ir0nh0rse
♡ 49 ( +1 | -1 ) Pure entertainment...I just found this game, it's not the best but it is the most entertaining. This is Morphy vs. Count Isouard in Paris 1858. Morphy shows his brilliance, the power of sacrafice, and just plain exploits a weaker player, mating on 17. He sacrafices and trades almost all his pieces before a simple mate. This game is worth going over...
myway316
♡ 63 ( +1 | -1 ) Personal FavoriteLasker-Capablanca,St.Petersburg 1914. The ultimate "psyche-out job" in the annals of chess. Capa leading Lasker by a pt.,Lasker absolutely must win. Everyone expects Lasker to attack from the word go,but instead he plays the Exchange Variation of the Ruy,a notorious drawing line. Lasker sitting there like a rock,Capa,sweating bullets, wondering what kind of prepared line the old fox has conjured up. Capa soon went wrong,and was blown off the board. The next day,still in shock,he blundered a piece to Tarrasch on the 7th move,tho he played on to move 82 before resigning. Lasker ended up winning the tnt. by half a point.
myway316
♡ 63 ( +1 | -1 ) Personal FavoriteLasker-Capablanca,St.Petersburg 1914. The ultimate "psyche-out job" in the annals of chess. Capa leading Lasker by a pt.,Lasker absolutely must win. Everyone expects Lasker to attack from the word go,but instead he plays the Exchange Variation of the Ruy,a notorious drawing line. Lasker sitting there like a rock,Capa,sweating bullets, wondering what kind of prepared line the old fox has conjured up. Capa soon went wrong,and was blown off the board. The next day,still in shock,he blundered a piece to Tarrasch on the 7th move,tho he played on to move 82 before resigning. Lasker ended up winning the tnt. by half a point.
bluebabygirl
♡ 34 ( +1 | -1 ) best game or ?most exciting gameRubinstein vs. Lasker a queen's gambit declined ST.PETERSBURG 1909 A VERY BEAUTIFUL AND MOST DIFFICULT GAME PLAYED MASTERFULLY BY RUBINSTEIN IN EVERY PHASE. RUBINSTEIN DEFEATED THE GREAT LASKER IN THIS GAME. AND IT MUST HAVE BEEN A VERY GREAT SHOCK TO LASKER !!!! GETS MY VOTE . yours bluebabygirl
ughaibu
♡ 37 ( +1 | -1 ) Most exciting gameLasker-Schlechter 10th match game, Lasker had to win to save the match. Also Lasker-Napier 1904. Of Rubinstein games his white against Tarrasch and his black against Thomas, both from Hastings 1922 are exciting games. Best game is a different question, the famous Lilienthal-Ragozin game has a lot in it without being one-sided.
atrifix
♡ 11 ( +1 | -1 ) Lasker-SchlechterThere is reason to believe that Lasker only had to draw the last game to retain the title.
ughaibu
♡ 37 ( +1 | -1 ) Lasker-SchlechterIn the 1960s there was considerable correspondence in Chess about the match conditions. It was stated by a contemporaneous witness that there was no doubt that Lasker needed the win. I find it surprising that there are no contracts or similar that can settle the question. Nevertheless, from a perusal of the game it's not so difficult to understand how the legend could have come about.
atrifix
♡ 48 ( +1 | -1 ) By all means, please cite the correspondence. Schlechter played unusually hard to win in the last game, even more so considering that he was often content to draw. There is rumor of a secret contract--the only other "acceptable" explanation is that Schlechter was so much of a sportsman that he wanted to win the last game, but this seems laudable given his previous draws. Schlechter claimed after the game that he saw the easy draw with ...Qh4+, but avoided it.
ughaibu
♡ 112 ( +1 | -1 ) AtrifixI'm afraid I cant offer any details about which issues of Chess featured this correspondence, or even which year they were from, as I'm in Japan and the magazines, if still in my possesion, are in the UK. I remember that the match is dealt with in a book entitled Classical Chess Matches published by Dover. I think the reports in that book were taken from newspaper reports of the time but I dont remember what was said about the conditions regarding the score. I have read somewhere that this wasn't actually a world title match, which is another unsatisfactory addition to the mystery. Presumably when Schlechter rejected the draw he did so because he thought he was going to win so the choice of queen move doesn't strike me as strange, however the advance of the b-pawn in the opening is out of style. I believe that Tchigorin missed a mate in one in a decisive match game with Steinitz and have wondered if these cases dont illustrate a desire to lose. After all the burden of being world champion maybe too much for some people.
