< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Oct-17-05|| ||Kriegspiel: Why couldn't Black have played 12...Nd7 attacking the bishop (and e5, its one square for retreat along the attacking diagonal), which also simultaneously gives the a8 rook access to defend Black's own bishop (and queenside back rank, more generally)? Then he would have been a piece and pawn up, and White with no immediate prospects and a blocked rook on h1.|
|Oct-17-05|| ||beatgiant: <Kriegspiel: Why couldn't Black have played 12...Nd7>
Use the "find similar games" feature: White won in C H Maderna vs Szabo, 1948 and Yermolinsky vs Speelman, 1984, and Black won in M Subaric vs P Trifunovic, 1947.|
|Oct-17-05|| ||Kriegspiel: <beatgiant> Interesting. So then, am I correct that 12...Nd7 would have consolidated Black's position (and advantage)? The "similar games", though useful and interesting, are only similar, as shown by different outcomes from the same position. In those cases where White went on to win, this might have been the result of additional errors by Black, having nothing to do per se with 12...Nd7. |
|Oct-17-05|| ||euripides: <krieg> after 12...Nd7 13 Bxg7 material is level and White looks rather better developed. Yerlominsky-Speelman looks quite sensible. But MCO thinks it's 'unclear', based on a game not in the chessgames database.|
|Oct-17-05|| ||Kriegspiel: <euripides>
Sorry, today is one of those days (unfortunately frequent) when I can't seem to see the chessboard straight. I actually thought that Black was a piece up after the exchanges leading to 12...Nd7.
|Oct-17-05|| ||meloncio: I just sent a correction to chessgames.com: Not Minos, but A. Muñoz is the right name of the black player. This game was played in Sabadell Tournament, august 1945. My reference is, as usual, Pablo Morán chess historian.|
<Calli> I hope it will serves for your records. :-))
|Oct-17-05|| ||euripides: <krieg> no sweat. It happens to us all....|
|Oct-17-05|| ||TheAlchemist: <Not Minos, but A. Muñoz>|
Too bad, Minos was much better, it would sort of make Alekhine be like Theseus.
|Oct-17-05|| ||Calli: <meloncio> Got it. Game was played in the 9th round on 10 Aug 1945. |
Also, Alekhine had pan con aceite for breakfast and Muñoz wore a stylish red shirt. ;->
|Oct-18-05|| ||meloncio: <Calli><Alekhine had pan con aceite for breakfast and Muñoz wore a stylish red shirt.> LOL, I would believe it in the reverse order. :-D|
Seriously, I have a question for you, (as Alekhinian expert), because I never got a good answer. This is: The war finished in Europe in May 1945, and Alekhine died in March 1946. In these ten months of loneliness, poverty and sickness for him, why he and his wife didn't get communication? I think she was then in France and they say she was rich, so, could not she help and send him some money and give him the health cares he desperately needed? It seems she did not try it, but why?
These last ten months have always been a mistery to me, and even 'know-all' Morán don't say a word about it. Thanks in advance.
|Oct-18-05|| ||Calli: <Meloncio> I don't know for sure. My understanding was that he was seperated from his wife, though not officially divorced. Alekhine's plan was to get a visa to America while in Spain or Portugal. Seems like he could have returned to Paris much earlier,but I speculate that his wife would not have him back. |
|Oct-19-05|| ||meloncio: <Calli> OK, that would explain it all. Thanks again.|
|Jan-21-06|| ||Gypsy: Kotov and Yudovich (Soviet School of Chess, 1952) credit Vladimir Simagin with inventing the whole <9.Bxf6!> variation. |
The theme first apeared OTB in Kotov vs M Yudovich Sr., 1939, but the idea was Simagin's and he also gave extensive analysis of it in comments to the game.
|Nov-06-06|| ||ismet: http://img167.imageshack.us/my.php?...|
|Mar-10-07|| ||sneaky pete: Theory claims a win for white starting with 14.Qf4 Nd7 15.e5 Nxf6 16.exf6 Kh8 17.Rc1 .. (but in P Trifunovic vs Gligoric, 1953 black managed to draw).|
After Alekhine's invention 14.e5 .. couldn't black defend with 14... h5 making room for the king? If 15.Qf4 Kh7 16.Rc1 Qd5 (or ... Qa4). It still looks very dangerous, but I see no forced white win.
|Mar-11-07|| ||beatgiant: <sneaky pete>
On 14...h5 15. Qf4 Kh7, White has 16. Bg7! Kxg7 17. Nf5+ followed by 18. Qxc4, winning a queen for two minor pieces.
|Mar-11-07|| ||sneaky pete: <beatgiant> Thank you, that's a nice trick. I had a slight suspicion there might be something I overlooked. In your line, after 17... exf5 18.Qxc4 Nc6 the win may still be hard work, but I guess white's advantage should be sufficient.|
On another page <calli> gives a link to Edward Winter's research of this game's origin and authenticity. Alekhine published his idea 12... 0-0 13.Qg4 g6 14.e5! .. threat Nf5 .. in December 1941 in the Deutsche Schachblätter,see http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/.... His suggested best defence is 14... Re8 (another way of making room for the king) and his analysis continues 15.Qg5(??) Qc5(??; why not .. Qxd4 attacking Ra1 and after 16.Rc1 Nd7) 16.Nb5! Nd7 17.Re1(?) .. with a winning position. 17.Re1 .. may be a printing error, 17.Rc1 .. winning the exchange must be meant. If instead of 15.Qg5 .. white plays 15.Qf4 .. everything is okay.
|Mar-11-07|| ||Calli: Another fake from Alekhine. I have a collection (of course!) Game Collection: Meine Besten Gefälschten Partien|
|Mar-11-07|| ||keypusher: <Calli> Very funny, but a little sad. Alekhine played so many beautiful real games; why did he have to make so many up?|
|Mar-11-07|| ||setebos: Low self esteem!!! (my guess:)|
|Mar-30-07|| ||WarmasterKron: <keypusher> Though they are made up, Alekhine's fake games are generally fascinating, so I don't blame him for wanting to share his analysis in such a fashion. He could have at least had the decency to 'play' them against NN, though.|
|Mar-31-07|| ||roberts partner: Contrary to the recent posts, there is absolutely no evidence that Alekhine personally faked this game, and serious evidence that he did not.|
He had several opportunities to publish the game to his political advantage during his lifetime, but the Q sac's first known attribution to Alekhine v Munoz only occurs in the 1970s. There is a full discussion in the recent Edward Winter Chess Mysteries article on Chessbase.
|Mar-31-07|| ||Gypsy: <Calli> I am curious why Alekhine vs Nenarokov, 1907
is not yet in your collection AAA apocryphical games?|
|Jul-21-11|| ||chancho: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...|
|Apr-10-13|| ||rahulbcp1: If black had not castled do it still have chance to win??|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·