Dec-19-07
 | | chancho: Rampaging Knights. |
|
| Jun-21-09 | | pom nasayao: White's last move attacks the Black queen and bishop at the same time. Black will be a piece down. |
|
| Jul-02-13 | | whiteshark: "One of the effective tactical ploys is a manoeuvre. It is often fairly concise, consisting of two or three moves. But manoeuvres that are several moves long, outwardly striking and memorable, are not infrequent either. The following example is characteristic: Position after <19...e4> 
click for larger view <20. Ng5!> There might seem to be more point in immediately directing the knight to d4 (where it will be very actively placed) but Alekhine is in no hurry to do so. He will only occupy d4 after a few more moves. His knight is travelling along the route f3-g5-h3-f4-e2-d4. The idea of this remarkable manoeuvre is that by means of a combinative attack against e4, White first wants to induce a weakening of Black's pawn position and thus gain control of the f5-square. <20... h6> 20...Ne5 is strongly answered by 21.Bb3! Bf5 22.Ba4! Kf8 23.Bc2!. <21.Nh3 Qe5 22.Rc1 Ng4 23.Nf4!> The knight continues on its way. <23...g5 24.h3 Ngf6 25.Ne2 Nxd5 26.Bxd5 Qxd5> 
click for larger view <27.Nd4!> The manoeuvre is completed. The possibility of invading the kingside with the knight via f5 decides the outcome of the game. ... White soon won." -- Alexey Suetin, Soviet Chess Strategy |
|
| Mar-24-17 | | Saniyat24: Wow what a dominating performance by Alekhine...his Knight moves were just deadly...!! |
|
Feb-12-19
 | | Phony Benoni: Just imagine how good this Alekhine guy could have been if he had ever got his queen off the first rank. |
|
Oct-03-24
 | | kingscrusher: <whiteshark> The use of ! marks pre-engine era seems pretty funny now and a little optimistic to say the least. We can see now that Nd4! was in fact the strongest move. 811: Alexander Alekhine - Siegbert Tarrasch 1-0 9.0, Mannheim Mannheim GER 1914
click for larger viewAnalysis by Stockfish 17:
1. ± (0.74): 20.Nd4 Ne5 21.Bb3 Bd7 22.c4 Nd3 23.Qh4 Ng4 24.Qxe7+ Kxe7 25.Nxe4 f5 2. ⩱ (-0.32): 20.Ng5 h6 21.Nh3 Ne5 22.Be2 Bxh3 23.gxh3 Nxd5 24.Nxe4 0-0-0 25.Qd2 Nc7 White is better (Gavriel, 03.10.2024)
In the notes for 20.Ng5 h6 21.Nh3 Ne5 a mention was made of Bb3 being strong (!) but in fact: 811: Alexander Alekhine - Siegbert Tarrasch 1-0 9.0, Mannheim Mannheim GER 1914
click for larger viewAnalysis by Stockfish 17:
1. ∓ (-1.28): 22...Bxh3 23.gxh3 Nfd7 24.Qg3
It is funny to see the Gms with their huge authority get variations not just wrong but so arrogantly wrong at the time with the excessive use of exclamation marks. 99.99% of the public wouldn't dare challenge their analysis, so i guess all the exclamation marks given did not go punished or questioned most of the time. For me, I am still concerned if future engines might change analysis significantly so I would rather note cautiously things like "Seems to be strongest here" if there is a seemingly strongest move. All that been said, the general principle of tickly provocation with knight moves to get black to play g5 is still positionally instructive :) |
|
Oct-03-24
 | | perfidious: <....It is funny to see the Gms with their huge authority get variations not just wrong but so arrogantly wrong at the time with the excessive use of exclamation marks....> It is no less amusing and nettlesome by turns to observe posters (and there are a few) who simply switch on their engines and spend their time slagging players' decisions while playing 'Gotcha!'--as if they could hold a candle to elite players, alive or dead. |
|
Oct-04-24
