|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Mar-25-07 |
| SniperOnG7: <Plato> Touché tehe Anyway, this game is absolutely awesome. I've been reading "Essential Chess Sacrifices" recently by David LeMoir and games like this one just warms my soul :) |
 |
| May-30-07 |
| outsider: some people must be joking. this game is a fake?? in front of 1.500 spectators in the most important tournament of the year? the only version of being fake is that a few guys from kgb came to chekhover with pistols in hands and handed in the list of moves. had a talk with botwinnik in 1990, but i did not think of asking about this game. unfortunately... |
|
May-30-07
 |
| Benzol: In 'Botvinnik's Best Games Vol 1: 1925 - 1941' Botvinnik gave a couple of notes which sheds light on why he didn't include it in his best games collection and also its authenticity. After 24. xf7 "White misses a simple win: 24.xd7 xd7 (24... xd7 25.gxf6  xf6 26.xf6 gxf6 27. g4+  f8 28.a3+) 25.xf7 xf7 26.h5+ f8 27.h8+ f7 28.g6+ f6 29.h4 mate. This reduces somewhat the artistic value of the game. Nevertheless, that which followed was also very interesting." "Such games are rare in my tournament play, since following Capablanca's advice, I always aimed to choose simpler alternatives, if they existed. But even so, such games did occur with me - one can refer, for example, to my game with Portisch (1968). As for the game with Chekhover, it created such an impression that some 'experts' even asserted that it had been compiled beforehand.
Even if it is assumed that I could have been under suspicion, would this have been fair to such an honest person as Vitaly Chekhover?". |
|
| May-06-08 |
| CharlesSullivan: Until now, conventional wisdom is that Botvinnik's famous 24.xf7 allows Chekhover to escape with a draw. But 25.h5!! g8 26.gxf6 xf6 27.xf6!! xf6 28.g6!! is a spectacular win. When informed of this, John Nunn (who, as editor, commented on this in Vukovic's Art of Attack), wrote back, "I looked at it first without Fritz and believe that Bg6 is a hard move to see." Yes, it's a rather quiet move, and it's the 4th(!) move of the variation. A "best play" finish would be 28...c6 29.f1! and Black, despite having an extra rook, cannot stop mate. For example, 29...xd4 allows mate-in-eighteen: 30.h7+ f8 31.xd4 e7 32.xf6 e8 33.xg7+ d8 34.g8 e7 35.xe6 f4 36.xb6+ c8 37.xe7 c1+ 38.f2 f4+ 39.e2 g4+ 40.f1 f4+ 41.f2 c1+ 42.e1 b7 43.g7+ f7 44.xf7+ c6 45.f6+ d7 46.f5+ c7 47.b6#. |
|
| Jan-05-09 |
| WhiteRook48: the king hunt was hilarious and the pun was too! |
|
| Jan-06-09 |
| CharlesSullivan: Adding some diagrams to my last note above, we get: Until now, conventional wisdom is that Botvinnik's famous 24.Nxf7 allows Chekhover to escape with a draw. But 25.Qh5+!
click for larger view
25...Kg8 26.gxf6 Nxf6 27.Rxf6!! Bxf6
<What move continues the winning combination?>
click for larger view
28.Bg6!! is a spectacular win. When informed of this, John Nunn (who, as editor, commented on this in Vukovic's Art of Attack), wrote back, "I looked at it first without Fritz and believe that Bg6 is a hard move to see." Yes, it's a rather quiet move, and it's the 4th(!) move of the variation. A "best play" finish would be 28...Bc6 29.Rf1! and Black, despite having an extra rook, cannot stop mate. Here I give a new conclusion: 29...b5! (Black is not making White's job easy) <A rook down, White has a forced mate in 18. What is the first move?>
click for larger view
30.d5! Rf7 31.Bxf7+ Kf8 32.Rxf6!! gxf6 33.Qh8+! <sacking another piece!> 33...Kxf7 34.Qh7+ Ke8 35.Bxf6
click for larger view
<Black still has the extra rook, but White's mating attack forces...> Black must give up his queen, 35...Qa7+ and the rest is easy: 36.Qxa7 Rd7 37.Qb6 exd5 38.Qxc6 Kf7 39.Qxd7+ Kxf6 40.c5 etc. |
|
| Jan-27-09 |
| WhiteRook48: learn to resign, Checkover! |
|
| May-10-09 |
| WhiteRook48: Botvinnik-Gligoric continued |
|
| Jul-28-09 |
| WhiteRook48: stupid fake |
|
Jan-27-10
 |
| chancho: If this game is from a composition and I doubt that, one thing is for certain: Chekhover played Botvinnik in that tournament and lost. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archiv... In Chernev's book: The Golden Dozen: The twelve greatest chess players of all time, it says Botvinnik did not submit this game to be reviewed for the brilliancy prize. Why he chose to do that, I don't know. But Chernev said it was due to Botvinnik's "modesty." According to Chernev, it was a 22 move combination beginning with 21.Nh3. |
|
| Jan-27-10 |
| Paraconti: I think the best evidence lies in the fact that Botvinnik didn't publish the game until AFTER Checkover was dead. |
|
Jan-27-10
|
