.. e3, which wins in some sense
a tempo(?), as he notes: 51.bxa6 bxa6 52.Rxc6 e2 53.Rh6+ Kg7 54.Rh1 d4 55.c6 d3 56.c7 Rf8
click for larger view
Here Trotsenburg demonstrates that 57.. Kf7
wins, but that's wrong! 57.. Kf7? 58.Kf2 Ke6+ 59.Ke3! (instead of his 53.Ke1?).
I like this position even more than the other one, and here is my view. Black has
three winning moves. No rook move wins! No pawn move wins! Only the three king moves to the h-file win! That's funny, isn't it?
The winning idea is like above. Finally 57.. Kg6? doesn't work here, because
Black has no additional passed pawn like that on b4 above, see 58.e6 Kf6 59.Kf2 Kxe6
60.Ke3 Kd5 61.Kxd3 Kxc7 62.Kxe2.
|Dec-07-12|| ||thomastonk: I observed that my analysis is incomplete, but the missing idea is easy. If Black plays the king back on the h-file in the last two diagrams, then White can try to repeat the position by Rh1+ and Rg1. However, Black then wins by walking with his king via g6 to f5, for example. Hence, Kh8 in the diagrams keeps the win, but is a waste of time.|
|Oct-20-13|| ||Owl: Is there a lot of blunderers in the middle game bot side seem to lose their queens|
|Jul-05-18|| ||plang: This is a hybrid Queens Gambit-Dutch Stonewall. 8..Bd6 was a new move; 8..Nd7 and 8..Nxd2 had been played previously. 14 Nxd7 was prepared presumably to prepare an eventual b5; it is hard to imagine a modern player exchanging Black's weak bishop in this manner.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·