|Feb-22-05|| ||An Englishman: Good Evening: You know something has gone seriously wrong for White in the French Defense when Black's Queen Bishop is the strongest minor piece in the game. There are only two games with 4...Qa5+ in the database, but they both end in a disaster for White. |
|Feb-22-05|| ||Ed Caruthers: Does the position after 24...Kf7 look bad for White? Why doesn't White ever push h4-h5, to loosen up Black's king? |
|Dec-09-07|| ||karnak64: Wow. One wonders now if 4 ...Qa5+ refutes the Nimzovich gambit.|
|Jun-17-10|| ||Atking: Looks a Capablanca 's idea 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Bd3 BxB 5.QxB Qa5+ 6...Qa6.|
At move 12, Black position looks so good black Queen in a6 so wonderfull Still 12...Bb7 13...Rc8 enjoying the light squares paradise looks simple.
|Jul-06-11|| ||belgradegambit: Its the Nimzowitsch Gambit. 6 Nf3 is correct. White need not capture the pawn.|
|Jul-26-12|| ||Abdel Irada: I would hesitate to infer too much about the opening from a training game between a grandmaster (and future world champion) and some chap no one's ever heard of.|
|Jul-27-12|| ||Phony Benoni: <Abdel Irada> I can assure you Botvinnik had heard of Rabinovich, who had tied for first at the 1934/35 USSR Championship. He was not of Botvinnik's caliber, of course, but was without a doubt of grandmaster strength.|
|Jul-27-12|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: Botvinnik had played Rabinovich in e.g. the 5th USSR Chp, 1927.|
Kotov and Yudovich ("Soviet School of Chess") give a segment from the game noting, in passing, that Ilya was "one of his teachers".
Further, he competed in almost all Soviet Chp. up to 1941. Also he was succesful in Leningrad Chp. He taught many a Leningrad talent; Botvinnik originally being from Leningrad (now St.Petersburg) of course.
Ilya was the first Soviet to play abroad, at Baden-Baden 1925, ahead of e.g. Nimzowitsch, Reti and Gruenfeld, for 7th spot with +7=10-3. "Rabinovich's playing was characterised by a deep understanding of positions and ecxeptionally precise technique in the exploitation of advantages." (p.65, ibid)
He passed away in 1942.
|Jul-27-12|| ||perfidious: <Simon> Been a long time since I read 'Soviet School' but my recollection is that, even on first reading it at twelve, it was plain that one was reading a propaganda vehicle.|
For all that, though, the passages you mention are reasonably objective.
|Jul-27-12|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: @<perfidiois>
I have the Dover edition of the book. It is the only chess book I know of which starts with a, for want of a better phrase, "political health warning" from the American publishers!
Take this classic pass the sick bag, nurse! quote:
<Two main features characterize the Soviet school: first, the influence of the Soviet man of the socialist era, an ardent patriot and seeker of the new...."> etc. Ewww!
The chess is wonderful; the book, at many junctures, a horrible reminder of what dictatorship can bring.
Kotov was a party man, as was Botvinnik. Some, like GM Antoshin, were KGB stooges and informers.
|Jul-27-12|| ||Abdel Irada: <Phony Benoni>:
I'm guilty of levity. Doubtless Rabinovich was a strong GM, although, as you say, not of Botvinnik's caliber.
However, my underlying point remains: that it seems premature to write the epitaph of a principal line in the Nimzovich Gambit because of the result of a training game between players of unequal strength.
|Jul-27-12|| ||Phony Benoni: <Abdel Irada> Point taken. I should have known better, having often being guilty of the same "offense" myself.|
|Jul-28-12|| ||Abdel Irada: Everyone should "offend" with such levity as yours. Your humor is among this site's more consistent selling points — along with your almost uncanny erudition on chess history.|
Perhaps CG.com should be paying you. :-D
|Jul-30-12|| ||perfidious: <Abdel Irada: ....However, my underlying point remains: that it seems premature to write the epitaph of a principal line in the Nimzovich Gambit because of the result of a training game between players of unequal strength.>|
Agreed, with one addendum: I would extend this kind of critical thinking to analysis of any type.