The problem is, while witty, it is just too obvious. A chess player should be able to be alert at all times during a game, barring knight promotions on move 98 of course. Black sees he has an intermuzzo, that's it. I'm terribly sorry for interfering with art, but this is not worthy of a '!!'.

However, it does depend what level the player is. If he is just beginning, of course such a move would be exciting. Common themes are very important in chess, and one should not heap excessive praise on them.

Many moves in chess are not over-rated, but have different opinions. Remember that. I'm not evil, this is just my spin on it, even if I'm beaten 9-1. Take for instance Botvinnik's 30. Ba3 and 31. Nh5+ against Capablanca in AVRO 1938. Oh yes, the game is wonderful. For the time, it was strategically brilliant. However, I must say, for the sake of being booed at, that these were obvious moves. Tim Krabbe on the website agrees (of course not directly) with me. I actually think 30. Ba3! deserves an exclam, because white had to be sure he had perpetual check, and such a pattern never really occured then. It doesn't now! But what is truly absurd is giving 31. Nh5+ one or even two exclams. White has just played Ba3 against the great Capablanca. What else are you going to do, resign on the spot!?

As to the merits of 26...Re2: I subscribe to the policy that a move deserves second ! if only if it breaks a psychological boundary; ie, if it is a hard-to-see move. The Re2 breaks three such barriers, as I see it: (1) it is, in John Nunn's terminology, a co-lineal move; (2) it is a lingering move and "vastes" something so precious as a tempo, and (3) it lets "everithing" hang. It also requires, (4), an out-of-natural-sequence completion of he combo -- 27.Qxf6 Rxe1+ (the intermezzo) and only now the 28...gxf6. All in all, Re2 deserves the second ! in my book.

These hard-to-see moves interest me; I confessed to it a few times before. George Polya said -- a method is a trick used at least twice. And I think that is the point you are kind of making above: Certain maneuvers, which defy the usual logic of psychological barriers, appear repeatedly -- and thus eventually become a technique, or at least a craft. Over time, these lose their right to the second ! mark. That is a reasonable point. In fact, I pay the extra atention to the !! moves axactly to achieve such a progress in my play.

One can say this offers proof that the modern players are better than generations past, but it misses the vital point that Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, etc., were implementing these plans and creating these tactics for the very first time. Nothing Lasker read of previous games could prepare him for his wars with Schlecter, in particular his game: Schlechter vs Lasker, 1910