Oct-12-16
 | | HeMateMe: nice trick to remember, how white temporarily gave up the sac exchange here. |
|
Oct-13-16
 | | Sally Simpson: Hi HeMateMe,
The same idea is buried in:
Chekhover vs Alatortsev, 1934 White has just played 16.Nd2-c4.
click for larger viewIf 16...Qxc4 17.Qxc4 Bxc4 18.axb6
click for larger viewThe threat is 19.b7
18...Ba6 19.Rxa6 Nxa6 20.b7
click for larger view"....leaving a won endgame for White" according the Chernev in 'The Russians Play Chess' (Game 10 - a good book). But it's not a clear win, 20...Rab8. Infact with best play it's probably drawn. I was looking at the ending back in September when Bengalcat added a post to the linked game. By chance I had picked up a recent copy of the book for a £2.00. Very tough ending to win...if at all. Phoney Benoni seems to agree. |
|
Oct-14-16
| | HeMateMe: yes sally S, same idea. Are you sure your chernev book thinks that white wins that position? It seems equal. black will let the Rook on c8 be taken, and the pawn on c6 is then guarded. |
|
Oct-15-16
| | Sally Simpson: Hi HeMateMe,
click for larger viewYes Chernov does state here "....leaving a won endgame for White." A bit of a lazy note, At first glance White is going to play 22.Bd2 then Ra1 and Rxa7. The c-pawn will fall with later pressure, the b-pawn promotes. It is an attractive looking line and I wanted to see the conclusion. I played 22.Bd2 e5 (active move) and could not find a clear win. (infact no win.)
Messed around with other tries but at that stage began to suspect the note was a boo-boo. Things like that happened a few times in pre computer days. It was part of the fun (and dare I say learning process), you scoured these notes looking for errors. This one would not quite warrant a letter to CHESS or BCM. Those were reserved for missed mates, the losing of a piece or a subtle end-game trick. These days of course I rarely (never) go through analysis, what's the point, a computer will have cleaned it up so you believe the note without checking it. This has in a way deprived one's enjoyment of a modern book and to a certain extent lowered the bar on the writing skill required by an author. |
|
Oct-15-16
 | | perfidious: At first glance, I like White in the above ending--and perhaps I am wrong in my assessment--but Chernev's statement was careless, to put it mildly, as by no means is the resultant position from that hypothetical line anything like a clear win. |
|
Oct-15-16
| | Sally Simpson: Hi Perfidious,
I think Chernev got it right as to why Alatortsev rejected the Knight sac on c4 and to a certain extent he is giving us both players thoughts. White obviously thought it gave him excellent endgame chances and Black agreed. As Phoney Benoni states over in Chekhover vs Alatortsev, 1934 (why are we having this discusiion here and not there?)
Chekhover was a noted endgame study composer perhaps Alatortsev's pre game plan was to avoid going into an ending with this player. He succeeded, he was middle game mated on move 37. |
|
| Oct-18-16 | | Howard: Chernev may have been an entertaining writer, but he could also be superficial at times. For just one indication of this, look at his notes to Game 1 of Logical Chess: Move by Move. At least two blatant analytical errors have been found. |
|
Oct-18-16
| | Sally Simpson: Hi Howard,
The first game.
Von Scheve vs Teichmann, 1907 The kibitizers (and their computers) have had a field day. The lesson is do not believe everything you read in the books. You must check it out yourself. I wonder how many times it has been copied.
Chernev never had a computer in 1957 when the book came. But in 2009....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR5...
The lad looks at 16 Bxf7+ which fails but not the 18.Bxf7+ variation at the end which holds the game. |
|
| Oct-18-16 | | Howard: Another example is the famous game Capablanca-Tartakower, 1924 which is the FIRST game in Chernev's Most Instructive GOCEP. In that one, Chernev (who practically worshipped Capa, by the way) makes the rook ending look like absolute smooth sailing for the Cuban... ..but he neglects to point out that Tartakower definitely could have put up much stiffer resistance. Granted, he probably would have lost anyway, but he made things much easier for Capablanca than necessary. |
|
Oct-18-16
| | Sally Simpson: Hi Howard,
One thing you learn from Chernev is never write yourself into a hole you cannot get out of. If you happen upon a variation that may cloud the play and per chance ruin the readers enjoyment of the game. Leave it out. In the pre-computer days the war cry regarding analysis was 'If it's long, it's wrong' they will be a lemon in there. These day with computer checked lines. If it's long then it won't see the light of day. I enjoyed 'The Most Instructive' still do. Played out a game not so long ago. Chernev enjoyed writing about the game, that clearly shows and he was OK as a writer, usually he hit the nail. I'll take that 'warts and all'. I got a lot from that book. I know I did. Yes there may be a few iffy lines but that's OK. If the player(s) missed it and the author(s) and readers missed it then a good lesson all round. |
|
| Oct-20-16 | | Howard: I still have my copy of MIGOCEP. Played through the whole book--cover to cover--back in the spring of 1978, and then I repeated the process in 1987-88. One glaring weakness of that book, however, is that Chernev was not very good at all about pointing out the loser's errors. In other words, in a lot of the games, you'd be left scratching your head asking the question, "But where did the loser go wrong ?!" |
|
Oct-20-16
| | Sally Simpson: Hi Howard,
I got mine in 1972. For a couple of years due to my locale it was one of the few books I had and did it from cover to cover and back again. Favourite game was (and probably still is):
M Kupferstich vs H Andreasen, 1953 You can tell Chernev enjoyed noting that one up. You can now add your favourite game!
You are right about Chernev loving Capa, he gets six games starting of with game 1 (and a picture) all wins. (Fischer gets two games and one was a loss). He also had a liking for Tarrasch who gets 5 games (there is a 6th but in that he was part of a consultation team.) four wins and a loss. But his other great favourite was Petrosian (5 games all wins). Alekhine of course gets just one game. (his famous King walk v Yates to nick a Rook. London 1922). I don't think Chernev liked Alekhine too much. Probably never forgave him for stealing Capa's crown in 1927. I have a note added to game 1...
Capablanca vs Tartakower, 1924 ...which I must have done round about 1972. My books are full of wee scribbles and notes. Chernev is showing how the game would end and here. 
click for larger viewHe says 54.Kb7 Rd4 55.Kc8 and the pawn becomes a Queen. I've scribbled "not 54.Kb7 but 54.Kb5 or 57.Kd5 is prettier." After pondering over this for 44 years I think I agree from the 1972 me. I did a moving GIF of a copy of the cover of my book a while back. http://www.redhotpawn.com/chess-blo... I could not copy it from my book, it's cover is dog eared, stained, creased, faded and battered. A bit like me. We are old friends. |
|
| Oct-21-16 | | Howard: No offense, but that windmill game that you cited was probably one of my LEAST-favorite games in that book. No particular reason---just didn't suit my fancy. Botvinnik, by the way, got four games in that book, if I remember right. Chernev was quoted in a 1979 CL&R article as saying that the games in that book, as well as LCMBM, were "positional in nature". He wanted to stress that when a player had built up a sizable positional advantage, "the combinations would come of themselves." That probably explains why Capablanca, Botvinnik, Petrosian, and Tarrasch all got plenty of coverage in that book, while Alekhine and Tal only got one game apiece--and the Tal game was an endgame win, rather than a swashbuckling Tal-type game. |
|
Oct-21-16
| | Sally Simpson: Hi Howard,
Correct 4 Botvinnik games.
You also have to remember I was barley out of chess nappies when I went through that book and Game 19 grabbed me. I could hear the music. It was one of them moments.
The fog had lifted. I was going to play chess like game 19 (or lose trying). Now of course I can see all sides of a players point of view and I agree it's not up there amongst the great games. But for mild relief and for sheer entertainment it ticks the all boxes, what more can you ask for a game and I'm grateful for it being included and noted up by Chernev. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
sac: 29.axb5