Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Savielly Tartakower vs Akiba Rubinstein
Moscow (1925), Moscow URS, rd 20, Dec-06
Bishop's Opening: Vienna Hybrid (C28)  ·  1-0



Click Here to play Guess-the-Move
Given 15 times; par: 59 [what's this?]

explore this opening
find similar games 28 more Tartakower/Rubinstein games
sac: 31.Rxg7 PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can get computer analysis by clicking the "ENGINE" button below the game.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.


Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jul-27-12  kunjankp: i think 13...f5 was b8r than 13...f6. can anyone tell me if I am wrong or right?!
Mar-02-19  JimNorCal: No doubt about it, Tartakover had real talent!
There must have been days when he was sorry to live during a time of giants: Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine.

Otherwise, he might have been World Champion

Premium Chessgames Member
  An Englishman: Good Evening: Already knew this one, but still enjoyed replaying the game.
Aug-22-19  Cheapo by the Dozen: Many choices win at Move 34. My plan was to move the queen to e-file, so as to wind up ahead in material. Then as I checked the game, I saw that an immediate f6 worked comparably well.

I never got around to seeing that the game move, which protects the advancing f-pawn, was much better than either of those choices.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Once: Deja vu
Aug-22-19  groog: Rather easy for a Thursday
Premium Chessgames Member
  agb2002: I know this classical (in every aspect) game.
Aug-22-19  stacase: I went move for move until 37.f7. I would have moved 37.fxe7 which probably still wins.
Aug-22-19  Lambda: I saw 34. Qe2 and then advancing the f-pawn, which goes into an ending a pawn up, which is enough to justify the continuation. You can think again after moves like 33...Qxe8 to see if you can find anything even better.
Aug-22-19  mel gibson: I didn't guess right.
Stockfish 10 says:

31. Rxg7

(31. Rxg7
(♖g3xg7 ♖e7xg7 ♘h5xf6 ♕d7-e7 ♘f6xe8 ♖g7-g8 ♕f2-f4 ♖g8xe8 f5-f6 ♕e7-e6 ♕f4-g5 ♖e8-g8 ♕g5xe5 ♕e6xe5 ♖e4xe5 ♖g8-f8 ♖e5-e6 h7-h5 ♖e6xc6 ♔h8-g8 ♔h1-g1 ♔g8-f7 ♖c6-c7+ ♔f7xf6 ♖c7xa7 ♖f8-e8 ♔g1-f2 ♖e8-f8 ♖a7-a4 ♔f6-e6+ ♔f2-g1 ♔e6-d7 g2-g3 ♔d7-d6 ♖a4-h4 ♖f8-e8 ♔g1-f2 ♖e8-h8 b3-b4 ♖h8-h6 b4-b5 ♖h6-f6+ ♔f2-e2 ♖f6-e6+ ♔e2-f3 ♖e6-h6 ♔f3-g2 ♖h6-e6 ♖h4-e4 ♖e6-h6 ♖e4-f4 ♔d6-d7 ♖f4-h4 ♖h6-e6 ♔g2-f2 ♖e6-f6+ ♔f2-e3 ♖f6-g6 ♖h4xh5 ♖g6xg3+ ♔e3-d2 ♖g3-g6) +4.36/45 165)

score for White +4.36 depth 45

Aug-22-19  saturn2: My choice was
31. Rxg7 Rxg7 32. Nxf6 Qd8 33. Nxe8 Qxe8 34. f6 Rf7 35. Qe3
Premium Chessgames Member
  patzer2: Black's decisive error appears to be 30...Kh8, allowing today's Thursday puzzle solution 31. Rxg7! +-.

Necessary instead is 30...Rf8 31. Kg1 ± (+1.00 @ 42 ply, Stockfish 10) when Black has practical drawing chances in a complicated position.

Earlier in the opening, I prefer 4...Na5 as in Black's win in Naiditsch vs Caruana, 2017.

Aug-22-19  cunctatorg: It's way harder than medium; not insane but hard!!
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: 31.? White to play (and win!)

This famous combination was played in a famous game from the famed tournament in Moscow, 1925.

White's famous opponent, Rubinstein, had famously been a world champion contender in the previous decade.

Playing the White pieces was the soon-to-be-famous Savielly Tartakower, who also co-authored a famous chess book with his not-so-famous co-author, DuMond, (or was it DuMont?):

<500 Master Games>

Aug-22-19  TheaN: Despite the common knowledge of this game itself, the puzzle is not terribly hard either.

This one solves itself by deduction: you want the knight on f6, only g7 defends f6, after Rxg7, Nxf6 and Qf4 White wins all the material back and pushes through. Simplified version, but it works.

