|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-26-10 | | laskereshevsky: <maxi> Dont know if somebody else noticed that, But its higly probable... If U watch my Feb-07-09 post in the below linked Reti-Alekhine game, I already wrote about another nice "coincidence"... |
|
Feb-26-10
 | | maxi: <laskereshevsky> Yes, but some of those guys were doctors or Ph.D.'s. Also, sometimes people were called "doctor" as a sign of respect. That was a fairly universal custom 50 years ago. |
|
Feb-26-10
| | maxi: <laskereshevsky> Your comment about Rubinstein having beaten a world champ with Qc1 at moves 17 and 18 is interesting, too. In this case there was only a 2-year difference between the years of the games, so you have to add one to the number of the move... |
|
| Feb-26-10 | | laskereshevsky: <Maxi> to add more "gasoline" to this,
I wont say that an Alekhine's comment about Reti-Capa was: "<17.♕c3!? very risky move, much prudent was 17.♕c1> (!)..... So, if Richard played the ALE's suggested move, we were facing the "favorite" Rubinstein move to defeating World champions played by a player usual to do them with 35.♖1d5... |
|
Feb-26-10
| | maxi: Hmm... <laskereshevsky> It happened to Lasker & Capa. It happened to Capa and Alekhine. Did it happen to Alekhine and Botvinnik? |
|
| Feb-26-10 | | laskereshevsky: At a first thought all I can remember is that Botvinnik was smashed in the face by Lillienthal with the same move ♖e6.... Lilienthal vs Botvinnik, 1936
29.♖e6
Lilienthal vs Botvinnik, 1940
31.♖e6
Just in the first case BOT was able to make the day by saving half point in a pawn down same color ♗♗s finale. But in the second ANDOR got him... |
|
Feb-26-10
| | maxi: Do you know of any player that beat both Alekhine and Botvinnik within two or three years? Perhaps, if he exists, he used the same move. |
|
| Feb-26-10 | | whatthefat: <maxi: Do you know of any player that beat both Alekhine and Botvinnik within two or three years? Perhaps, if he exists, he used the same move.> 1) Any of these:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... with one of these:
Botvinnik vs Euwe, 1934
Euwe vs Botvinnik, 1938
2)
Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1936
Botvinnik vs Capablanca, 1936
3) Any of these:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... with:
Fine vs Botvinnik, 1938
4) Alekhine vs V Mikenas, 1937
V Mikenas vs Botvinnik, 1940
I'll leave it to you to check the moves! |
|
| Feb-26-10 | | laskereshevsky: laskereshevsky: <maxi: Do you know of any player that beat both Alekhine and Botvinnik within two or three years?> NO, i dont know
And its very difficoult that could be existed such a player. First cause BOT played mostly in Sovietics tournaments... He did only 5 International Tournaments during ALE's life. : Hasting 1934/35, Moscow 1935,1936, Nottingham 1936 and A.V.R.O. 1938.... Alekhine was not allowed to play in U.S.S.R. cause his 1920's defections from the Comunist land. As i remeber only FINE, RESHEVSKY, CAPABLANCA and EUWE beated both the Russians during the 30ies/40ies... |
|
| Feb-26-10 | | laskereshevsky: <whatthefat:> nice job... I forgot about Mikenas!
Just remembered of another Sovietic who beated AAA
V Petrov vs Alekhine, 1938
but Petrov never got a victory over BOT.
and SIR George Thomas won vs. the Comunist one G A Thomas vs Botvinnik, 1934 But he never managed to win vs. AAA
In my partial justification, allow me to say that i did this research only by memory... (of course beside when i linked games)! |
|
| Feb-26-10 | | TheFocus: <laskereshevsky> <whatthefat:> nice job... <I forgot about Mikenas!