bluebabygirl
♡ 38 ( +1 | -1 ) TO ANYONE !!can anyone deny that CARL SCHLECTER came the closest to defeating the great LASKER in a match when LASKER was in his PRIME , meaning not old like when CAPA beat him????? and i state that LASKER in his prime in " MATCH PLAY" was virtually unbeatable !!!!!!!! I AWAIT ANY REPLIES ,,, all replies are much welcome even if they prove me wrong !!! yours bluebabygirl
ughaibu
♡ 81 ( +1 | -1 ) St Petersburg 1909Lasker and Rubinstein came equal first at St Petersburg 1909, in the case of a tie the winner was to be decided by a four game match. Lasker refused to take part in the play-off match with Rubinstein, it's quite understandable because had he lost it would have been very difficult for him to have refused Rubinstein a world championship match while retaining his credibility. As Lasker can be considered to an extent to have been a gambler the only conclusion I can reach is that he thought Rubinstein would probably win. In this sense it might be possible to say Rubinstein came as close to winning a match with Lasker as anyone, after all the rules of the tournament required such a match. Really Rubinstein should have been promoted to sole winner by Lasker's refusal.
bluebabygirl
♡ 66 ( +1 | -1 ) to ughaibuyes rubinstein would have won!! i stated that in my other thread ( rubinstein the greatest player to have never won world title ) and yes lasker knew he would, else why would he have avioded match with AKIBA as I stated in the other thread. but now Carl Schlecter did play a match for title and as i stated came closest to beating LASKER in match play while LASKER WAS IN HIS PRIME !!!! of course if SCHLECTER could come that close, then the great Rubinstein would easily have beat LASKER , GOING ON THE GIVEN KNOWLEDGE THAT Schlecter was certainly no match for RUBINSTEIN !! yours bluebabygirl
tonlesu
♡ 9 ( +1 | -1 ) ughaibuA four game playoff for the championship---very interesting, cite your sources.
ughaibu
♡ 25 ( +1 | -1 ) TonlesuI think you'll find the mention of a four game match in the tournament book but without any comment about why it didn't take place. I just tried a Google search, here's the first result: http:// web.inter.nl.net/hcc/rekius/stp1914.htm
tonlesu
♡ 42 ( +1 | -1 ) ughaibuJust looking at the tournament book. In the preface there are listed 15 rules and regulations. here is an excerpt of #7. ..."if there is a tie for first place, and the two competitors agreeing, they can decide first prize by a match of four games."
As you can see, this is somewhat different from your interpretation. As to why the match didn't take place there may have been legiimate reasons other than he was afraid of Rubinstein.
ughaibu
♡ 5 ( +1 | -1 ) TonlesuOkay, thanks for straightening me out on that detail.
baseline
♡ 187 ( +1 | -1 ) bluebabygirl"...but in the third round he came up against the stiffest test of all: Akiba Rubinstein, the most dangerous representative of the young generation. Here was an opponent with whom 'psychological warfare' would cut less ice than with anybody else, and there was indeed a great deal of ice to be cut; for one could aptly compare that modest young man to an iceberg: not only on account of his cool and quiet demeanour, but also because, however little of him appeared superficially, there was a great deal more below the surface, (and that applies to the man no less than to his style in chess). Hailing from the humble background of a Polish ghetto and educated in the stern sophistry of a Talmud school, Rubinstein was by tradition, circumstances and character an introvert devoting all his immense powers of reasoning to chess; he lived for chess, studied chess and thought of chess all his waking hours (and, as likely as not, in his dreams). His style was of the utmost lucidity and almost crystal clarity, his knowledge of opening theory stupendous, and his end-game technique unequalled by anybody except, perhaps, Lasker. This was the man Emanuel was up against in the third round, and young Rubinstein, fully conscious of the great occasion, played what was probably the greatest of the many great games he was yet to play. ... but , more significant is the fact that, just as he lost to Rubinstein on this their first encounter, so he had lost to Tarrasch as well as to Marshall in the first games ever played against them, whereas not one of those three great master ever managed to repeat his initial triumh; Lasker never lost another important tournament game to any of them." Dr. J.Hannak for Emanuel Lasker The Life of a Chess master. I might also point out that Lasker got his revenge by beating Rubinstein in a Rook and Pawn endgame in the very same room at St. Petersburg 1914.
