|Dec-20-04|| ||notyetagm: A game from The Terror At San Remo, Italy 1930, where Alekhine went +13 =2 -0. Yowsa! It would take Kramnik 4 or 5 tournaments to win 13 games. :-) |
|Sep-29-05|| ||elh: So light were the heavy pieces in Alekhine's hands!
(cribbed this line from Vukovic)
|Dec-10-05|| ||Gypsy: <25...Nd6?> This must be the game-losing philosophical error: Why on earth give White such a splendid staging area to coordinate his rooks? That Be8 only looks like a sturdy defender, but White tank-brigade simply outmaneuvers it further to the east. With those White rooks milling around and certainly up to no good, a sound counter-play would have been 25...Bc6!, with the idea of never giving the rooks peace to get set and going. Black position would then probably been on par with that of White.|
|Dec-10-05|| ||Calli: <Gypsy> Yes, in fact, Alekhine agrees with you.|
"It would have been better to keep the Knight on its excellent post. After 25...Bc6 26.d5 exd5 27.Bxd5 Bxd5 28.Rxd5 Rxd5 29.Qxd5 it is doubtful that White's small positional pressure could be enforced." - Alekhine
Also 30...Qc1? looks bad --- Calli
|Dec-11-05|| ||Gypsy: <Calli> Thx for the feedback. Good to know that I was not off somewhere in the left feeld.|
|Dec-11-05|| ||Calli: <Gypsy> what do you think of 30...Rc7? Alekhine gives 31.Ng4 and nothing more, saying White has the attack. After 31...Kf8 (forced?) , I remain somewhat unconvinced.|
|Dec-11-05|| ||Gypsy: <Alekhine gives 31.Ng4 and nothing more, saying White has the attack.> Lol: I am white, I got an attack, my name is Alekhine -- any questions??|
White definitely has a dangerous attack; moreover, it seems that he can escalate it without making dangerous commitments; which is important because Black has several clever excuses if White is not careful. I look at these variations:
30...Rc7 31.Ng4 Kf8 32.Ne5 ...
(1) 32...Qc1 33.Qb4+ Kg8 (33...Re7? 34. Ng6+ Kg8 35.Nxe7+ ...) ... and White has a number of promissing continuations,
(2) 32...Qd6 33.Rg4 ... also with quite a pressure; for instance, 33...f6 34.Qxh6! (now it is a fine investment), or 33...f5 34.Rh4, or 33...Ke7 34.Rxg7 Qxd4 35.Ng6+! Kf6 36.Qxh6 ...
Glad you brought this position up. It's full of tactical nuances one ought to get conversant with.
|Jan-27-06|| ||micartouse: Playing through this game at home, I had an inspired thought: Why not 29. Rh4 and Alekhine can bury this guy right away? Alekhine didn't mention this possibility (of course), so I consulted with Fritz:|
29. Rh4? Qxc4 30. Rxg7+ Kf8! (Fritz wasn't feeling the love).
Oh well, I really need to work on my tactics. Hey, can anyone recommend a good tactics book? I only own Seirawan's "Winning Chess Tactics". It helped me a lot, but on a reread a year later, I remembered too many solutions. I need more books, and they don't have to be "classics".
Of course, the daily puzzles help here, but I usually have to tear my hair out just to get a Wednesday or Thursday to give an idea of my ability. Thanks!
|Jan-27-06|| ||RookFile: I think you want to get Kotov's 3 volumn 'Think like a grandmaster' series.|
|Feb-09-06|| ||micartouse: <RookFile> If you happen to catch this, a belated thanks for the advice to the question which I should have posted in Kibitzer's Cafe.|
I have one of those books in old notation, but I've never opened it up to read it! I will take your advice and get to work.
|Dec-20-06|| ||Dr. Siggy: A. Alekhine, "Alexander Alekhine's Best Games", algebraic ed., London 1996, p. 169 [about 4.Bd2]: "One of the most harmless answers to Black's 3rd move. The present game shows that Black, by making even the simplest moves, can obtain a middlegame with even prospects."|
True, I'm just a patzer, but... I wonder if 4.Bd2 is really one of the most harmless answers to Black's 3rd move! Allow me to show you the so-called main variation along with some sub-variations:
Main variation: - 4.Bd2 0-0  5.e3 d5 6.Nf3 c5  7.a3  Bxc3 8.Bxc3 Ne4 9.Rc1  Nxc3 10.Rxc3 cxd4 11.exd4 .
Sub-variations: -  4...b6? 5.f3 is , of course. -  6...b6 7.cxd5! exd5 8. Bd3!? Bb7 9.Qe2, followed up by Rc1 and Ba6, is (at least...): why? Because it's <Bogoljubov vs Capablanca, New York 1927>, with colours reversed and a move in hand for White! -  7.Qc2!? Nc6 8. a3 Bxc3 9.Bxc3 is a sound improvement for White, pointed out by Alekhine himself, and seems too. -  9.Qc2!? is another fine improvement for White, also pointed out by the former World Champion. -  After 11...Nc6 12.Be2 dxc4 13.Bxc4 Qf6 14.0-0 Rd8 15.Rd3 Bd7 16.Re1 Be8 17.Qd2 Ne7 18.Ng5! Nd5 19.Rf3 Qe7 20.Rg3 h6, the game should have proceeded (not with 21.Nf3 but) with 21.Ne4! Qh4 22.h3! Qf4 23.Qe2 (Alekhine), which seems once again.
Open to further testing? You tell me...
|Apr-07-08|| ||metatron2: At first I looked at 35. Qh5 and thought: Just a waste of tempo since the queen has to escapre after 35.. Kh7, but then I saw: 35.. Kh7 36. Ng4! and understood..|
|Jun-05-08|| ||nimh: Rybka 2.3.1:
1. 25...Nd6 (-0.64/18)
2. 25...Bc6 (-0.19/18)
1. 25...Nd6 (-0.73/18)
2. 25...Bc6 (-0.20/18)
Toga II 1.3:
1. 25...Nd6 (-0.59/18)
2. 25...Bc6 (-0.19/18)
|Apr-10-10|| ||Shaileshskamath: can anyone tell me why 32. .. exd5 is a bad option?|
|Apr-10-10|| ||Shaileshskamath: oops, never saw 33. Nf5, sorry guys problem solved :)|
|May-01-15|| ||ToTheDeath: A very Carlsen-like game from Alekhine, with great use of the rooks in a direct attack.|
|May-01-15|| ||FISCHERboy: 30...Rc7 31.Ng4 Kf8 32.Ne5. And the 32 d5 push sealed it.|
|May-30-17|| ||vrkfouri: 30.Kh2 !
Alekhine avoids the exchange. Now his Queen can move to b4 after 30... Qc1