Just remembered of another Sovietic who beated AAA
V Petrov vs Alekhine, 1938
but Petrov never got a victory over BOT.
and SIR George Thomas won vs. the Comunist one G A Thomas vs Botvinnik, 1934 But he never managed to win vs. AA.>
And Thomas beat Capablanca at Hastings 1934 also, so two WCs in the same tournament. |
|
| Feb-26-10 | | TheFocus: Of course, Thomas also beat Vera Menchik in that tournament so three WCs in one tournament. Nice going, Sir George!!! |
|
Feb-26-10
| | maxi: Thanks to all. I'll check the data tomorrow, if <laskereshevsky> doesn't beat me to it! |
|
Aug-01-10
 | | GrahamClayton: Scoresheet:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gwSEDVM2L... |
|
Sep-08-10
 | | al wazir: The game would have continued 31...Nc4 32. Rxc5 Nxb2 33. Rc2 Na4 34. Rd4 Nc5 35. Nd5, with the double threat of Nxc7 and Nf6+. If 35...Nfe6, then simply 36. Rd1. |
|
| Nov-11-10 | | prithviraj: why so early..., 31... Nc4 would have been ok to carry on for black... |
|
Nov-11-10
 | | beatgiant: <prithviraj>
31...Nc4 32. Rxc5 Nxb2 33. Rc2 Na4 34. Nd5 hits the rook and also threatens to fork the other rook with Nf6+. White gets a rook for a knight. |
|
| Feb-22-11 | | wordfunph: 1924 New York Tournament Reti-Capablanca: It was the first loss Capablanca sustained in the 9 years and when someone broke the silence in the playing hall that Capablanca
resigned, all players got up from their chairs whether it was their turn to move or not and rushed over to the table where Capablanca and Reti were sitting apparently speechless. (Source: Chess Life & Review 1974) |
|
| Feb-22-11 | | wordfunph: continuation..
During the commotion created in the playing hall by Reti's victory, that Emanuel Lasker had remained at his table. He was bent over the board in fierce concentration, as complete unaware of the noise of the players' rush away from their tables and back again, as he was of the cigar ashes which were covering his suit. When it was finished and he learned what had happened, he was the most surprised man! |
|
Feb-22-11
 | | Benzol: The game Lasker was playing at that time: Lasker vs Tartakower, 1924 |
|
Mar-30-11
 | | kingscrusher: I have video annotated this game here, which represents a leading hypermodern defeating a reigning world champion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xURM... |
|
| May-23-11 | | Rook e2: What happens after 31..Nc4 ? |
|
| Jun-17-11 | | IRONCASTLEVINAY: see scoresheet http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped... |
|
Jun-25-11
| | maxi: If you look at this game superficially, it is hard to say exactly how it was that Capa lost. Yes, at the end his Q got checkmated, but how did it get so bad? Capa defended with a King's Indian D, but played the Pawn formation c5,d6,e5. The problem with this formation is that it is easy for Black to get a weak d6 Pawn. No matter, if you look at the situation after 19.Qd2, it is still a perfectly even game. The problem is that now Black, Capa, fell into a positional trap. Capa sees that after 19.Qd2 cxd4 20.Bxd4 Qxc4 his Q has an "aggressive" position near the center, his Rook in e8 has an open file, and that there is a "promising" square in c5 for his Knight. Unfortunately he does not see that Black has two serious problems: 1) White's Rooks in the d column are going to be very strong; 2) his centralized Q is going to be pushed around. After 21.Bxg7 Kxg7 22.Qb2+ Kg8 23.Rxd6 Black had his last chance. He had to go back with 23...Qc7. But after 23...Qc5 White's advantage is probably sufficient for a win. My silicon friend tells me that after 25...Qh5 White could have won the Black Q by 26.R1d5! Bxd5 27.g4. Black's correct move back before he got into this mess was 19.Qd2 Ne6, holding the center. |
|
| Jun-29-11 | | DrMAL: <maxi:> Not quite, please check carefully with your silicon friend, 19...Ne6 is a mistake, 19...cxd4 is better but the best is 19...Nf6 to correct black's error on move 18. In any event, the complexities here are NOT why black lost. After several more small inaccuracies white was ahead about a point on move 25 but 25...Qh5 was a tactical blunder that Reti brilliantly took advantage of to promptly end the game (yes 26.R1d5 was even faster), cheers. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