bluebabygirl
♡ 113 ( +1 | -1 ) re- to baselinethanks very much for that info, both lasker and rubinstein are worshipped by me !!!!! but i identify with akiba most for reasons i can not explain and do not care to reveal .i have that book on LASKER , ok well my dad does , he has over 400 chess books and about a hundred different chess sets . so i been reading books on chess even before i could play . mostly asorbing the info on the players (especially about them personally) later after i started playing better(thanks to dad and my worshipping AKIBA) i started studying more on the actual games , now i have about 4 years study on both. you stated LASKER got his revenge by beating Akiba in a ROOK and PAWN endgame in the very same room at St.Petersburg 1914 . I JUST WENT OVER THAT PARAGRAPH AND I SAW NO REFERENCE TO TO THIS REVENGE GAME IN 1914 can you please give me your source , admittedly i am very busy and may have not looked hard enough , yours with much thanks , bluebabygirl . p.s. evrytime i discuss chess with you guys i learn a lot -- a very very big thanks to all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
baseline
♡ 82 ( +1 | -1 ) bluebabygirl"It was only in the fourth round that Lasker reached his best form by beating the great Rubinstein in a beautiful game and with consummate mastership, thereby takeing his revenge for the defeat he had suffered from the same crafty opponent five years earlier in that same Petersburg Club room." p.170 & 171 "Emanuel Lasker The Life of a Chess Master" by Dr.J.Hannak
Lasker,E - Rubinstein,A [C82] St Petersburg prel St Petersburg, 1914
I also suffer the burden of so many chess books and so little time!
allkarlos
♡ 64 ( +1 | -1 ) The Best Chess GameChess diamond. Always controversy"which is the most beautiful" Nimzowitsch,A - Tarrasch,S [D30] St Petersburg preliminary St Petersburg, 1914
allkarlos
♡ 32 ( +1 | -1 ) How is their opinion?Nimzowitsch,A - Tarrasch,S www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1102384 Capablanca,J - Bernstein,O www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1260576
lhunter
♡ 2064 ( +1 | -1 ) One of my favorites (with annotation!) The following was obtained from:
www.geocities.com/lifemasteraj/bogo-alek1.html
Enjoy!
Efim D. Bogoljubow (2700) - Alexander A. Alekhine (2735) [A90] Hastings, England (Rd. #11), 1922
1. d4 f5; ('!?') The Dutch Defense.
Alekhine had not previously used this [risky] defense very much in 'serious' games.
(Alekhine was trailing Rubinstein by half a point in this tournament, and needed to score a full point to try to catch up in the standings.)
[ The traditional way to meet the Queen's Pawn is: 1...d5; which is Classical theory. (Traditionally, [formerly] Pawns are [were] primarily used to control the center.);
The Hyper-modern way to meet the QP, is with the move: 1...Nf6; which keeps more of Black's options open. (And if he is so-minded, he can transpose back to a Queen's Gambit Declined.) {With 2.c4 e6; 3.Nc3 d5; etc. } (The move 3...Bb4; here leads to a Nimzo-Indian Defense. ) ]
2. c4 Nf6; 3. g3, Why the fianchetto now?
Rubinstein was first player to demonstrate that the best defense to the Dutch Defence for White was a fianchetto of the King-side Bishop.
Alekhine notes that it is best to play g3 before Nc3, as it was discovered that it is good for Black to play the pinning move, ...Bb4.
[3.Nc3!?]
3...e6; The Classical Dutch.
One of the main ideas for Black in the Dutch, as he captures space on that side of the board, is to later attack on the King-side. This is seen in many lines of the Dutch.
[ The move 3...g6!?; is known as, "The Leningrad Dutch."
Many modern Masters prefer this line. (This line is more in the hyper-modern vein.)
This line continues: 4.Bg2 Bg7; 5.Nf3 0-0; 6.0-0 d6; 7.Nc3 Qe8; etc. (7...c6!?;) 8.Re1 h6; 9.b3 Qf7; 10.Qd3 Nc6; 11.Ba3 Ne4; 12.Nb5 e6; 13.Rad1 Re8; 14.d5 Nd8; "=" (Maybe - "+/=") The end of the column. (Col. # 4, page # 483.) Farago - Mainka; Altensteig, 1994.
