|Nov-13-03|| ||reasoanblep: 22. Nf5 is a beautiful move - and the continuation worthy of a puzzle. |
|Nov-14-03|| ||Shadout Mapes: An absoleute slaughter. I was surprised at 16.f5 at first. e5 instead seems to be better long term, but f5 looks like it leads to a kingside attack. I think, I might be completely wrong. |
|Sep-21-06|| ||Mateo: The finish of this game was brilliant. But in my opinion the all strategy worked because of Steiner weak defence. So once again, I think Alekhine overestimated his play and his position and underestimated Black possibilities. The main point was just that he was much stronger than his opponent, so that, if he complicated matters, even if his position was worse or not so good, his opponent would lose his way. Now I begin to understand why Fisher did not mentionned Alekhine as one of the greatest players of all time.|
1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Bxc4 c5 6. O-O a6 7. Qe2 Nbd7
8. Nc3 Qc7 9. d5 exd5 <9... Nb6 10. dxe6 (10. e4 Nxc4) Nxc4 11. Qxc4 Bxe6 gives Black the Bishop pair.> 10. Bxd5 Bd6 11. e4 O-O 12. Bg5 Ng4 13. h3 Nge5 14. Nh4 Nb6 15. f4 Nc6 16. f5?! <16. e5 was natural. About the move actually played Alekhine says "A paradoxical, but most effective continuation of the attack". It is difficult to agree with him.> Ne5?! <16... Nb4 gives the advantage to Black. Steiner would have the opportunity to take the Bishop without allowing the White Knight to instal on d5.> 17. Qh5 Re8 18. Rf4?! Be7? <"There was no longer a sufficient defence." (Alekhine). Again, this a strange statement. 18... Nd3 19. Rg4 Bh2+ 20. Kf1 Ne5 wins the exchange. White's compensation would be unclear. 18... c4 too might be considered.> 19. f6! Bf8 20. fxg7 Bxg7 21. Raf1 Be6 22. Nf5 Bxd5 23. Nxg7 Ng6 24. Nxe8 Rxe8
25. Nxd5 1-0
|Jun-18-07|| ||zev22407: Fischer did mention Akekhine as one of the great players in chess history, he said that some of Alekhine briliancies were a prodact of not the best defence though|
|Jun-18-07|| ||gus inn: according to Fischer , he did not see anything special in the play of Alekhine : " he just directed (all) his pieces towards the opponents king ".I dont agree , but perhaps Fischer was misquoted.Otherwise it doesnt make much sense as an absolute statement.Especially not when one takes to account that Fischer was so impressed by the play of Morphy ( who didnt have to work as hard for his victories as Alekhine sometimes had).
To go deep into the essence of chess , seems to me easier , that trying to figure Bobby out ! :) .|
|Sep-03-10|| ||GrahamClayton: This game won the first brilliancy prize for the tournament. The brilliancy prizes were donated by author SS Van Dine,author of the "Bishop Murder Case":|
|Jan-14-12|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <Graham Clayton> Would you please post the source you have on <Van Dine> donating the prizes?|
Also, I notice that <Skinner and Verhoeven> state that Alekhine received the "first special game prize" for this game.
These authors use the term "brilliancy prize" and a few other differently worded terms for various prizes Alekhine won in other games in his career, so I'm wondering exactly what the prizes were actually called, in English, by the organizers at Bradley Beach.
Do you have the tournament book?
If you have any further information on this, would you please post it for me?
|Jan-15-12|| ||Phony Benoni: <JFQ> I don't know what <Graham Clayton>'s source was, but here is a contemporary report from the <Brooklyn Daily Eagle>:|
|Jan-18-12|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <Phony Benoni> Thanks! That's very helpful. According to the article, Van Dine did indeed donate the prizes, and the article also refers to them as first and second "special prizes."|
I'm wondering if the naming of game awards was just random through history, or if there was ever some kind of convention to distinguish between a game containing a "brilliancy" and one notable for some other reason. I think of a "brilliancy" as a spectacular or deep combination often involving the sacrifice of material.
But a game might be worthy of a prize for extreme accuracy, or for an ingenious end game technique, or what have you. I bet the terminology for prizes is not standardized though.
So it seems that <Skinner and Verhoeven> are listing the names of prizes as they were named by the tournament organizers, which would account for the variation in naming.
|Jan-18-12|| ||Phony Benoni: <jessicafischerqueen> There are about as many definitions of "brilliancy prize" as there are of "sacrifice". "Beauty Prize", "Best Game Prize" "Sound Brilliancy" are just some of the variations. And like art, everybody knows brilliancy when they see it but defining it is a bit trickier. |
You might compare these two games, which won the first and second brilliancy prizes respectively at New York 1924. Quite a controversy.
Reti vs Bogoljubov, 1924
Marshall vs Bogoljubov, 1924