| | kingscrusher: <perfidious:> Sorry I hope I am not one of those. Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully. I just wanted to point out though that in the past, analysis wasn't able to be questioned so easily as now. So maybe exclamation marks were more freely given out. Also many years back I remember GM Summerscale finding tactical holes in an opening book showing some to me - a lot of books generally had faulty variations in the pre-engine era. I do love Alekhine games and the provocation idea was instructive as mentioned. |
|
Oct-04-24
| | perfidious: <kingscrusher>, certainly not. In my youth, I well remember having such works as <Botvinnik the Invincible> and <100 Instructive Games of Alekhine>, both by Reinfeld, and both loaded with single, double and even triple exclams and question marks. Before the time of readily available software, for one to commit errors whilst writing a manuscript could be forgiven in even a grandmaster; there is now no such excuse for failing to review one's work. One respect in which silicon assistance has proven useful is that what Nunn once wrote of as 'annotation by result' has now gone. |
|
Oct-05-24
 | | Teyss: Queen, Rooks and Bishops? Who needs them? Just use your Knights! Fun game and pun referencing 'A Nightmare on Elm Street', this masterpiece of the seventh art. Incidentally there is a Ulmenweg in Mannheim but the tournament was played in Mannheim Palace situated a few km off. It was interrupted by what would become the nightmare on Europe. |
|
Oct-05-24
 | | offramp: A very good pun. There is indeed an Elm Street in Mannheim, or an Ulmenweg. |
|
Oct-27-24
| | kingscrusher: <perfidious> Sorry my own guilt was creeping in. Thank for all your insights. I shouldn't be calling GMs arrogant - they deserve to be :) Such a tiny percentage of the population become GMs. I wish i could edit my post sometimes. Even if the variations were incorrect, they are still often instructive providing insights. It seems all too easy to be an engine critic, and I think I am overly critical in general in the search of "accuracy" but accuracy has two kinds - human and engine. The human kind of accuracy leans towards making the positions easier to play I feel, whilst engine accuracy may involve having to play 100 super accurate moves in a row and not think that is an issue :) |
|
Oct-27-24
 | | Sally Simpson: Hi King Crusher,
You appear to have run Stockfish over the wrong position when looking at Suetin's analysis (who is rephrasing what Alekhine wrote about this game in his 1908-1923 volume) You are looking at Black playing 21...Ne5 here.
click for larger viewAlekhine writes if so he intended 22.Nf5.
The Bb3 note appears here before Black plays 20...h6. 
click for larger viewInstead of 20...h6 if Black plays 20....Ne4 then both Suetin and Alekhine give 21.Bb3 the nod. Stockfish has analysed 22.Bb3 one move later when the option of 22...Bxh3, a move Tarrasch would have played instantly and a move Alekhine would never have allowed, was not considered. |
|
Oct-28-24
| | kingscrusher: <Sally Simpson> Yes it is likely I have confused the analysis at some points. I think though the main point about 20.Ng5 not being the most accurate still stands. Nd4 seems better than Ng5 as in the game. 1. ± (0.74): 20.Nd4 Ne5 21.Bb3 Bd7 22.c4 Nd3 23.Qh4 Ng4 24.Qxe7+ Kxe7 25.Nxe4 f5 2. ⩱ (-0.32): 20.Ng5 h6 21.Nh3 Ne5 22.Be2 Bxh3 23.gxh3 Nxd5 24.Nxe4 0-0-0 25.Qd2 Nc7 ===================
White is better (with 20.Nd4)
But 20.Ng5 is instructive for weakness provocation in the game continuation. |
|
Oct-28-24