"Now 15. dxe6, instead of 15. Nd2, [as played in the game] would leave White with slightly better chances." - GM N. DeFirmian. [ See MCO-14; pg.'s 483-484, col's 01-06, (Mainly column # 04 here.), and notes (a.) through (u.). {Mainly note # (m.) here.} ]. ].
4. Bg2 Bb4+; (Maybe - '!?') Why does Black check here?
The line of 4...Be7+; is much preferred today.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong or unsound with the move, 4...Bb4+!?. It is just that 4...Be7; is probably more flexible and a little more dynamic.
The exchange of the Bishop MIGHT leave Black with minorly weakened dark-squares. But the main reason modern theory avoid this line today is that the exchange robs Black of many of his options and leaves him with a less dynamic and slightly sterile game. (But its a good line if a lower-rated player is looking for a draw.)
[ A sample line of a modern variation runs: 4...Be7; "The Ilyin-Zhenevsky Variation." 5.Nf3 0-0; 6.0-0 d6; 7.Nc3 Qe8; 8.b3, (Or 8.Re1!?) 8...a5; "~" etc. {Unclear.} MCO gives the line: 9.Bb2, "+/=" 9...Na6; (Or 9...Qh5!?) 10.a3 Bd7; 11.Ne1, (Or 11.Qd2!?); 11...c6; 12.Nd3 Bd8; "~" (Maybe - "+/=") "After 12...Bd8; the chances are roughly even, as Black has the possibility of advancing in the center." - GM N. DeFirmian. Farago - Lucaroni; Marostica, 1997.
5. Bd2 Bxd2+; Black prefers to exchange, than retreat and lose time.
GM A. Soltis writes: "In the 1920's White began to avoid Nc3 in the Dutch because of the effectiveness of the pinning move, ...Bb4. (See Game # 27.) Black's fourth move was a counter - finesse, trying to misplace White's QN after 6. Nxd2."
6. Nxd2!?, Natural looking, but probably incorrect!
White's Knights will have difficulty for the rest of the game.
"This move decentralizes the Knight, and blocks the queen-file." - Irving Chernev.
[ Better is: 6.Qxd2!, - Irving Chernev. (And GM A. Alekhine.) ].
6...Nc6; 7. Ngf3 0-0; 8. 0-0 d6; 9. Qb3 Kh8; Run and hide.
A nice piece of preventative medicine. White occupies the a2-g8 diagonal with his Q, so Black naturally hides his King in the corner.
10. Qc3!?, This looks rather artificial.
White makes seemingly logical-looking moves, but winds up (eventually) with a very incoherent position.
"Bogolyubov may have thought he was preventing 10...P-K4; (...e5) as he had three pieces trained on that square." - Irving Chernev.
[ Maybe White should play : 10.Rfc1, (Maybe - '!') when Black would play: 10...e5; "=" ].
10...e5!, A nice center break.
GM A. Soltis writes: "This equalizes play in the center. White cannot capture three times on e5 because his d2-Knight would hang."
'!' - GM A. Soltis. '!' - Irving Chernev. '!' - GM A. Alekhine.
[ 10...Ne4!?; ].
11. e3, (I don't know about this.)
This looks - and is - a little clumsy.
[ The line: 11.dxe5! dxe5; 12.Rfd1, (Not 12.Nxe5?? Nxe5; 13.Qxe5 Qxd2; "-/+") 12...Qe8; This looks best. And now 13.e3, produces a totally equal, but sterile position. "=" ].
11...a5!; Well-played.
"This restrains any counteraction on the Q-side by 12. P-QN4. (b4)" - Irving Chernev.
(Soltis does not give Black's 11th move an exclam. But I don't dare disagree with Chernev. Not here, anyway.)
'!' - Irving Chernev. '!' - GM A. Alekhine.
12. b3, (Maybe - '!?') Hmmm.
Supports c4, but maybe White ought to be thinking about playing the pawn advance, e3-e4.
[ 12.Rae1!?; Not 12.a3?! a4; and White cannot advance his pawns on the Q-side without breaking them up. ].
12...Qe8!?; (Maybe - '!') Nice ... and typical at the same time.
(It's normal for Alekhine to play brilliantly ... to find the best move, however well hidden. Also - Black normally plays aggressively on the K-side in the Dutch.)
Black positions his Queen to hit a4 and also move to the K-side, if necessary.
