| Mar-12-03 | | SupaSolidmozza: 19 Nf5? 19 Nxe5 was better, allowing at least some counter play... 19..Qxe5 20 Bd3 etc |
|
| Mar-12-03 | | ughaibu: What happens if he takes the knight after 23.Ne7? |
|
| Aug-28-04 | | Whitehat1963: And why is this called the "Fischer Variation"? |
|
Aug-28-04
 | | Chessical: <ughaibu> Perhaps in answer to <23.Ne7+> Alekhine could have played 23...Kg7 24.Qxd7 Qxa3 25.Bc4 Rad8 26.Qb7 Rxd4 which seems good for him. I also looked at: <24...Rxf7> 25.Rxf7+ Kxf7 26.Qxd7+ Kf8 27.Qd6+ Kg7 28.Qe7+; which is a perpetual |
|
| Sep-14-04 | | iron maiden: This game took place immediately after Lasker vs Rubinstein, 1914, so Rubinstein's shaky play might have been attributable to that loss. This defeat knocked him out of qualification for the final with Capa and Lasker. |
|
Sep-15-04
 | | Calli: "23.Ne7+ Kg7 24.Qxd7 Qxa3 25.Bc4"
better is 25.Bc8 threatening Qb7 Something like 25.Bc8 Qc3 26.Qd6 f6 27.Bd7 looks okay for White. |
|
| Nov-14-05 | | meloncio: Kasparov writes in OMGP, vol I, that Rubinstein had "una fea omisión" (an ugly omission, in literal translation from Spanish) in this game, but don't say what move is referring to. The candidates are 19.Nf5 and 23.Nh6+, but my vote goes for the second. |
|
| Nov-14-05 | | Koster: How can this be called the "Fischer variation" when it was played 30 years before Fischer was born? Emms calls it the "Rubinstein fianchetto variation" in his Easy Guide to the Nimzo. |
|
| Nov-14-05 | | Koster: <meloncio> Possibly e4 is premature and the QB should be developed first. That's just a first impression, I haven't seen Kasparov's notes or examined the game closely, but in games like Botvinik-Capablanca AVRO 1938 white prepared the e4 advance by developing this piece first. |
|
Oct-18-07
 | | whiteshark: <Koster: <Possibly <13.e4> is premature and the QB should be developed first.>> I agree with that.
click for larger view |
|
Sep-07-09
 | | Honza Cervenka: <SupaSolidmozza:> <19 Nf5? 19 Nxe5 was better, allowing at least some counter play... 19..Qxe5 20 Bd3 etc> 19.Nf5 is sound while 19.Nxe4 leaves white pawn down without sufficient counter-play. Huge mistake was 23.Nh6+. |
|
Sep-07-09
| | Honza Cervenka: Also 25.d5 was a blunder but the situation of white was already bad anyway. |
|
| Sep-23-12 | | optimal play: 4...b6 was a novelty in this game and quickly adopted the very next day Janowski vs Nimzowitsch, 1914 (see game collection by <Benzol>) <Koster><How can this be called the "Fischer variation" when it was played 30 years before Fischer was born?> Good question. Although Fischer played this line in one of his "memorable games" many years later Portisch vs Fischer, 1966 I don't know that he popularised it or published any analysis of it? |
|
| Oct-26-13 | | parisattack: <<Koster><How can this be called the "Fischer variation" when it was played 30 years before Fischer was born?> Good question. Although Fischer played this line in one of his "memorable games" many years later Portisch vs Fischer, 1966 I don't know that he popularised it or published any analysis of it?> An interesting item for study - how chess openings and variations got their names. In many instances, not very logical for such a 'logical' game. In any event, a lovely 'Nimzo-Indian' by Alekhine and adopted the very next day by Nimzovitch. The both seem to have forgotten it then until the early 1920s. |
|
| Dec-03-14 | | Antonio Ernesto: See Cochrane-Mohishunder
Calcutta 1851 |
|
| Dec-03-14 | | visayanbraindoctor: This is probably the seminal game that introduced the Nimzo-Indian into 'modern' chess (top level chess events played in the era of the chess clock). I am curious: Why is the Nimzo-Indian named after Nimzovich, and not after Alekhine? Both employed it frequently throughout their careers, but Nimzo seemed to have adopted it from AAA. If anything, it should be called Ale-Indian Defense. Has a nice ring to it, although it would surely spring jokes about AAA's drinking problems. |
|
Dec-03-14
 | | Sally Simpson: I'm guessing it's named after Nimzovitch because he researched and modified it. It could have been named the 'Blackburne Indian' as he appears to first on record to play it. But there again No!
After 3...Bb4
click for larger viewBlackburne wrote:
"Not much good comes of this. The best play for the Bishop is e7." Englisch vs Blackburne, 1883 |
|
| Feb-12-17 | | edubueno: El error de Rubinstein es muy burdo. Con 23 Ce7+ hubiera mantenido una buena partida y chances de ganar. |
|
| May-13-18 | | jabinjikanza: Good dispensation by Alexander alekhine |
|
Oct-03-19
 | | Jonathan Sarfati: Tarrasch's notes in the tournament book seem almost modern. He says that White shouldn't have allowed the doubled ♙s, saying that the ♙c4 could have been attacked with ...♗a6 and ... ♘a5. He criticizes Black's ... d5 allowing the undoubling of White's ♙s. Then after B12, he recognized that White's central play would be strong, just as in the famous game quarter of a century later Botvinnik vs Capablanca, 1938 But Tarrasch said that 13.e4 was premature, as the computer confirms. Instead he recommends completing development with 13. ♗d2, which would also guard the entry squares on the c-file and connect the first rank major pieces. |
|
| Jun-28-20 | | aliejin: Is this a great game for Alekhine?
i Review Black's Movements
with stockfish ... and approved all |
|
Kibitzing
