|Jun-27-05|| ||Mating Net: With 32.Bd3 White offers up the C Pawn as well as the A Pawn in return for Black's H Pawn. Black can not accept of course, but is doomed nonetheless. An extremely active White Bishop and King gobble up the H pawn by force and that's more than enough. The resulting advanced, connected passed pawns are decisive.|
|Jun-27-05|| ||Calli: Euwe criticized his 31...Nd5 and recommended 31...f5. Still not so pleasant for Black.|
|Jun-28-05|| ||Mating Net: Thanks for the insight <Calli> 31...Nd5 sure looked good, initially. Those undefended pawns on the Queenside were tempting targets. Euwe was probably hoping Alekhine would take the Knight to eliminate the threat to the pawns and settle for a drawn endgame.|
|Aug-16-07|| ||kevin86: I think the turning point of this game was when white brought his king into play in the attack. The pawns would have cost black dearly,if he had played on in the game.|
The match is even,one victory for each side.
|Aug-19-07|| ||tamar: Alekhine could play in a classical pure style when forced to. Here is a good example down 1 game to 0|
I examined the position after Alekhine's 22 Rfe1, "the most subtle move of the game, by which White prepares the important f4"
Why I wondered would Euwe then exchange Queens, when it is well known that Queen and Knight combine very well together?
I gave the problem to Shredder 8, and it produced the following shadow boxing variation that could have occurred if Queens stayed on:
22...Rgd8 23 Qf4 Rd6 24 Qb4 R6d7 25 a5 h6 26 Qf4 Qg6 27 Qe3 Qf5
Offering the h pawn, but if Black does nothing, White pries open the Queenside with a6 and c4-c5
28 Rb4 Re7 29 a6 b5 30 Reb1 Rde8 31 Qxh6 Nd3 32 Bxd3 Qxd3
click for larger view
But here Alekhine would have the elegant 33 Qf4+ Ka8 34 Kg2! Re1 35 Rxe1
Rxe1 36 Kh3!! winning as Black cannot maintain an attack and his King position is compromised.
|Oct-19-07|| ||DWINS: Euwe missed a win on his 10th move! Every newspaper commentator missed it including Flohr, Fine, Lasker, and Tartakower. The winning move (10...Qb3!!) was later discovered by Oscar Tenner and published in "Chess Review."|
Alekhine said "More promising was 10...Qb3! 11.Bxg7 Rg8 12.Bh6 Nd7 etc., with a strong initiative for the pawn."
Purdy takes the analysis further and claims a win. He goes into quite a bit of depth, but a representative line would be 13.f3 e5 14.e4 exd4 15.Qxd4 0-0-0 16.Bc1 [16.exf5 Nc5] 16...Nc5 17.Qc4 Rd1+ 18.Kf2 Qc2+ 19.Kg1 Rxg2#
|Mar-16-08|| ||Knight13: <DWINS: Euwe missed a win on his 10th move! Every newspaper commentator missed it including Flohr, Fine, Lasker, and Tartakower. The winning move (10...Qb3!!) was later discovered by Oscar Tenner and published in "Chess Review."> Nice. And when was that? Did he use a computer or something? Just wondering.|
Good notes by Alekhine.
|Jul-06-08|| ||Dr. Siggy: I'm intrigued with Alekhine's comments about the opening, mainly about White's 8th and 9th moves. It seems to me that, after 8. Nc4 h6 9. Bh4 g5 10. Ng3 Ne4 11. Qb3 Na6 12. 0-0-0 or 8... Qd5 9. Bxf6 gxf6 10. Qb3 Na6 11. 0-0-0, White has somewhat of an advantage.|
|Aug-01-09|| ||WhiteRook48: what the 10...Qb3 had to be a computer one|
|Sep-25-09|| ||WhiteRook48: did Purdy say the line ending with 19...Rxg2# was forced? Probably not|
|Mar-12-12|| ||DWINS: <Knight13, WhiteRook48>, 10...Qb3 was certainly NOT a computer move, as both Tenner and Alekhine died in the 1940s.|
|Jun-23-14|| ||Ulhumbrus: As Alekhine's comment to the move 17...Bxc3?! indicates, 17...Bxc3 concedes the superior minor piece to White and White wins eventually a Fischer ending.|
|Jun-24-14|| ||aliejin: " Euwe missed a win on his 10th move! "
One thing is to acquire a strong initiative ... and another
thing is to say "missed a win!"