(Many annotators have given this move an exclam.).
'!' - Irving Chernev. '!' - GM Salo Flohr. '!' - GM Alexander Alekhine.
[ 12...Bd7!?; ].
13. a3 Qh5!; Here he comes!
Soltis writes: "Black intimidates his opponent with thoughts of 14...e4; and/or 14...Ng4."
"To build up threats on the other wing." - GM R. Fine.
"A very thematic move for this variation of the Dutch." - J. Scott Pfeiffer. (A good friend of my early playing days, and at one time, THE strongest player on the U.S. Gulf Coast. And a strong proponent of the Dutch.).
Soltis does not give this move an exclam, but several other annotators, such as GM R. Fine, do award this move an exclamation point.
'!' - Irving Chernev. '!' - GM A. Alekhine.
14. h4!?, Hmmm, again.
I am not sure if this weakening of White's Kingside is wise. (I also think that White was concerned with long-term threats to his KRP.)
"Threatening PxP." - GM R. Fine.
"A good defensive move... " says Alekhine.
[ Best is: 14.dxe5! Nxe5; ( Or 14...dxe5!?; 15.Nh4!?, "=" (Definitely NOT: 15.Nxe5? Nxe5 ; 16.Qxe5 Ng4!; "-/+" threatening mate on h2 ... and White's Queen on e5.) ) 15.Nd4!, "=" This position is equal, White has no real worries. E.g., 15...Neg4!?; (Maybe - '?!') 16.h3 Ne5; 17.Nb5!, "+/="
Maybe 14.Nh4!?, "~"
Not 14.b4? e4; 15.Ne1 axb4; 16.axb4 Rxa1; 17.Qxa1 Nxb4; "-/+" - GM A. Alekhine. ].
14...Ng4; (Maybe - '!') A sharp response by Black.
No less an authority than GM R. Fine wards this move an exclam. ('!' - Fine.)
Black makes an exploratory foray into White's King-side. (Having Alekhine beginning to mass pieces around your King would be enough to make anyone nervous!)
[14...e4!?].
15. Ng5!?, (White is preparing f3.)
GM Ruben Fine provides the following penetrating, and very telling, comment: "This is a game where it is all too easy to criticize White's play but difficult to suggest satisfactory alternatives."
"White seeks to dislodge Black's Knight's at once by 16. P-B3." - GM A. Alekhine.
[ 15.dxe5!? dxe5; 16.Rfd1 e4; "+/=" ].
15...Bd7; (Maybe - '!') Black continues his development.
Many players want to play the move ...e4; here, but Alekhine shows admirable restraint.
[15...e4!?].
16. f3!?, (Maybe - '?!') White boots the troublesome piece.
White weakens his King-side. This move will have grave consequences.
Many players have said White was obligated to this course of action, but I disagree.
[ Probably best for White was 16. Bxc6. ('!') 16.Bxc6 Bxc6; 17.f3 exd4; '!' - GM A. Alekhine. 18.fxg4!?, (Maybe - '?!') ( A better line seems to be: 18.exd4! Nf6; 19.Ne6 Qg6; "= " and according to the computer, this position is completely equal. (White can play Kh2, or g4!?, or even Rf2.) ) 18...dxc3; 19.gxh5 cxd2; "=/+" - line by GM Soltis. ("With the better endgame for Black." - GM A. Alekhine.) ].
16...Nf6; "=/+" 17. f4!?, (Maybe - '?!') White prevents Black from advancing his f-pawn.
After this move, White's King-side becomes VERY porous. (Yet many players felt this move was forced!).
"Played to prevent ...f5." - GM R. Fine. (Chernev made a similar comment to this, in his book, "The Golden Dozen.").
"Already compulsory, in view of the threatened 16...P-B5!" - GM A. Alekhine.
(The computer program, Fritz 6; after over 10 minutes of thought, also picks the move 17. f4.)
[ I think the best line for White is: 17.dxe5!, (trying to, or) transposing to the note above. The continuation: 17.d5!? Nd8; 18.Rae1 h6; "=/+" 19.Nh3 Qg6; "--->" leads to a very strong attack for Black. ].
17...e4; Black slams the door.
White's King Bishop is now shut out ... Black's advantage grows with every move.
18. Rfd1!?, Rooks belong in the center.
(Normally, anyway.)