 | | beatgiant: <kingscrusher> But your second line above just repeats the same idea <Sally Simpson> complained about in the diagram above: after 20. Ng5 h6 21. Nh3 Ne5, Alekhine's notes show he was intending 22. Nf4 and not the engine's 22. Bb3, allowing 22...Bxh3 (<a move Alekhine would never have allowed>). Of course on 20. Ng5 h6 21. Nh3 Ne5 22. Nf4 0-0, Black looks fine to me. But in the era when this was played, a master might not have liked to put his kingside pawn structure in disarray and then castle into the "weakened" kingside. That context explains much of the strength of 20. Ng5 and the admiration for the idea. But your engine line above beginning with 20. Nd4 and ending with a +0.74 eval does not look to me like a super convincing advantage either. So I don't feel this engine analysis really takes much away from Alekhine's idea here. |
|
Oct-28-24
| | Sally Simpson: Hi Beat Giant,
Sally did not 'complain,' Sally pointed out there may have been a slight error. (easily done...I do it myself all the time....everyday...) Please not upset K.C. he is one of the good guys, I want him to post a game for me because the PGN uploading thingy is in the huff and ignoring me. |
|
Oct-28-24
| | kingscrusher: Sally I am on iPad for evening but I can try tomorrow to submit that pgn when I am back at base. Cheers. |
|
Oct-28-24
| | Sally Simpson: It's OK K.C. I'll ask Beat Giant,
Hi Beat Giant,
You too are one of the good guys, can you please post this game for me. Thank You. [Event "Monarch Assurance Isle of Man 12th"]
[Site "Port Erin IOM"]
[Date "2003.10.03"]
[Round "7.9"]
[White "Korneev, Oleg"]
[Black "Prasad, Devaki V"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Source "Britbase"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 O-O 9. h3 Bb7 10. d4 Re8 11. Nbd2 Bf8 12. d5 Nb8 13. Nf1 Nbd7 14. N3h2 Nc5 15. Bc2 a5 16. b4 axb4 17. cxb4 Na6 18. Rb1 c6 19. dxc6 Bxc6 20. Bg5 Nc7 21. Ng4 Be7 22. Bxf6 Bxf6 23. Bb3 Bg5 24. Qc2 Ra6 25. Rbd1 Qe7 26. Nfe3 Bxe3 27. Nxe3 g6 28. Qd2 Bd7 29. Rc1 Bc6 30. Rcd1 h5 31. Qd3 Bb7 32. Rc1 Rea8 33. Rc3 Ne6 34. Bxe6 Qxe6 35. a3 Kg7 36. Rec1 R8a7 37. R1c2 Ba8 38. Rc1 Qf6 39. Rb3 Qf4 40. f3 Qg5 41. Rc8 Qe7 42. Rbc3 Qd7 43. Qd2 Qe7 44. Rh8 Qg5 45. Rcc8 1-0 |
|
Oct-28-24
| | perfidious: <Geoff>, I just got it in; it will likely turn up tomorrow morning. |
|
Oct-28-24
| | Sally Simpson: Thank You. Perfidious, you too are one of the good guys. |
|
Oct-29-24
| | kingscrusher: <beatgiant> Thanks for clarifying 22.Nf4 - I thought I had the wrong variation because 22.Nf5 was mentioned - which was the theme of the provocation. So we are talking about this position:
click for larger viewWhite is avoiding having the pawns doubled.
Instead of casting, black seems to do best with h5: 
click for larger viewThe threats here including h4, and also g5 is a bit scary too with h4 coming. It looks a bit dangerous for White. Let us say as example 23.h3 then g5 Ne2 h4:
click for larger viewAnd all of a sudden g4 is now a threat. But White can do better anyway. 23.h4
click for larger viewMay be stronger - and black is only slightly better from engine perspective. ===============
Just to clarify that truncated 20.Nd4 stuff:
I posted:
1. ± (0.74): 20.Nd4 Ne5 21.Bb3 Bd7 22.c4 Nd3 23.Qh4 Ng4 24.Qxe7+ Kxe7 25.Nxe4 f5 
click for larger viewBut then found this scary for White myself on the Ipad last night as the position still has forcing moves - I confess to not finding that position at all clear (haha!). I should have continued this line for the "Why" from the engine perspective here: Nd2 Nxe3
27.Rf3 f4
28.Bc2 Nxb4
28.Be4
and maybe this is a better point to end what Stockfish mentioned 
click for larger viewIt seems pretty messy I have to admit. The whole line seems very clinical and precise!. So it goes back to what I mentioned earlier int he thread, that engine view of accuracy may involve having play say 100 accurate moves in row to base that evaluation on. We often just can't use the engine evaluations in our own games as they might involve a very heavy series of ultra precise moves. |
|
Kibitzing
