|Jun-27-04|| ||An Englishman: Good Evening: No one has noticed this game yet? It's one of Reshevsky's most miraculous saves! Despite the result, no one has played 7...b6 since; Keres should have won this one. Reshevsky's greatness as a defender consisted in giving the attacker a huge variety of possible good moves, forcing both players into the severe time trouble at which he excelled. It took a lot of work to find Keres' winning line; see Bronstein's book on the tournament for excellent analysis. |
|Oct-12-04|| ||Hinchliffe: < An Englishman> Good day.I have noticed and noted this game.And what a game too. Great play from both players ending in an unexpected truce. Thank you Englishman a fine game which highlights the particular powers of two of the games most prominent GM's. I would like to see the win for Keres sometime it must have taken quite a good deal of unravelling. |
|Apr-30-06|| ||An Englishman: Good Afternoon: As a matter of fact, it took months of work by chess players all over the globe to solve this game. Bronstein included a summary of the analysis in his book of the tournament, noting that it took a Swedish amateur to find where White could have forced the win.|
Which leads to an interesting question: has anyone recently fed this game to one of the silicon monsters? It would be interesting to see if the work done over 50 years ago still holds up.
|Apr-30-06|| ||Eggman: <<Bronstein included a summary of the analysis in his book of the tournament, noting that it took a Swedish amateur to find where White could have forced the win.>>|
No, Englishman, you're thinking of the move 47.Qd6! in the game Smyslov vs Petrosian, 1953, from the same tournament.
|May-01-06|| ||An Englishman: Good Evening: <Eggman>, oh dear, another lapse of memory. Happened just a *little* bit too often during my playing days.|
|Aug-11-07|| ||sanyas: 38...f6 wins.|
|Dec-23-07|| ||hovik2003: The winning move was 15.exf6! instead of more complex 15.Bxf6, ofcourse this is what Bronstein concluded over analysis on this game in his fantastic turnament book.|
|Feb-07-09|| ||laskereshevsky: |
Another magic escape from the wizard Reshevsky...
Reshevsky vs Botvinnik, 1938
|Feb-07-09|| ||AnalyzeThis: Reshevsky was one of the few people in history who could have survived this assault, with Keres taking the white side. Bronstein comments in his tournament book that this game was so fascinating that the players were still analyzing some time later.|
|Sep-27-09|| ||WhiteRook48: 17 exf6 was more promising|
|Apr-08-12|| ||Elyv: Part of Bronstein's comment at the end of this game: "Here the game was adjourned. Both players analyzed all night and the next day as well -- not the adjourned position, of course, but the game which lead up to it."|
|Apr-15-12|| ||plang: By delaying the development of the White King Knight the opening transposed into the Samisch variation after 7 bxc. Standard is 7..Nc6; 7..b6?! is rarely played and dubious. This game was played in the 11th round. Earlier in the 5th round Reshevsky had played this line against Euwe and won after 8 Ne2; Kers played the stronger 8 e4. Botvinnik felt that 16 exf would have been the best move. Marin provided a sample line: 16 exf..Qe5+ 17 Kf1..Qxf6 18 Qg4+..Kh7 19 Rad1..Qf5 20 Qxf5..exf 21 Rd6..Na6 22 Rd7..Nb8 23 Rc7..Na6 24 Rb7 and Black is helpless. A better defense would have been 21..Qxd6 22 Rxd6..Nxd6 blunting White's attack. Keres had good compensation for the exchange and had he played 27 g4 he would have retained the initiative; instead after Keres's 27 f4? Black was better though both players had little time and the game simplified to a draw.|