Soltis writes: "White's most serious error in this game is failing to change the pawn structure for the benefit of his rooks and minor pieces, which he could do with 18. d5!" - GM A. Soltis. (Alekhine made a similar comment in his book of his games.)
Not withstanding what GM Soltis has said, Black still has a clear edge.
[ Probably the move, 18.d5!?, (Probably - '!') is the most accurate. ].
18...h6; 19. Nh3, "A Knight on the rim is grim."
Almost imperceptibly, White manages to always choose a 'second-best' continuation.
[ White must make the best of a bad situation and play: 19.d5!, - GM A. Alekhine. ].
19...d5!; Black grabs some center.
Soltis also gives this move an exclam.
'!' - GM R. Fine. '!' - Irving Chernev. '!' - GM A. Alekhine. '!' - GM A. Soltis.
Many players subsequently thought this move (19...d5) was a mistake, as Black makes his QB a very bad-looking piece indeed.
But the move is the correct one, as it bolsters Black's center and gains space.
20. Nf1 Ne7; Where is he going?
"Preparing 21...P-R5!" - GM A. Alekhine.
21. a4!?, More concessions.
Soltis writes: "To prevent 21...a4; White had to allow Black's Knight to reach b4."
[21.Nf2!?].
21...Nc6!; (Maybe - '!!') Black re-deploys.
Soltis also gives this move an exclam.
'!' - GM R. Fine. '!' - Irving Chernev. '!' - GM A. Alekhine. '!' - GM A. Soltis.
This move is very nice. Even today, I might be tempted to play ...c6; here. (The Knight is now headed for b4.).
Soltis writes: << Most of the praise for this game has been heaped on Black's combination at moves 28-31. But that misses Alekhine's achievement in the opening and early middlegame: despite having made his Queen's Bishop "Bad," he has reached a strategically won game - with Black in the much maligned Dutch Defense - against a world-class opponent.
"Very interesting in both a strategic and tactical way," Siegbert Tarrasch said of the game. >>
I concur with GM Soltis. Alekhine's method of getting a very advantageous position, against a player who for the period from 1922 until the end of the decade - was probably # 2 or # 3 in the world; was an impressive accomplishment. Additionally, Alekhine was Black, and he has done all this in less than 25 moves!
As another player once commented: << Alekhine's combinations are not that hard to find; if I had the positions he gets, I would find the combinations as easily as he does. The real trick to his games is: "How does he get the positions he manages to wind up with?" >> (I believe it was Bogolyubov that said this!)
22. Rd2, Prevention?
I am not at all sure what White is doing here, unless he wanted to cover the e2-square against an invasion by the Black Queen.
[ 22.Nf2!? ].
22...Nb4!?; (Maybe - '!') Nice.
The most precise.
Several annotators have praised this move. (And even awarded it an exclam.)
Soltis does not award this move an exclamation point.
I do not think it really deserves an exclam. The Knight just occupied a somewhat obvious square.
[ 22...Qg6!?; or 22...Ra6; ].
23. Bh1, Poor Bogo.
"Bogolyubov is going through the exertions of a contortionist to get some counterplay; but it is in vain." - GM R. Fine.
[23.Nf2].
23...Qe8!; (Maybe - '!!') Richochet.
Just when it looks like Black has something cooking, he drops the ball and runs home. (And starts the war on a new front.)
Soltis also gives this move an exclam.
"Virtuosity in attack." - Irving Chernev.
'!' - GM R. Fine. '!' - GM V. Smyslov. '!' - Irving Chernev. '!' - GM A. Alekhine.
Soltis writes: "Black transfers the attack to a4 and c4. White now begins contortions that appear aimed at engineering the advance g3-g4."
24. Rg2, Hmmm.
Preparing g4.
[ 24. c5!? ].
24...dxc4; "/+" (Black is much better.)
Very nice.
Black opens up the game and changes the pawn structure favorably. He is also preparing an invasion - via the Q-side squares.
[24...c6!?].
For the next few moves, both sides are trying to implement their plans. White tries to get some play for his pieces by getting ready to advance g4, while Black methodically continues on the Queen-side. 25. bxc4 Bxa4; 26. Nf2 Bd7; Strategic retreat.
"Alekhine is a pawn ahead. For other Masters, there would still be a note on 'technical difficulties,' but he is in his element." - GM R. Fine.
27. Nd2 b5!; An explosion.
Black continues his Q-side play. (And blows open a few key lines.)
