|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Nov-27-04 |
| offramp: On page 16 of the June 1999 Chess Life, Soltis wrote: "If you look through all the 1,069 serious games Mikhail Botvinnik
played in his 47-year career, the most brilliant was probably against
Vitaly Chekhover (Moscow 1935), in which he sacrified two knights, then the Exchange, and mated on the 43rd move.
"Curiously, Botvinnik annotated seven of his games for the tournament book, but not this one. He didn't annotate it anywhere - until Chekhover was dead - and some of his fellow Soviet GMs were convinced the game was composed in advance, and he didn't dare write about it while Chekhover was alive to tell the truth." |
 |
| Nov-27-04 |
| Minor Piece Activity: I'm not too surprised that Botvinnik did not put this game in his best games book. Botvinnik has always struck me as a sort of elitist. There are many anecodotes of his disdain for games with explosive tactics, like he considered himself above them. For example, consider Jim Bartle's comment on Kasparov vs Salov, 1989 . |
|
| Dec-08-04 |
| JoeFrancis: I believe the game is real because Vladimir Vukovic cites this as an example in his 1965 classic work, "Art of Attack in Chess" |
|
| Mar-08-05 |
| Garland356: it looks like right at 19 Nd1 this game ended. This doesn't seem right |
|
| Mar-08-05 |
| beatgiant: <offramp>
<Nunn says that 24.Nxf7 is a bad move that should lose to 25...Kf8.> Can you give more details?
At first glance, 25...Kf8 26. Qxe6 Ne5 27. dxe5? does indeed lose because of 27...Bc5+ 28. Kh1 Bxg2+! 29. Kxg2 Rxd3 30. exf6 Qb7+. But what happens after 25...Kf8 26. Qxe6 Ne5 27. Rae1! After this, for example, I see 27...Nxd3 28. Qxe7+ Kg8 29. Rxf6 Nxe1 30. Qe6+, followed by Qh3+ and Qh7#. Black looks to be in trouble. |
|
| Mar-08-05 |
| samvega: <beatgiant> But wouldn't the correct move be 26..Nc5, not Ne5? |
|
| Mar-08-05 |
| beatgiant: <samvega> <But wouldn't the correct move be 26..Nc5, not Ne5?> after 25...Kf8 26. Qxe6, Black needs to cover f7 because of the threat of 27. Qf7#. |
|
| Mar-09-05 |
| beatgiant: <after 25...Kf8 26. Qxe6, Black needs to cover f7>
Of course, that also means the line I posted earlier, 25...Kf8 26. Qxe6 Ne5 27. Rae1 Nxd3?? is a horrible mistake because of 28. Qf7#. The right line is probably 25...Kf8 26. Qxe6 Ne5 27. Rae1 Bc8, which looks fine for Black. Another try is 25...Kf8 26. Qxe6 Ne5 27. Qh3 instead, but then 27...Nf3+! 28. Rxf3 Bxf3 29. Rf1 Bf6 30. Ba3+ Re7 again looks fine for Black. So it looks like Nunn was right that 25...Kf8 is stronger. |
|
| Mar-09-05 |
| beatgiant: <offramp>
<Nunn says that 24.Nxf7 is a bad move that should lose to 25...Kf8. The most that white can hope for after that is a draw.>It's not clear whether this means White should lose or there are hopes for a draw. In the ending after 25...Kf8 26. Qxe6 Ne5 27. Rae1 Bc8 28. Qxe5 Qxe5 29. Rxe5, White has three pawns for a piece and there aren't many pawns left, so at least it's not immediately obvious that White is losing. Did Nunn think 24. gxf6 is the improvement? |
|
| Sep-04-05 |
| Koster: I could have sworn Botvinnik included this game in his best games collection. If not perhaps he simply came to doubt the correctness of the combination as some of the other comments indicate. A beautiful game in any event but it was strange to see it played out to mate. |
|
| Jan-01-06 |
| Frankly: A pity this game has been identified by others, like Andy Soltis, as a gem, since I discovered it through reading Ludek Pachman's *Decisive Games in Chess History*, entirely unaware of its fame, and was somewhat disappointed that it was hardly as if I had stumbled across something unknown. Anyway, it must go into the collection!! |
|
| Feb-19-06 |
| MorphyMatt: Say, not a bad game! |
|
| Jul-03-06 |
| wharfrat: The evidence for the composition claim seems to center around two facts: Botvinnik didn’t include it in his "100 Selected Games" and Soltis’ statement in "Soviet Chess" that two or more unidentified Soviet GMs have apparently stated that they believe the game was composed. Botvinnik does include the game in volume one of his three volume "Best Games" series. In his annotations to the game he offers a hint as to why he would not have been included it in "100 Selected Games": “White misses a simple win: 24.Nd7, Nd7 (24…Rd7; 25.gf, Bf6; 26.Rf6, gf; 27.Qg4+, Kf8; 28.Ba3+); 25.Rf7, Kf7; 26.Qh5+, Kf8; 27.Qh8+, Kf7; 28.g6+, Kf6; 29.Qh4 mate. This reduces somewhat the artistic value of the game.” Mikhail Yudovich identified this quicker win in his annotations to the game in the tournament book published in 1936. Botvinnik also confesses in "Best Games" that he didn’t see a win following 25….Kf8 until some time later; perhaps he did not find the win in that line until after he wrote "100 Selected Games" and he decided to avoid including one with two analytical gaps. One of the beauties of using unnamed sources is that it is much more difficult to gauge their credibility or reliability. For example, we do not know whether the “fellow Soviet GMs” referred to by Soltis were present in 1935. We also do not know whether that belief was based on their review of the game and their estimation of Botvinnik’s ability to play such a game or some evidence of chicanery, and, if the latter, whether that evidence was known to them personally or through hearsay. Botvinnik clearly had many enemies among his “fellow Soviet GMs,” whether for personal, professional or ethnic reasons, and there could have been any number of motives for one or more of them to seek to impugn his chess achievements or abilities. Unfortunately, we will never know the answers to these questions, but the allegations continue to published and republished and accepted as fact by many. |
|
Mar-23-07
 |
| AdrianP: Nunn's analysis as referred to above is as follows
"25. ...Kg8??
> 25. ...Kf8 26 Qxe6 Ne5! 27 Rxf6 gxf6 28 Qh3 (thus far given by Botvinnik) and now either 28. ...Bc5! or 28. ...Bb4 29 Re1 Bxg2! 30 Kxg2 Bxe1 31 dxe5 fxe5 - the position is still very complicated, but Black, a rook and a piece up, has plenty of possibilities to return some of the material. My own view is that White would be struggling to draw in these lines." (Secrets of Practical Chess p. 104) |
|
| Mar-24-07 |
| Robert James: Beautiful game, but knowning Botvinnik, a desperate cry for ''i can also sacrifice''-competition. Fake, as we say in Tampere. |
|
| Mar-25-07 |
| Plato: "Desperate" and "fake." That's a good way of describing some of Botvinnik's detractors lately. |
|
| 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 |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
|
|
Behind the Scenes of the WCC
|
|
|
icon.