One thing is "live chess" and even... human chess analysis .... and another thing chess analysis .. made by computers
|Dec-07-17|| ||Mateo: Alekhine's notes are most often highly instructive. However, sometimes, it sems to me that he is a bit too much optimistic. For instance, his comment about 31...f5 (<31 ...f5 Then White would not play immediately 32 g4 because of 32...fxg4+ 33 Kxg4 Rg6+, followed by 34...Nf5 with counterattack; but he would play first 32 h5, after which g4 would free his king bishop’s pawn with disastrous effect for Black since the latter’s majority on the queen side has a nominal value only, owing to the passive position of his pieces.>). Well, it could be a bit premature, isn't it? 31...f5 32.h5 h6 33.g4 fxg4+ 34.Kxg4. White has something, but is this position a disaster for Black?|
|Dec-07-17|| ||john barleycorn: <Mateo: Alekhine's notes are most often highly instructive. ...>|
Well, I have gone through Robert Hübner's comments and they are not flattery about Alekhine's analysis/comments.
|Dec-09-17|| ||Mateo: <john barleycorn> Interesting. Could you provide some quotes?|
|Dec-09-17|| ||chancho: Some stuff IM John Watson wrote in his review of Robert Hubner's CD on his analysis of Alexander Alekhine:|
<Unfortunately, the CD features an 'analysis' of Alekhine's play and of his writings. All you have to do is read the 'Table of Contents' (a sort of summary of 23 Alekhine games) to see how harshly and negatively Huebner assesses both. For the record, I also looked carefully at several of the heavily-annotated games, which are in the same unimaginative spirit but more boring.
Anyway, in Huebner's view of the world, Alekhine had terrible weaknesses in every single aspect of the game, including technical and psychological ones. Here's his entire summary of Alekhine's play and annotation in Game#2: 'Ruining the pawn structure-materialism; underestimating the active counterplay of the opponent-strategic deficiencies in the opening; bad positional judgment-defensive possibilities of the opponent are not exhaustively scrutinized -lack of criticism towards the own conduct of the attack.' [apparently Huebner the linguist didn't check the English translation for grammatical errors, which are frequent; I've corrected some of the spelling].
Or Game#6: 'Overestimating the initiative, underestimating defensive possibilities; this brings about a wrong picture of the course of the game-self-propaganda-lack of criticism towards the own play-materialism-lack of immersion in concrete, tactical defensive possibilities-strategical deficiencies-harmful brilliance-lack of positional judgement and lack of the will to thorough research in the endgame, maybe due to a fear of unpleasant discoveries.'
Needless to say, Alekhine won both of these games in very nice style.
Many of these 23 analyses are distorted in a negative direction, apparently by Huebner's egotistical point of view. In the very first example (#1), he gives a one-move snippet from a game Alekhine-Romanovsky, St Petersburg 1909. Alekhine gets a '?' for that move, a pawn sacrifice, and Huebner launches into a typically extended analysis of his own suggested alternative, after which he has Black playing provocatively and eventually coming out clearly worse (one analysis goes for 18 moves). Huebner concludes: 'Alekhine's optimism in regard to his attacking chances is really amazing. Throughout his life he did not lose such an excessive faith in his own tactical opportunities.'
But two moves into the analysis, Huebner ignores several attractive (and I think good) alternatives if Black doesn't play so riskily, blithely providing only a single line in which Black commits suicide. Alekhine's move, moreover, is extremely creative, if eventually proven to be bad; one would never know that in the full game (annotated in the database and not even given a link!), it takes a very difficult sequence to ultimately turn the game against him.
Regarding Alekhine's annotations, one might do well to remember that he was first and foremost a player. Although he enjoyed writing about chess and improved his play thereby, I'm sure that the sort of obsessive immersion that would have been required to match the grindings of Fritz, with psychoanalytic sessions on the side, would not have benefited either his health or his play. His writings do, however, reflect the imaginative nature of the struggle, which is why so many generations have enjoyed them.
A few more snippets about Alekhine from Huebner (sorry, but this is sort of fun): 'gross tactical inaccuracy during liquidation-sloppy calculation-underestimating the defence', 'strategical misjudgments; overestimating the own possibilities (blatantly)-a lot of mistakes in detail-bad technique in a won position', ' strategical deficiencies of the highest order in the opening and in the middlegame', 'lack of strategical understanding-ruining the own pawn structure-inappropriate play for the attack; impatience-premature breakdown', ' playing for traps; addiction to combinations-lack of interest and feeling for positional subtleties; impatience-destruction of the own pawn structure-overestimating the initiative-lack of precision in calculating variations-tirelessness-unperturbed by changes of fortune', ' -sloppiness-chess blindness.'
Again, the above quotes refer mostly to victories, e.g., over Nimzowitsch, Bernstein, and Mieses. A funny question to ponder is whether Alekhine's rating would have gone up or down after thorough tutoring by Huebner-my guess is the latter. Certainly down if one believes in positive feedback: In the 23 games considered in this 'Table of Contents', I count only 4 or perhaps 5 positive comments, 3 of them in one sentence!>
|Dec-10-17|| ||Muttley101: Alekhine had a cat called Huebner.|