< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
|Feb-07-12|| ||drukenknight: " When do you suggest Rb7? You must have misnumbered it in your note, in any event I agree that Alekhine's "comparatively better..." implies that White was just worse off no matter how he played.|
KD: I did not suggest Rb7, Alekhine in his famous volume II of my Memorable games, offers this as an alternative move. However instead of proving that the position is better by a forced set of moves, all he says is "comparatively better" which is hardly a strong logical case. If you read ALekhine when he makes a strong case he makes it. Therefore I offered a different move, thanks for your interest. Look forward to u looking at my move..
|Feb-07-12|| ||King Death: <drukenknight> At which move is Rb7 suggested? White can't play it at move 31.|
|Feb-07-12|| ||drukenknight: 32 Rb7; sorry I am going really fast and trying to convert to algebraic notation. My suggestion is instead 32 Qc4 in order to better position the Q. have not analyzed it; just a hunch.|
|Feb-08-12|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <drunkenknight> Have you ever looked at my web page for this game? (Maybe it would answer your question.)|
|Feb-08-12|| ||LIFE Master AJ: http://www.angelfire.com/games3/lif...|
My analysis is the most complete ever attempted on this game.
|Feb-09-12|| ||KKDEREK: Oh my god..I just read that?
<"Its probably a bad idea to nominate yourself for an award, but I may as well go ahead and do it. This may be the finest and most thorough job of annotating a chess game anywhere on the Internet. If you know of a better job ... one where the author was at least a Master and spent perhaps 2000 hours (or more) working on the game ... be sure to let me know!! Otherwise, until I see proof of a better job, than I nominate this game as:
The Best Annotated Chess Game on the Internet! ">
Whatta a pompous arrogant person..
|Feb-09-12|| ||tpstar: <The Best Annotated Chess Game on the Internet!> Congratulations. ;>D|
|Feb-10-12|| ||drukenknight: this is dumb, I suggested a move and 20 banter posts later it is buried...|
|Feb-10-12|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <dK> If you are serious about the move, send me an e-mail.|
|Feb-10-12|| ||LIFE Master AJ: He did not have a super-tough match mentality like Alekhine, however. (Larsen was like that.)|
|Feb-10-12|| ||drukenknight: life master, how about we save time and I suggest 34 Qc4? (sound familiar?)|
|Feb-10-12|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Not really.
Did I analyze this move on my web page? (I worked for a year on that analysis.) Is this a computer move?
Its been so long since I looked at that game ... maybe 15 years.
|Feb-10-12|| ||LIFE Master AJ: 34.Qc4?? Black just took a rook on d1 ... did you get the numbering wrong?|
|Feb-11-12|| ||drukenknight: 32 Qc4. Gee sorry about that, I am going fast obviously. It looks intersting to me, and didnt use the pc. God knows I have made some bad moves over the years...|
|Feb-11-12|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Everyone makes mistakes. (Its why there are erasers on pencils.)|
|Feb-12-12|| ||TheFocus: <AJ> Did you miss this? You are wrong about the inventor.|
<This is the, "Cambridge Springs Defense." It is named after one of the very few International Tournaments played in the U.S. prior to 1950.
(Cambridge Springs, 1904.)
(The variation is so named because it was first introduced by Harry N. Pillsbury and played for the first time at that tournament.)
I also propose that this variation be referred to as the, "Pillsbury Variation" after its creator. A.J.G.>
Well, Pillsbury did not introduce this move. It was introduced by Emanuel Lasker in this game, in 1892, a full 12 years before Pillsbury played it:
A Hodges vs Lasker, 1892
|Feb-26-12|| ||The Curious Emblem: I believe it was safer and better to have played 60. Rc2. 60. a5 is a bit too ambitious.|
|Mar-01-12|| ||tpstar: The remaining marker posts look a little funny without the background context, but at least any real chess content was preserved here. There have been other instances where legitimate discussion and helpful analysis get swept away along with the squabbling, which is frustrating when you want to review it later.|
Great major piece endgame.
|Apr-04-12|| ||rjsolcruz: In the Asian Youth 2011, the continuation 5 cxd5 was played in Tachaplalert of Thailand vs Sol Cruz of Philippines.|
|Dec-12-12|| ||CanteurX: An obviously faked game.
Checkmate with pinned queen?
|Dec-12-12|| ||aliejin: One of the more exciting games
of chess history .... that race
pawn, trying to crown, both of
opponents pressed for time ....
and the spectacular mate
In a way, Capablanca's fate changes
forever with this game.
|Jun-27-13|| ||paladin at large: <offramp> < Alekhine was 2-1 down at game 7 but he did not lose faith!
He kept the faith and won the match!!>
You don't need to cheerlead for Alekhine; I remember who won the match. I am sure you are right that Capa did not expect to fall behind again after game 7. I was pointing out Capa's resiliency long into the match, at Games 27, 28, 29.
Alekhine was not always a fighting tiger. At Nottingham 1936, AA won in the 1st round but, after his 2nd round fumbled loss to Capa, AA went into a listless stretch (look at his game with Tylor), not winning again until about round 9.
|Nov-07-13|| ||Ulhumbrus: After 17...Be8 Black has the bishop pair but White has greater space and a lead in development. How can White make use of his greater space?|
The game D Andreikin vs Kramnik, 2013 offers one three suggestions of how Capablanca might have been able to prevail with greater space against the bishop pair:
The move 15 Be4 offers one suggestion: exchange one of the bishops
The move 16 Rfd1 offers a second suggestion: gain a lead in development.
The movea 18 Qa4, 19 Nb3 and 20 Rd6 offer a third suggestion: use the lead in development to start an attack
|Nov-21-13|| ||perfidious: <paladin at large:.....Alekhine was not always a fighting tiger. At Nottingham 1936, AA won in the 1st round but, after his 2nd round fumbled loss to Capa, AA went into a listless stretch (look at his game with Tylor), not winning again until about round 9.>|
By an extension of this logic, one could conclude that any great master was not always, as you put it, a fighting tiger. Even Fischer took a short draw with White near the finish of one of his numerous US championship victories with the event in the bag. Shall we thus conclude that there was lack of fight in him? How about Korchnoi, who in 1972 played a team event at Moscow which featured several draws of fifteen moves or less? Was he another chicken?
Alekhine indeed had a winless stretch at Nottingham from rounds 2-8 (-2 =5), with some short draws, but what is your point?
|Jan-21-14|| ||Chessical: <CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP. Check to Capablanca>. |
When the eleventh game in the match at Buenos Aires between Capablanca and Alekhine for the world's chess championship was adjourned on Friday evening Capablanca remained in the hall for two hours studying the board.
He then decided make use his right to postpone the play for one day. The game will therefore resumed, tonight, so far it is considered one the most notable ever played.
What appeared at first to Capablanca triumph was turned into a fairly even game through Alekhine's masterly style. Capablanca opened with the Queen's Pawn, while Alekhine used the Cambridge Springs variation. Both later disregarded accepted forms and engaged in very unusual combinations. —Press Association Foreign Special.
<Western Daily Press - Monday 10 October 1927, page 8>.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·