Apr-21-07
 | | keypusher: Reshevsky does a Morphy impression, to great effect. |
|
| Apr-26-10 | | ozmikey: Impressive calculation, considering Reshevsky must have worked out all the ramifications of 20. Nf3 before he went in for the 16. Bxc6+ line. |
|
Jun-02-19
 | | LoveThatJoker: Good Title for game. LTJ |
|
| Jun-02-19 | | Ilkka Salonen: Reshevky's good play didn't help USA to a match victory, though as Ojanen vs Evans and Byrne vs Salo were drawn and on board four Aatos Fred won Bisguier. |
|
| Jun-02-19 | | Ironmanth: Love this game! Surround, overwhelm, conclude! Thanks, chessgames! Y'all have a super weekend. |
|
| Jun-02-19 | | Swedish Logician: Yet again when BÖÖK is playing either side, the pun is awful; Eeero Böök was NOT called "book".
CG gets the name right in the description, but wrong in the heading. Cannot this be put right? It really shows lack of respect for a fine player. |
|
| Jun-02-19 | | paavoh: Böök had an even score with Reshevsky (+1, =1, -1). Check out his equally impressive win at: E E Book vs Reshevsky, 1937 And thanks <Swedish Logician>, you are absolutely correct about English puns upon his name. Next time, the punster could try "Beech", perhaps? |
|
| Jun-02-19 | | ajile: Isn't this just basically a Benko Gambit? |
|
| Jun-02-19 | | cunctatorg: Benko Gambit of course, ... Catalan or whatever, it's a delightful game indeed!! |
|
| Jun-02-19 | | thegoodanarchist: <Swedish Logician: Yet again when BÖÖK is playing either side, the pun is awful; Eeero Böök was NOT called "book". CG gets the name right in the description, but wrong in the heading. Cannot this be put right?> And hopefully before we get a pun about e-books... |
|
| Jun-02-19 | | RookFile: Everybody has his take on this game. It actually reminds me more of the Blumenfeld Counter Gambit. |
|
Feb-15-24
 | | GoldenKnight: Böök had a game with Alekhine that was published in Alekhine's collection of best games. Alekhine's annotations were controversial as he claimed to have calculated all lines to a win at one point, but it was thought that he was lying, that he couldn't have done so. There was supposed to be a proof of this, but I don't remember the details. Oh, I believe he sacrificed a rook which was a sound positional move, but he claimed to have calculated it all out, which was felt to not be possible. Can anyone shed more light on this? |
|
Feb-15-24
 | | beatgiant: <GoldenKnight> See Alekhine vs E E Book, 1938 (kibitz #3) for that game with the anecdote about Alekhine's published notes looking better than his post-game discussion. |
|
Feb-15-24
 | | nizmo11: @<GoldenKnight> the game is
Alekhine vs E E Book, 1938, about Alekhine's annotations, see discussions in that game, and comments from <ToTheDeath> and others.
The best source for pre-computer analysis, anecdotes and also references to other works on this game is likely Böök's own game collection (1985). In addition to his own comments, he mentions among other's Golombek's Alekhine memoirs, analysis by Paul Schmidt, Brinckmann's Schachmeister in Kampfe (1940), and Suetin's article 1965 in Latvian magazine (1965). |
|
| Feb-15-24 | | Mayankk: 20 Nf3 seems the only plausible move for White - anything else loses quite easily. It needs to free up the h1 Rook which is threatened anyway by Black Queen. Losing the Knight therefore is more palatable vis-a-vis losing Rook. But what next? Black may either choose to guard against 21 Rd1+, free up its own h8 Rook and develop its dark-squared Bishop, or just play the greedy 20 ... Qxf3. The greedy option should lose after 21 Rd1+ Ke8 22 Qb7, threatening Qd7#. But not sure if that was Black's best try. |
|
| Feb-15-24 | | mel gibson: I saw the first ply within 3 seconds.
Stockfish 16 says:
20. Nf3
(20. Nf3 (1.Nf3 Qxf3 2.Rd1+ Ke8 3.Qb7 Be7 4.Qa8+ Kf7 5.Qxh8 Qh5
6.Bd4 Nxd4 7.Qxd4 Qg5+ 8.Qd2 Qc5 9.Qd5+ Kf6 10.Rd4 Kg7 11.Qxc5 Bxc5 12.Rxc4
Bxf2 13.Rc7+ Kg8 14.g4 Bd4 15.h3 a5 16.Kb1 Bf2 17.Kc2 Bb6 18.Rd7 Bf2 19.Kd3
Be1 20.Ke4 Bf2 21.Ke5 Bh4 22.Rd5 Bg5 23.b3 Be3 24.Ke4 Bb6 25.Rb5 Kg7
26.Rxb6 Kf7) +6.16/48 827)
score for White +6.16 depth 48. |
|
| Feb-15-24 | | TheaN: Ah no! This is an example where calculation can get the better of you due to the board being so open. Initially I spotted the game line: <20.Nf3 Qxf3> 21.Rd1+ Ke8 22.Qb7 +-. However if you see a good move blabla. Was wondering if it was possible to get the bishop involved immediately and ended up opting for <21.Bg5+?> this works in most lines, except for <21....Kc7!>. Here the idea was going back to f4, effectively activating the bishop, <22.Bf4+>. The issue with this is that Black can do the same, and that's always in favor of the defender. After <22....Bd6 23.Bxd6+ Kxd6 24.Rd1+ Kc7 25.Qxc4 Rf8 -+> White took Pc4 for the knight, but that's about it. If you see a good move, look for a better one, but first hunch is usually best :>. |
|
| Feb-15-24 | | jffun1958: 21...Kc8 22. Bf4 (Threatening 23. Qa6#) Qxf4+ 23. gxf4 |
|
Feb-15-24
 | | chrisowen: Rubs its end its a mig jut Nf3 ghoul its axiom juggle uba iota its ho boa et boo to tae aight its sag Nf3 bic :) |
|
| Feb-15-24 | | King.Arthur.Brazil: I decided to stop with LONG analyses... SIMPLE 20. Nf3 followed by 21. Rd1+ seems winning although B opened position is very bad. |
|
Feb-15-24
 | | Jimfromprovidence: The alternative 21... Kc7 to prevent 22 Qb7 does not work well for black. One version is 22 Bf4+ Kc8 23 Qa6#.
click for larger view |
|
Feb-15-24
| | GoldenKnight: Thanks <beatgiant> and <nimzo11>! |
|
Feb-15-24
| | GoldenKnight: <<beatgiant:> <GoldenKnight> See Alekhine vs E E Book, 1938 (kibitz #3) for that game with the anecdote about Alekhine's published notes looking better than his post-game discussion.> I looked at that kibitz, and that is exactly the story I now remember. Yes, that doesn't make Alekhine look very good. Thanks again! |
|
Feb-15-24
 | | perfidious: Do not believe I had ever seen Golombek's account, but it reflects very poorly on Alekhine's integrity, on the same lines as his remarks in his first game collection regarding Alekhine vs O Tenner, 1911. |
|
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
sac: 20.Nf3