|Feb-17-04|| ||drukenknight: Okay before you all sit down and think you are going to take up the the Santasiere's folly or the Benko gambit reversed and think you are going to school people in this sort of positional warfare. There's something you should know....Reinfeld's game sort of falls apart right in the middle when it gets tough. What sort of tactics do you see after white moves that N twice? You got to start thinking, well that must mean something... |
|Apr-27-04|| ||patzer2: Rheinfeld's 23...Nd5?? loses quickly to Santasiere's 24. Nxd4! Relatively better was 23...Bxg3 or 23...Rf8, with White retaining a clear advantage but with Black having drawing chances. |
|Sep-07-04|| ||Dick Brain: I wonder what happened here. In Reinfeld's chess books he usually shows how players of offbeat openings tend to get routed in miniatures. |
|Nov-16-05|| ||OhioChessFan: I agree Nd5 is bad, but I think f6 was even worse.|
|Nov-16-05|| ||Anatooly Homedepotov: Really? Black's Kingside pawn structure would be loosened no matter what he played, so why not 16. ...f6 and have the Black QB "biting on granite?" 16. ...Nf6 results in 17. Nxf6+ and a destroyed pawn structure, 16. ...g6 opens up the Black QB's diagonal and allows 17. Bxe4 and 18. Nf6+.|
|Nov-19-05|| ||Resignation Trap: Some notes by Santasiere:
15...Qe7? "Black either underrates or ignores White's threats. 15...Nxg3 was best."
20...f5 "Black's King seems to be putting on a strip-tease act! And all so inevitable."
22...Kh7 "22...Be5 was the best defense, but then White wins at least a pawn by 23. Bxe5 Qxe5 24.Qc3!"
|Nov-28-06|| ||Resignation Trap: Anthony Santasiere in his book <The Futuristic Chess Opening> gives the opening move order as 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.b4 e6 3.a3 d5 4.e3 a5 .|
|Nov-28-06|| ||Phony Benoni: Tartakower, in his 500 Master Games of Chess, follows the move order given by Santasiere, transposing back into the above score after 5.b5 c5 6.Bb2 Bd6. (He also dates the game as 1937.) I don't know if that proves anything; Santasiere may have transposed the moves to make a theoretical point. Then again, was he ever known to actually play 1.b4?|
By the way, Tartakower felt that 20...f5 was forced, and that 22...Be5 should be answered by 23.Nf4.
I think this was the first game I ever saw published that Fred Reinfeld lost. Used to think he was invincible.
|Nov-28-06|| ||Resignation Trap: According to Santasiere in the above mentioned book:|
<The history of this curious opening must almost entirely revolve around my many years' experience with it. Alekhine once opened a game with it [Alekhine vs J Drewitt, 1923 -<RT>]. Tartakower at New York 1924 played 1.b4 vs. Maroczy [see Tartakower vs Maroczy, 1924 -<RT>] and jocularly referred to it as the "Orang-Outang Opening". The joke may be good, but the title is poor, for chess, like love, is serious. However, 1.b4, which allows the immediate 1...e5, is not really "my" opening, since I prefer to force Black to exert some effort to attain ...e5.>
I cannot find a game where Tony played 1.b4.
And this game does show that Reinfeld did vince once in a while.
|Nov-28-06|| ||Phony Benoni: Good; it definitely sounds like there are grounds for a correction.|
|Mar-17-12|| ||Phony Benoni: Hermann Helms' column in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, February 18, 1937, has the same order of moves later given by Tartakower (1.Nf3 and 2.b4,e tc.). Considering Helms' close working relationship with Santasiere, I think that makes it definitely correct.|