|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jan-11-13
 | | Phony Benoni: <hscer> There are many collections of games assembled by kibitzers with multiple promotions or underpromotions. These two won't tell you which have been GOTDs, but you'll have some examples to look at: Game Collection: polygamy or what's an extra Q among friends? Game Collection: Hey, Martha! Where's the Other Chess Set? As for underpromotions, here are some collections for you to look at: Game Collection Search |
|
| Jan-11-13 | | hscer: <Phony Benoni> thanks |
|
| May-16-14 | | Capacorn: <LIFE Master AJ: This is from GM Andrew Soltis's very fine book, "The 100 Best." (Page 12)
After MANY pages of discussion of the various methods that he used to evaluate the games for his book, he gives us the following paragraph: "One further criteria should be obvious: A game has to be real. Adams-Torre, New Orleans, 1920; with its multiple queen sacrifices and last-rank mating tactics, is one of the classics of chess literature. But it is almost certainly a fake." Whoa! Let me stop you there, sir. Where's the documentation? (I have never seen it. And I cover this topic - in some depth - on my web page for Adams-Torre.) He concludes his paragraph by writing:
"Alexander Alekhine's infamous five-queens game with Nikolai Grigoriev was debunked long ago..."> The Alekhine game certainly seems composed, but, for what it's worth, I agree that Adams-Torre is certainly plausible enough that one would require strong evidence to assert that it's fake. There are plenty of real games one would have doubts about if it weren't for documentation. Would they cease to be real if there were no official record? |
|
| May-16-14 | | Petrosianic: In the case of Grigoriev-Alekhine, I believe they found the smoking gun, in the form of a 1913 game, in which Alekhine was <White>, and he gave the Grigoriev game in his margin notes as a "fantastic line" that might have been played. |
|
| May-16-14 | | Capacorn: <Petrosianic: In the case of Grigoriev-Alekhine, I believe they found the smoking gun, in the form of a 1913 game, in which Alekhine was <White>, and he gave the Grigoriev game in his margin notes as a "fantastic line" that might have been played.> O, the flights of fancy that magnificent chess mind must have enjoyed.... |
|
| Jan-30-15 | | welhelm1982: If i steel remember i had read this game about 10 years ago in old book and nn was reshevsky or janovsky |
|
| Jan-30-15 | | Albion 1959: Is this not the infamous game in which this was not a real game, but one where Alekhine composed the moves beforehand ? and beside who is the mysterious NN anyway ? |
|
| Jan-31-15 | | aliejin: For me it is much harder to believe
a game between Alekhine and Capablanca in championship
world ended checkmate with 4 queens on the board ....
and yet, it happened! (Ok, Capalanca left a few plays before
unavoidable mate) |
|
| Jun-10-15 | | Howard: But did Alekhine have a forced win at any point in this "game" ? |
|
| Jun-11-15 | | Howard: Still wondering..... |
|
| Jun-11-15 | | Howard: Just looked up a file of Alekhine's games, featuring corrections. Apparently if Alekhine had simply queened his pawn on the 20th move, he would have won. Comments ? |
|
| Oct-10-15 | | Helios727: If black played 24... Bg4+ (threatening Rxg8) would white still have a quick win or would he have to trade down and do the slow grind? |
|
| Dec-03-15 | | MariusDaniel: Alexander Alekhine played a beautiful game of chess.Great skills!! |
|
| Dec-20-15 | | thegoodanarchist: AA was tough enough with one queen. Allowing him two more was just suicide. |
|
| Jul-05-16 | | Johnnysaysthankyou: I believe by all accounts that I would have no trouble finding Rh6. Such a move is more fitting of Tal than Alekhine. |
|
| Jul-05-16 | | AlicesKnight: I have not read all the posts on this strange game, but I just wondered (IF it were genuine): In his "Best games 1908-23" Alekhine notes "... a game played by the author..." and continues with the 5Q game in the annotations. Could it be that he left the above note unclear because he (Alekhine) had been BLACK in the game? Odd of course if so - his only loss in his 2 volumes.... |
|
| Oct-28-16 | | The Kings Domain: Fun and unique game. |
|
| Dec-04-16 | | thegoodanarchist: 24.Rh6! leaves the king's bishop en pris.
But who needs a bishop when you have three queens! Three! |
|
| Aug-26-17 | | The Kings Domain: What a game. Truly one of a kind. |
|
| Aug-26-17 | | WorstPlayerEver: <just a kid: 15...Bf8! is better than 15...Qxa2>
I went through the game and stopped at 15. Ke2
Noticed in a few secs that 15... Qa6 16. Kd2 Qa5 17. Ke2 leads to repetition. To my surprise SF suggested 15... Bf8
A positional move 16. gf8 Bf8 and Black seems to have a good game. However, after 17. h7 Qc3 18. Kd1 Nc6 it leads to a comparable repetition 10 moves later: 19. Bb5 Qf6 20. Nf3 Rh8 21. Qg8 Ke7 22. Qg3 Qc3 23. Bc6 bc6 24. Qc7 Bd7 25. Ne5 Qd4 26. Ke2 Qe4 27. Kd2 Qd4 28. Ke2 Qe4 |
|
| Aug-26-17 | | waustad: The 5 queens reminds me of the Eva Moser game https://www.365chess.com/game.php?g... |
|
| Jan-23-20 | | Howard: Back around October, 1976 (approx), Krabbe ran an article in CL&R about the
powers of "mass suggestion" in chess. This game was the first example given in the article. He points out that 24.Rh6 !! was raved about so much, that for decades no one questioned the move very much. But sometime decades later, someone discovered that that move did NOT win after all. The question is, did Alekhine have a forced win anyway ? Lemme check at home for that issue---I have it somewhere. |
|
Jan-23-20
 | | perfidious: Nowadays, the veriest novice would simply run Stockfish and post the refutation of Alekhine's conception out of hand. |
|
Jan-23-20
 | | beatgiant: <Howard>
<22. Bd3> seems like an improvement, but we'd definitely need to run a deep computer analysis to see whether it wins. |
|
| May-03-21 | | SymphonicKnight: Amazing game with multiple queens. Alekhine threw away his opening advantage with 11.gxh4?! (11.dxc5!).
Then 15...Qxa2?? (15...Bf8 equal) handed the game to white, but Alekhine played 20.Qgxe6+? instead of (20.g8=Q!? or 20.Qff4!) which lost his overwhelming advantage, and then 22.Qee3+? instead of (22.Qxe7!) threw away most of the rest of his advantage. Of these moves, Kasparov only questions 15...Qxa2?, but does not recognize Alekhine's mistakes. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 12.h5