Aug-22-19  NBZ: It's important to see that after 34. Qf4 Re7 35. f6 Re6 36. Rxe5! wins: 36. ... Rxe5 37. f7 Re1+ 38. Kh2 Qf8 39. Qf6+ Qg7 40. f8=Q#.

Not seeing this idea of 36. Rxe5, I went for the inferior line 34. f6, which wins back the knight but gives up the f6 pawn. White is still a lot better, but it is not anything as easily winning as the game.

Aug-22-19  JimNorCal: No doubt about it, Tartakover had real talent!

There must have been days when he was sorry to live during a time of giants: Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine.

Otherwise, he might have been World Champion.

Oh wait. I already said that this year.

Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <JimNorCal>

Itís a silly thing to say any time. Tartakower was a fine player and a great chess writer, but he was never a threat to be world champion at any point during his 50-year career, and I canít think of any time in chess history when he would have been a threat. See for yourself.

Aug-23-19  JimNorCal: <key>, your chart shows Savielly as #2 in the world in 1921 behind Rubinstein IF you remove Capa.

I'd consider that WC potential.

No way did ST ever outmatch Capa, Lasker or AA. But he could hold his own against the rest of the pack. He "coulda been a contender", as they say in the movies.

Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <9 JimNorCal: <key>, your chart shows Savielly as #2 in the world in 1921 behind Rubinstein IF you remove Capa.>

Yes, at a time when chessmetrics ratings were meaningless because of the shutdown in international chess caused by World War I. By that point Lasker and Alekhine were markedly stronger than Rubinstein and Bogoljubow was roughly as good. Any of them would have been heavy favorites against Tartakower, Maroczy or Vidmar would have been even money, and of course letís not even speak of Capablanca.

Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: I should have noted that Spielmann beat Tartakower in a match in 1921.
Aug-26-19  JimNorCal: <keypusher>:"I should have noted ..."

You should have noted that with Capa, Lasker and Alekhine on the scene, Tartakover had no realistic chance to be World Champ. If you imagine a chess world without those three, ST could conceivably have made it.

Aug-26-19  JimNorCal: Tartakover was competitive with Spielmann.

Classical games: Savielly Tartakower beat Rudolf Spielmann 18 to 14, with 29 draws

Ignoring draws, ST won their final decisive encounter. RS won the 3 previous games (1925 and 1926) while ST won the 3 before that (1923). The point being: Tartakover did not run up a plus score early which drained away after Spielmann hit his peak. No, they were competitive throughout.

Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <JimNorCal: Tartakover was competitive with Spielmann. >

You've now moved the goalposts so far that they're no longer in the stadium. And Tartakower is as far from being a threat to the world title as ever.

Aug-28-19  JimNorCal: "moved the goalposts"

Not at all, dear keypusher.
My contention: 1) with Lasker, Capa, AA in the mix it is unrealistic for GM Tartakover to dream of ever being World Champion. 2) without them, Tartakover was a valid contender.

You mentioned Spielmann as beating ST in a match. I responded that their overall record was competitive, indeed, ST held the edge.

You mentioned ChessMetrics showed ST never being at the top. I pointed out that ST was second highest at one point (if Capa is dropped).

With the Big Three to one side, Tartakover is clearly in the small group of likely WC contenders. How can this opinion possibly be considered silly?

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 5)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, is totally anonymous, and 100% free—plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
  3. No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any member Iincludinfgall Admin and Owners or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. If you think someone is an idiot, then provide evidence that their reasoning is invalid and/or idiotic, instead of just calling them an idiot. It's a subtle but important distinction, even in political discussions.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
  6. NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
  7. Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
  8. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
  9. The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
  10. All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
  11. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a Moderator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors. All Moderator actions taken are at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
31.? (Saturday, October 1)
from Puzzle of the Day 2011 by Phony Benoni
Combination - move 31 - attack on king
from Various games by paladin at large
31.? (Sunday, May 9)
from Puzzle of the Day 2004 by Phony Benoni
Clear-cut, well-played game w/subtle kingside attack
from To V or not to V?! by fredthebear
A very instructive game that shows the power of the passed pawn
from GreenDayGuy's favorite games by GreenDayGuy
Clear-cut, well-played game w/subtle kingside attack
from The t_t Players: Staunton, Steinitz & Zukertort by fredthebear
hecrmara's favorite games
by hecrmara
1st Class Masters
by PMKnight
31.? (May 9, 2004)
from Sunday Puzzles, 2004-2010 by Jaredfchess
I/61 - Demolishment
from My Best Games of Chess, 1905-1954 by Tartakower by Chessdreamer
Book of Five Rings' favorite games 3
by Book of Five Rings
31. Rxg7! solves a Saturday puzzle
from Combined Operations by trh6upsz
Vienna game
by ISeth
It is better to sacrifice to your oppenent men.
from Caturanga's favorite games by Caturanga

home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us

Copyright 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC