< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·
|May-01-05|| ||beatgiant: <Calli>
What about 34...Qe4 35. Qg3, threatening to break through via 36. Qa3?
For example, 34...Qe4 35. Qg3 Rd2 36. Qxg7 looks strong.
|May-01-05|| ||Hidden Skillz: <ughaibu> "In 1924 Lasker was in his mid-50s and presumably past his best. The score between them at the time was 3-0 with 2 draws. Alekhine was a seriously strong player at the time but Lasker was in a different league."|
i wouldnt go that far tho.. lasker won his games in his prime while alekhine managed only one in his prime..
|May-01-05|| ||RookFile: Actually I believe in 1924 the score
was 2 to 0, and a past his prime
Lasker won NY 1924, beating Alekhine
along the way to make it 3 to 0.
There is simply no way of escaping that Lasker dominated Alekhine, there
is no logical reason for Lasker to
beat Alekhine in 1924, yet that is
exactly what he did.
|May-01-05|| ||Calli: <beatgiant> probably 35...Qd3 is best and then 36.Rf3 Qe4 and White has the advantage. My point was 34...Rd2?? loses immediately, not that Black is equal.|
|May-02-05|| ||Hidden Skillz: <RookFile> theres no doubt that lasker was the best in the late 1890's thru perhaps the loss in the capa match..so i do understand the two losses by alekhine..also alekhine wasnt even the best in 1924..but when alekhine reached his peak in the 30's alekhine started doin the same things lasker did to him in the early days..too bad they never made it further..so its hard to say..but i agree lasker was more of a dominant player in his era but alekhine had a better competition in his time..|
|Jun-08-05|| ||babakova: <Halfpricemidge> I happen to aggree with Bobster there. Actually he said that if you have seen one Alekhine-crush you have seen them all, which is an exaggerated truth...|
|Jan-12-06|| ||morpstau: How about the opening of the day played against the creator in a important game! 1e4 2...nf6!!|
|Jan-20-06|| ||chancho: In his book, My Best Games Of Chess 1924-1937. Alekhine said of this game: Although in all objectivity I had to blame my 17th move (which by the way is accompanied by a !) I must admit that the final attack of this game gave me (and I hope will give the readers) much more pleasure than a scientifically correct, but purely technical exploitation of a Pawn majority on the Queen's side would do.
After all, chess is not only knowledge and logic!|
|Jan-24-06|| ||micartouse: <chancho> That's one of the most intense quotes from Alex! I'm glad you posted it here; it gives me goosebumps every time I read it. His games collection was my first and may always remain my favorite.|
|Feb-18-06|| ||Mating Net: This combination by Alekhine shows how a back rank weakness can crop up even after one side thinks it has safeguarded his back rank. After 33...Re5 the last thing on Black's mind must have been his back rank. |
Alekhine surely noticed that the e5 Rook and b8 Knight were on the same line in about 2 seconds. It was just a matter of getting the King in the line of fire.
|Oct-05-07|| ||eyalbd: Alekhine blames his 17th move 17. g3 as not accurate. Later he writes:|
<Alekhine: ... I must admit that the fina l attack of this game gave me (and I hope will give the readers) much more pleasure than a scientifically correct but purely technical exploitation of a Pawn majority on the Queen's side would do. After all chess is not only knowledge and logic>
|Oct-22-07|| ||gambitfan: Funny! Alekhine wins against the Alekhine! ;-)|
|Dec-24-08|| ||WhiteRook48: I know.
Alekhine says: Don't copy the defenses I made. Hmph! And then: "I win!" So this is how Alekhine beats himself? ;-)
|Jan-03-09|| ||WhiteRook48: All of the sacrifices at the end...|
|Mar-18-11|| ||Llawdogg: Wow! Rook sac, queen sac, check, and mate is inevitable. Fantastic! That was a beautiful finishing combination. Beautiful.|
|Jun-08-11|| ||juan31: Una pregunta: ¿este juego es Ajedrez - Arte ? ¿o sólo un excelente juego del Gran Maestro Internacional de Ajedrez Alexander Alekhine?|
|Jun-09-11|| ||DWINS: I'm not sure if anyone has pointed out that Alekhine missed an absolute killer with 31.Bxf6! (6.51) compared with 2.50 for his 31.Bc5. The difference is that after 31...Qf7, he plays 32.Bg5 (10.57) and Black has no good place to move his Queen, e.g. 32...Qe6 33.Rde1 and it's all over. Best seems to be 32...Rxd1 33.Rxd1 but then either 34.Qg4+ or 34.Qd6 follows and again it's all over.|
|Jun-09-11|| ||aliejin: "Una pregunta: ¿este juego es Ajedrez - Arte ? ¿o sólo un excelente juego del Gran Maestro Internacional de Ajedrez Alexander Alekhine?"
No se entiende la pregunta ....
En todo caso quien siempre
ha intentado hacer del ajedrez
un arte es precismente alekhine
Sin ir mas lejos en esta misma
partida desprecio el camino prosaico
por uno artístico.
|Jul-13-11|| ||juan31: Aliejin: Constesto usted mi duda. Gracias|
|Dec-29-11|| ||Shams: This seems to be the only game in the db with 8.Qxe2 (To Quoc Khanh vs E Torre, 2003 continued 8.Kxe2). Is it really possible that this "Alekhine's Gambit" has a name but no progeny?|
|Dec-29-11|| ||King Death: < RookFile: It's not that simple, though.
Alekhine smashed Reshevsky, and Lasker
had a plus score against Alekhine.
Case closed? It might be, except for
one thing: Reshevsky smashed Lasker...>
Yeah, a score of 3-2 for Alekhine in 5 games is really putting the wood to somebody! Then there's the fact that Reshevsky and Lasker met only that one time and Lasker was at the end of the line. Look at some of Lasker's other games in this event.
|Dec-29-11|| ||FSR: Yes, you can't draw a lot of conclusions from Reshevsky winning one game against the 67-year-old Lasker, playing in his last tournament. Nor is Alekhine's 3-2 score against Reshevsky of too much significance. Lasker's +3 =4 -1 score against Alekhine, over a 22-year period, is the only score of these to which I would ascribe much significance.|
Oddly, RookFile refers to Lasker as having a "plus score" against Alekhine, but to Alekhine "smashing" Reshevsky and Reshevsky "smashing" Lasker. Somehow a +2 score is just a "plus score," while a +1 score constitutes "smashing" one's rival.
|Dec-29-11|| ||RookFile: Wow, thanks for bringing up something from nearly 7 years ago, but try to focus. The point of what I was saying can be illustrated simply by allowing the rest of the quote to be included:|
<When it comes to great players, it's really hard to find them both in their prime. Reshevsky versus Fine or comparing Smyslov to Tal is a lot easier than comparing different generations. >
|Dec-29-11|| ||FSR: Incidentally, Chessmetrics considers Lasker to have been the #1 player in the world as late as December 1926. http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/Sing...|
|Dec-29-11|| ||FSR: There are actually more games in the database where Alekhine against Alekhine's Defense (19) than where he played it himself (16). http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... At least four of his games as White were in simuls, though.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·