"Opening lines on the Q-side and trying to clear the d5-square for his N's." - GM V. Smyslov.
Soltis also awards this move an exclam.
'!' - GM R. Fine. '!' - Irving Chernev. '!' - GM A. Alekhine. '!' - GM A. Soltis.
[ I checked this game against some of the best computer programs in 1998. ... None played ...b5. (!) Most machines wanted to play: 27...Qh5!?; or 27...Qg6; or 27...b6. ].
28. Nd1, Those poor Knights!
White is struggling mightily in this game. One of his biggest problems is a lack of quality maneuvering space - and useable squares - for his Knights.
[28.Nf1].
FM Graham Burgess notes that: ... "Alekhine has established a commanding position." ('!') (To say the least!) 28...Nd3!; Outpost ... and indirectly menacing the White King.
Soltis does NOT give this move an exclam, but (former) World Champion, Garry Kasparov does.
"Alekhine of course doesn't allow any activity on the part of his opponent. Now White can restore the material balance, but his forces are doomed to die inside their own camp." - GM Garry Kasparov.
"This begins a winning combination." - GM A. Soltis.
"Preparing for the ensuing combination." - GM A. Alekhine.
'!' - GM R. Fine. '!' - GM A. Alekhine. '!' - GM G. Kasparov
[ The primitive: 28...bxc4!?; allows counterplay after ... 29. Nxc4, says Kasparov. Or Black could try: 28...Qg6!? The computer wants to play: 28...Qh5!?; 29.Nb3 bxc4; "-/+" ].
29. Rxa5!?, (Maybe - '?!') Is this forced?
(Several annotators have said that 29. Rxa5, is now forced.) But I am not sure if this move is the best. [ The computer prefers 29. cxb5[], as forced. ]
As far as I know, no other annotator questioned this move. (!)
[ 29.cxb5!?, (This looks forced.) 29...Bxb5; 30.Rxa5 Nd5!?; ......... " gives Black an overwhelming attack." - GM Soltis. (30...Qh5!? "-/+") Or 31.Rxa8 Qxa8; 32.Qb3 Ba4; "/+" etc. (Maybe - "-/+") ].
29...b4!; Very nice, sharp and accurately calculated.
Soltis gives this an exclam, as does GM Ruben Fine.
Soltis writes: "This is based in part on White's inability to safely play 30. Qa1, Rxa5; 31. Qxa5, Qa8!; since Black's Rook would invade powerfully in the ensuing endgame."
'!' - FM G. Burgess. '!' - Irving Chernev. '!' - GM A. Alekhine.
[ Many players I have shown this game to want to pick the move: 29...bxc4?!; here ... which is VASTLY inferior to the pretty little move that Alekhine picked at this point in the game.
A great many players may have chosen the move: 29...Rxa5!?; 30.Qxa5 Qa8; "-/+" and Black is clearly better. ].
30. Rxa8, Not much choice here.
White's course of action is pretty much forced. (He eats as much material as he can.)
[ Too simple is: 30.Qa1?! Rxa5; 31.Qxa5 Qa8; "/+" (Maybe ... "-/+") and Black should win without any problem. ].
The average player would NOT find the next move. 30...bxc3!!; A pretty move that even the computers don't find.
GM Soltis did NOT award this move any mark at all.
"The Alekhine touch. This and the following moves, he must of course foresaw some moves back." - GM R. Fine.
"It is not often that one distinguishes the capture of a Queen by awarding it an exclamation mark, but in this case Black sacrifices his Queen and both Rooks in Return." - Irving Chernev.
This move, (30...bxc3;) is so brilliant that many of the best computer programs, even in the year 2001, do NOT immediately find this move. (Fritz 6, after nearly ten minutes of computing time, does not give this move in its top 2 choices.)
[ "Jetzt hätte 30...Qxa8; - GM G. Kasparov. 31.Qb3, (Or 31.Qc2 Ne1; "-/+") 31...Qa1; 32.Qb1 Ra8; "-/+" would have forced White's resignation in a few moves. But Alekhine was not satisfied with this prosaic demolition - he was after something immortal!" - GM Garry Kasparov. ].
31. Rxe8 c2!!; (Maybe - '!!!') Super Brilliant. Ultra - Brilliant. (A move that nearly transcends the written words' ability to describe them!)
'!!!' - GM Ruben Fine. (A TRIPLE exclam was awarded here by Fine.)