| chancho: Why anyone would doubt Botvinnik's ability to play the above type of game, I don't get. This link with another game of his, is also quite complicated, and Botvinnik showed incredible calculative ability to pull the combination off against Portisch. And this when Botvinnik was about 57 years of age: Botvinnik vs Portisch, 1968 |
|
Jan-27-10
 |
| keypusher: <Paraconti: I think the best evidence lies in the fact that Botvinnik didn't publish the game until AFTER Checkover was dead.> Evidence of what? That the game was faked? It wasn't like the game was kept secret. It seen by 1500 people and was featured in the tournament book! It's been republished again and again. Chekhover lived for 30 years after this game was played; he could have said it was a fake at any time. |
|
Jan-27-10
|
| Benzol: <Paraconti> Did you read my previous post? |
|
| Jan-27-10 |
| micartouse: I'm sorry - there's no way a chess player, even if he was a 5 time world champion, can sacrifice a knight on f7 and follow it up with a mating attack. Looks like they got to Chekhover too ... |
|
Jan-27-10
|
| chancho: <micartouse> That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to be wrong just like anyone else. |
|
Jan-28-10
|
| keypusher: <micarthouse> LOL. |
|
Jan-28-10
|
| chancho: So that was tongue in cheek humor from <micarthouse>. My bad. I missed it by a country mile.
Yesterday there was talk of John Blackburne announcing a mate in 16 moves and he did that while blindfolded. And yet to Botvinnik's critics, he cannot work out a 22 move combination while looking at a chessboard? The very notion hints of bias imo. |
|
| Jan-28-10 |
| Paraconti: <keypusher> <benzol> Yeah but that's Botvinnik's version AFTER Chekover died. And while the game was 'witnessed' by 1500 ppl and featured in a book, Botvinnik nonetheless stayed silent on it until AFTER his opponent was safely dead. If he wasn't pleased with the game he'd have reserved his comments entirely. Look, I totally get it if you disagree on how I see things. No problems there. |
|
Jan-28-10
|
| keypusher: <Paraconti> Of course, we can disagree. I just want to be clear about what Botvinnik's "silence" consisted of. In 1935, he played the game in one of the biggest tournaments of the year in front of a large crowd. The game was featured in the tournament book. In 1947 he published "100 Selected Games" (I have an original, in pretty rotten shape). This game isn't in there. But it was published in lots of other places, e.g. The King Hunt by Cozzens and, no doubt, a few dozen magazines. Chekhover died in 1965.
In 1984, Botvinnik published a three-volume collection of his best games. Vol. 1 included this game. Botvinnik pointed out several flaws in the combination and denied that the game was composed. The collection has many differences from 100 selected games. For example, it includes Botvinnik's simul win over Capablanca in 1925 and his loss to Capa at Moscow 1936 (according to Botvinnik, a very well-played game that he spoiled with time-pressure mistakes). Do you think those games are phony too? |
|
Jan-28-10
|
| chancho: From Ludek Pachman's book: Decisive Games in Chess History after 24. Nxf7!? Which also mentions the quicker win that Botvinnik missed: <This second impressive piece sacrifice leads to a certain win, though not as quickly as the simple 24.Nxd7 Rxd7 (24...Nxd7 Qh5) 25.gxf6 Bxf6 26.Rxf6! gxf6 27.Qg4+ Kf8 28.Ba3+ Rd6 29.Qg3 Ke7
30.c5, etc.> |
|
| Jan-28-10 |
| chillowack: <offramp: On page 16 of the June 1999 Chess Life, Soltis wrote: "he didn't dare write about it while Chekhover was alive to tell the truth."> Interesting choice of words by Andy Soltis. I suppose in the same way, we could say Soltis "didn't dare" accuse Botvinnik of this while Botvinnik was alive to tell the truth, since Botvinnik died in 1995. Why did Soltis wait until after Botvinnik was dead to make his accusation? Wasn't he doing the very thing he accused Botvinnik of doing? |
|
Jan-28-10
 |
| Marmot PFL: I thought I saw this game in several books I had in the 70s. Don't see what Botvinnik had to gain by forgery, nor is it as strange as many composed games. |
|
Jan-29-10
|
| Benzol: I find it interesting that some kibitzers don't think that Botvinnik was capable of improvising at the board. Have a look at this game Alekhine vs Botvinnik, 1936 Does anyone think that Alyekhin and Botvinnik pre-arranged this one? "In my analysis of the opening, the middlegame and the endgame, I have aimed to convey to the reader the most important thing in chess - positional understanding. Sometimes it is founded on general principles, but at other times it is based on accurate, concrete calculation." - Mikhail Botvinnik. Botvinnik was capable of not only hard work at home but also brilliant work during play. |
|
| Jan-29-10 |
| MaxxLange: king hunt! |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
