|Jan-01-03|| ||ughaibu: Dus Chotimirsky's claim to fame was that he was the only player to win against Rubinstein at St Petersburg 1909 and in the same tournament the only player other than Rubinstein to win against Lasker. According to Lasker Rubinstein was winning comfortably until miscalculating on (I think) move 15. |
|Dec-02-05|| ||Whitehat1963: Excellent and interesting game! Rubinstein takes a whipping with white during his best year.|
|Dec-02-05|| ||dr. micha: yes, white was tactically outplayed.probably the middlegame was too chaotic for Akiba.|
|Nov-29-06|| ||shalgo: Lasker says that white would "have maintained his extra Pawn" had Rubinstein played 19.Qc4. He also claims that Rubinstein still had a draw with 20.Qa6 Nd4 21.Nxc3 b4 22.e3 (the rest of his line seems garbled in my copy of the tournament book).|
|Jan-19-09|| ||Phony Benoni: The tournament book is available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=o3.... The note mentioned by <shalgo> is a bit garbled, but I think I've deciphered it. The position in question arises after 19...b5:
click for larger view
<Here Rubinstein, who is usually a very calm and clear player, makes a mistake in his combination and loses by force. He might have played
20.Qa6 Nd4 21.Nxc3 b4 22.e3 bxc3 23.exd4 (not 23.Rxb8 Qxb8 followed by ...Qb2) 23...Rxb1 (23...Qxd4 24.Rxb8 Rxb8 25.Qc6) 24.Rxb1 (24.dxe5 Rxc1+ 25.Bf1 c2) 24...Qxd4 and might have drawn by 25.Qe2.>
Basically, it looks likel a move was left out in the book and there was no clear distinction between the main variation and sub-variations.
|Jan-20-09|| ||Calli: <a bit garbled> Not as garbled as having two white queens in the diagram. |
(we leave no well-intentioned posts go unpunished) :-D
|Jan-20-09|| ||Phony Benoni: Augghhhhh! Will I never be able to type an entire post without a typo????|
OK, everybody, please imagine the queen on e5 is Black, and don't make me redo the whole thing.
|Jan-20-09|| ||ughaibu: We could punish Calli for falling between two stools with "leave. . . go", rather than choosing 'leave' or 'let. . . go'. I've included an inaccuracy, in this post, in case anyone would like to punish me too.|
|Jan-26-09|| ||A.G. Argent: <ughaibu> Ok, Mr. Grammar, I may be a chronic patzer when it comes to chess but I know a superfluous, comma when I see, one but, it, is well placed, I must say; right after inaccuracy.,|
|Jan-27-09|| ||keypusher: <Phony Benoni: The tournament book is available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=o3...;|
Wow, thanks for pointing that out! Now if only Google could get its clutches on Tarrasch's Nuremburg 1896 book...
|Nov-14-11|| ||tamar: My question is whether White had more than a draw after 19...b5|
Did some long analysis with Rybka 3 (request someone check with Houdini, as it freezes my computer for some reason)
20 Qh4 f5
(there is no time for 20...b4 as 21 Nf4 Qg5 22 Bxc6 wins a piece)
21 Nxe7 Nxe7
22 Qb4 Rbc8
(if 22...Rfc8 23 f8(Q) deflects the guard on c3)
23 Qb5 Rc5
24 Qd3 Kg7
25 Rb7 Rfc8
26 f4 Qf6
click for larger view
In comparison with the 20 Qa6 variations, White has avoided bishops of opposite squares, and the further analysis shows his initiative is unstoppable.
27...fxe4 28 Bxe4 R5-c7 29 Rxc7 Qb6+ 30 Kg2 Qxc7 31 Qb5 Ng6 32 Qe8 Nf8 33 Bd5 Rd8 34 Qe4 3.06/20