'!!' - GM A. Soltis. '!!' - GM Vassily Smyslov. '!!' - GM Salo Flohr. '!!' - GM Irving Chernev. '!!' - GM A. Alekhine. (To the best of my knowledge, nearly 2 dozen other annotators have given this move a double exclam.).
"The point of Alekhine's wondrous combination. The pawn cannot be prevented from queening, and a new phase begins." - The (late) [great] Irving Chernev.
GM A. Soltis writes: << "The triumph of the soul over material, " Vassily Smyslov said of this game. This move is the final sparkle to the combination that Alekhine calculated with 28...Nd3. He will temporarily be TWO (!) rooks down but the c-pawn must promote. >>
"The point. Black must queen." - GM R. Fine.
[ 31...Rxe8?; 32.Nxc3, "=" ].
32. Rxf8+ Kh7; 33. Nf2 c1Q+; 34. Nf1 Ne1!; Cute.
Soltis also awards this move an exclam.
'!' - Irving Chernev. '!' - GM R. Fine. '!' - GM A. Alekhine. '!' - GM A. Soltis.
"Threatens a picturesque smothered mate." - Irving Chernev.
"White's Rooks are helpless." - GM A. Soltis.
"Theoretically the material is still even: White has two Rooks and a pawn for the Queen, but Black's attack is decisive." - GM R. Fine.
35. Rh2 Qxc4; 36. Rb8, (Forced.) Deeee - fence.
Soltis writes: "White must find a way to give up the exchange before Black crushes through with 36...Bb5; and 37...Qxf1+."
[ Not 36.Rd8?? Bb5; 37.Bg2 Nxg2; "-/+" and resignation is in order. ]
36...Bb5; 37. Rxb5, Forced.
"Alekhine has played this game with great foresight." - GM R. Fine.
[ If 37.Nd2 Qc1; 38.Rxb5 Nf3+; 39.Kg2 Qg1+; 40.Kh3 Qxh2# - line by GM R. Fine. ].
37...Qxb5; 38. g4; Poor White.
"Desperation." - GM R. Fine.
[ 38.Nd2 Nd5; 39.Nd1 Qd3; "-/+" ].
38...Nf3+!; Nice.
This leaves a Black Pawn on f3 that could become a target, but Alekhine is unafraid. (Plus Alekhine will have to sacrifice more pawns.)
Soltis does not award this move an exclam, but Chernev does.
"Another surprise move, and there is more where that came from." - Irving Chernev.
Soltis gives no comment here, but also awards this move an exclam.
The idea behind 40...Qe2; is to restrain all of White's pieces and keep them bottled up.
"Ties White up completely." - Irving Chernev.
'!' - GM A. Soltis '!' - GM R. Fine. '!!' - Irving Chernev. '!!' - GM A. Alekhine.
[ Fritz 5.32 wanted to play the move: 40...c5; "=/+" with a small, but fairly secure advantage to Black. Or 40...h5!?, "/+" ].
41. d5, Give-away?
Soltis writes: "Or 41. Nh3, Ne4!; and wins. Note how Black does not try to use his Queen to break into White's position but instead runs his opponent out of pawn moves."
[ 41.h5, Now Junior 6.0: 41...c6; Black is winning. Now 42.e4 Nxe4; "-/+" - 2.47/16 ].
41...Kg8!; (Zugzwang.) Soltis provides no comment here, but does award this move an exclam.
"Care is needed when you have a won game." - Irving Chernev.
'!' - Irving Chernev. '!' - GM A. Alekhine.
[ Not 41...h5!?; when White nearly escapes with: 42.Nh3 Ng4; 43.Ng5+ Kg8; 44.Rxe2 fxe2; 45.Nf3!, "~" - Irving Chernev. ]
42. h5 Kh7; 43. e4, Too late!
Soltis writes: "If the Rook goes to h3 or h4, then 43...Ne4; 44. Rh2, Nd2; decides."
52...Ke6; 53. Ke4 d5+; White Resigns. 0 - 1. (53 actual moves.)
(Black has a fairly simple K+P endgame win.)
[ "Bogolyubov does not care to see the continuation: 53...d5+; 54.Kd4 Kf5; 55.Kxd5 Kxf4; 56.Kd4 f5; 57.Kd3 Kg3; and Alekhine will soon have a fourth Queen on the board." (The witty) - Irving Chernev. ]