< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Apr-17-09|| ||notyetagm: <CapablancaRules: An extraordinary game by Alekhine... I think this is the deepest combination of all his career, only equalizing with Reti vs Alekhine, 1925 >|
|May-19-09|| ||MaczynskiPratten: This game brought home to me some similarities between Alekhine and Tal. Alekhine's sacrifice may or may not be fully sound, but it certainly presents Black with massive problems over the board and leads to the sort of complex combinative position which Alekhine loved to play. Intuitive sacrifices of a pawn or two or maybe a minor piece or an exchange (Petrosian) are fairly common, but to give up a whole Rook like this is pretty brave!|
|May-19-09|| ||MaczynskiPratten: On the Najdorf/"long nose" question, I suddenly had a thought; would Disney's Pinocchio have been playing in cinemas when this game was played, and therefore fresh in everyone's mind? Nice theory (well, I thought so :-), but sadly it seems that Pinocchio came out in 1940, two years after this game was played. Of course the original fairy tale vastly predates this.|
|Mar-04-10|| ||ToTheDeath: Incredible game- like all great Alekhine efforts it's full of murky complexity and variations still being debated today!|
|Mar-30-10|| ||Olavi: 19 Qh5 was pointed out by Brinckmann in 1940 (Schachmeister im Kampfe).|
|Dec-17-10|| ||offramp: I don't think it is a Pinocchio reference. I think it means that he is a nosey parker and was curious to see how the sacrifice would end up.|
|Sep-21-11|| ||kingscrusher: I have video annotated this game here:
|Sep-21-11|| ||Cemoblanca: Eero Einar "Out Of" Book! ;0)|
|Feb-10-13|| ||Shams: An amazing game! But Golombek's account of Alekhine's behavior subsequent to this game, as told in <capanegra>'s post of Feb-18-04, is shameful if true.|
|Feb-10-13|| ||ughaibu: Isn't the simplest and most likely solution, that Najdorf fabricated the story?|
|Feb-11-13|| ||SirChrislov: If Alekhine did indeed "improve" the score of this game to leave posterity a polished version of his play, its outrageous. What would lead a player of his stature to have such a cavalier regard for the truth?|
Anyway.., this great game received little recognition because it was played too late to be included in Alehine's own two-volume collection.
|Feb-12-13|| ||Mudphudder: This is a very pretty game. Nearly every single move by Alekhine in this game is tactically brilliant!|
|Sep-25-14|| ||mikaelkarvajalka1978: Dang nice pins by Alekhine, shame a finn did not win :)|
|Jul-14-15|| ||ToTheDeath: Alekhine didn't change the score of the game, he copied Book's analysis of an unplayed variation in his annotations to make it look like he was more brilliant than he was. This is typical of Alekhine, whose vanity apparently knew no bounds.|
|Jul-15-15|| ||Zonszein: I thought I wouldn't need to use my "ignore" list
The dark and poluted ages appeared
And there it goes
It's funny that many of these clowns only try to immitate the bad side of their idols knowing that they will never ever be able to be as talented...
|Jul-15-15|| ||keypusher: <Zonszein> Maybe I should take them seriously, but <aliejin>'s posts about the "Jewish filthies" who dare criticize his hero always just make me laugh. |
Alekhine vs Wong CE, 1933
|Jul-15-15|| ||Zonszein: Hello <keypusher>|
|Dec-13-16|| ||MarkBuckley: Re Alekhine's choice of words: When a man inadvertently leaves his fly ajar, Arabs say "Your nose." Maybe aristocratic Russians used the same term.|
|Feb-26-17|| ||The Kings Domain: One of my fave Alekhine games, love how he capitalizes on his opponent's weakness and maintains unrelenting pressure 'til victory is at hand.|
|Jul-04-17|| ||Sally Simpson: Four years ago SirChrislov posted.
"Anyway.., this great game received little recognition because it was played too late to be included in Alekhine's own two-volume collection."
It is game 2 in Alexander's book on Alekhine's games 1938-1945 and relates yet another background tale regarding this game.
After the game Spielmann told Book that "Such sacrifices are always correct in over-the-board play."
That is something some posters including Dick Brain's tongue in cheek remark about $40 computers will never understand.
Alekhine saw all these wonderful possible tactical lines and knew finding the way through it would be difficult.for a human so went for it.
Not a genuine gamble, where a player can see his trick is refuted because as previous comments indicate, Alekhine could not see a 100% refutation. He just knew it would be very difficult to defend.
A computer would not have lost this, yet a computer would not have won it this way. They may be able to look 30+ deep but they cannot judge a a position they way an Alekhine can.
Nothing supernatural here, All the top players occasionally dip into this "I'm not exactly to sure where we are going but my path looks easier than yours' mode. Even Kramnik Kramnik vs Harikrishna, 2017
A point on the score table is much better and worth a lot more than a loss in the analysis room.
|Jul-04-17|| ||morfishine: Alekhine was "out of book" early
|Dec-13-17|| ||SeanAzarin: Read Him Like A Book|
|Dec-27-17|| ||cunctatorg: Imho AA Alekhine's famous "long nose" line was just -and exactly- a way to express (speaking to Miguel Najdorf and therefore to the entire chess community) his admiration for JR Capablanca on the basis that it was only Capablanca that Alekhine himself considered as a chess genius of equal calibre to his own!...|
|Jun-19-19|| ||Ironmanth: Wonderful game, and of my all-time favorites. Thanks, chessgames!|
|Jun-19-19|| ||goodevans: Fantastic little miniature.
It's worth going back to the first page of comments for discussions on where Book started to go wrong and how Alekhine could have finished him off even quicker.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·