|Aug-25-13|| ||svetonius: There are some inaccuracies in Bronstein's analysis. The most striking one is possibly in the position after White's 38th move. Bronstein correctly points out that 38.-Rf6! is much better than Reshevsky's 38.-Qc4+. He then goes on to say that White probably survives after 39. Rd8 Rxe6 40. Rxe8+ Rxe8 41. Qd5+. This is, I assume, because Black can't keep his extra rook without White giving perpetual check. However, the chess engine Houdini gives an easy win: instead of 39.-Rxe6 Black simply plays 39.-Qb1+ 40. Ka5 Rxe6. Now the f5 pawn is protected, so the Black king can protect the rook by Kf8 or Kf7. The game is easily won by Black.|
|Mar-16-14|| ||LIFE Master AJ: A great chess game ... Soltis says it might be one of the best draws of the whole of the 20th Century.|
|Mar-16-14|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Hamppe vs Meitner, 1872.|
|Mar-16-14|| ||DrGridlock: Komodo finds that 15 exf6 is crushing, while 15 Bxf6 is merely winning:|
click for larger view
1. (2.55): 15.exf6 hxg5 16.hxg5 Qe5+ 17.Re3 Qf5 18.Qh5 Qg6 19.Qh2 Nd7 20.Rh3 gxf6 21.Rd1 fxg5 22.Rxd7 Qf6 23.Rf3 Qg6 24.Qe5 g4 25.Rfd3 Rab8 26.Ne2 b5 27.cxb5 Rxb5 28.Rd1 Qg7 29.Qe3 Qh8 30.c4 Ra5
2. ± (1.15): 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.exf6 Qe5+ 17.Kf1 Qxf6 18.Qg4+ Kh7 19.Rad1 Qf5 20.Qxf5+ exf5 21.Rd6 Na6 22.Ne2 Nc7 23.Nf4 Rae8 24.Rd7 Ne6 25.Nd5 Kg7 26.Re1 a6 27.Re5 b5 28.Rxf5 bxc4 29.g3 Rd8 30.Re7 Rb8
Once White chooses to merely defeat (Bxf6) rather than crush (exf6) his opponent, he needs to be more precise in his continuations. Move 16 (Qg4 instead of exf6) wastes about .4 of his 1.1 advantage:
click for larger view
1. ± (1.08): 16.exf6 Qe5+ 17.Kf1 Qxf6 18.Qg4+ Kh7 19.Rad1 Qf5 20.Qxf5+ exf5 21.Rd6 Na6 22.Ne2 Nc7 23.Nf4 Rae8 24.Rd7 Ne6 25.Nd5 Kg7 26.Re1 a6 27.Re5 Nc7 28.Rxf5 Nxd5 29.cxd5 Re4 30.Rf3 Rxh4
2. ± (0.89): 16.Rd6 Qb7 17.Qg4+ Kh7 18.exf6 Rg8 19.Qe2 Qxg2 20.0-0-0 Qg6 21.Nf3 Na6 22.Ne5 Qxf6 23.Qe4+ Qf5 24.Qxf5+ exf5 25.Rf6 Rae8 26.Rxf7+ Rg7 27.Rdd7 Rxf7 28.Rxf7+ Kg8 29.Rxf5 Re7 30.Kd2 Kg7 31.Ke3 Nc7
3. ² (0.68): 16.Qg4+ Kh8 17.exf6 Rg8 18.Qh5 Rg6 19.Qf3 Nc6 20.0-0-0 Rag8 21.Rd7 Qc8 22.h5 Rg5 23.Qe4 Ne5 24.Rxa7 Rf5 25.Nf3 Nxf3 26.gxf3 Qf8 27.Kb2 Rxf6 28.Rb7 Qg7 29.Rdd7 Rf5 30.f4 Qf8 31.Rxb6
At move 17 Qf3 (again instead of exf6) leaks some more of his advantage:
click for larger view
1. ± (0.82): 17.exf6 Rg8 18.Qh5 Rg6 19.Qf3 Nc6 20.0-0-0 Rag8 21.Rd7 Qc8 22.h5 Rxg2 23.Qf4 Qf8 24.Nh3 R2g4 25.Qc7 Qc8 26.Rxf7 Qxc7 27.Rxc7 Ne5 28.f4 Nxc4 29.Rdd7 Rf8 30.Rh7+ Kg8 31.Rxh6 Nxa3 32.Ng5 Rg1+
2. ± (0.81): 17.0-0-0 Qxe5 18.Re3 Qf5 19.Qxf5 exf5 20.Rd6 Na6 21.Rxf6 Kg7 22.Rxf5 Rae8 23.Rg3+ Kh7 24.Nf3 f6 25.Nh2 Nc7 26.Ng4 Re1+ 27.Kc2 Kg6 28.Ne3+ Kh7 29.Nd5 Ne8 30.Re3 Rxe3 31.fxe3 Nd6 32.Rxf6 Rxf6
3. ² (0.27): 17.Qf3 Nd7 18.Rd6 Kg8 19.Qg3+ Kh8 20.Nf3 fxe5 21.Nxe5 Nxe5 22.Qxe5+ Kh7 23.Rxe6 Qxe5+ 24.Rxe5 Rae8 25.Re2 Rxe2+ 26.Kxe2 Re8+ 27.Kf3 Rd8 28.Re1 Kg6 29.g4 Rd2 30.h5+ Kf6 31.Re2 Rxe2 32.Kxe2 Kg5
In short summary, at moves 15, 16 and 17 Keres had three opportunities to play exf6. He should have taken one of those.
|Mar-17-14|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Yes, you are correct.
In fact, we should not be surprised when the computers find an improvement. In fact, we should be surprised when we find old/famous game ... and the engines CANNOT find a significant improvement!!!!!!
|Mar-17-14|| ||Olavi: Of course 15.exf6 was recommended as winning in the books by Bronstein, Ståhlberg and Euwe.|
|Mar-17-14|| ||LIFE Master AJ: I might have tried 15.exf6 on general principle ... I always was an attacker ...|
|Mar-17-14|| ||Dr. J: <DrGridlock> Thank you for a valuable analysis. But when you say <Komodo finds that 15 exf6 <+2.55> is crushing, while 15 Bxf6 <+1.15> is merely winning> I think you may be overstating matters somewhat: as I understand it, it takes an advantage of about 1.40 to call a position "winning", and even 2.55, while won, should mean significant resistance is still possible. (We have even seen many puzzles here that required difficult "wetware" analysis to solve, that the machines have dismissed as +5.0 or worse.)|