|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Jul-21-08 |
| kb2ct: Adding the human touch to tablebase analysis. Hard to believe that we can do better. The concept is that tablebases where we win the knight are faster than tablebases where we win his pawns. :0)
1. d4 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 g6 4. c4 Bg7 5. Nc3 O-O 6. Nf3 d6 7. O-O c6 8. Qb3 Na6 9. Rd1 Kh8 10. Qa3 Nc7 11. d5 Bd7 12. Rb1 a5 13. dxc6 bxc6 14. c5 Ne4 15. cxd6 exd6 16. Bf4 d5 17. Be5 Re8 18. Bxg7+ Kxg7 19. Rbc1 Qe7 20. Qxe7+ Rxe7 21. Na4 Nb5 22. Nb6 Ra6 23. Nxd7 Rxd7 24. Ne5 Rd6 25. f3 Nf6 26. a4 Nc7 27. Bf1 Re6 28. f4 Ne4 29. e3 Rb6 30. Bd3 Na6 31. b4 Nxb4 32. Bxe4 fxe4 33. Nd7 Rb7 34. Nc5 Ree7 35. Nxb7 Rxb7 36. g4 Rc7 37. Rc5 Ra7 38. h4 Ra6 39. Rcc1 Kf6 40. Rf1 Nd3 41. Rb1 h5 42. gxh5 gxh5 43. Rb8 c5 44. Rfb1 d4 45. Kf1 dxe3 46. Rf8+ Ke7 47. Rbb8 Rg6 48. Rbe8+ Kd6 49. Rxe4 Kd5 50. f5 Rg3 51. Rfe8 c4 52. f6 Rf3+ 53. Ke2 Rxf6 54. Kxe3 Rc6 55. Rd4+ Kc5 56. Rb8 Re6+ 57. Re4 Rxe4+ 58. Kxe4 Nf2+ 59. Kf3 Ng4 60. Rb5+ Kd4 61. Rxh5 c3 62. Ke2 Ne3 63. Rg5 Ke4 (63... Nf1 64. Kd1 Ne3+ 65. Kc1 Ke4 66. h5 Nf5 67. Rg6 Kd5 68. h6 Nxh6 69. Rxh6 Mate in 14) 64. h5 Nf5 65. Rg6 Nd4+ 66. Kd1 c2+ 67. Kc1 
click for larger view |
 |
Jul-23-08
 |
| zanshin: ~~~~~~ MARKER ~~~~~~~
<Analysis of 59…<Nd1>> 
click for larger view |
|
| Jul-23-08 |
| stukkenjager: 59...Nd1 <60.Rh8> (60.Rb5+) 60...Kb4 61.Rxh5 Kxa4 62.Rc5 Kb4 63.Rc7 Nc3 64.h5 Nb5 65.Rb7 a4 (65...c3 66.Ke2 a4 67.Kd3) 66.h6 c3 67.Ke3 Kc5 68.Rxb5+ (TBS win) Kxb5 69.h7 c2 70.Kd2 a3 71.Kxc2 a2 72.h8=Q Kc5 73.Qe5+ Kc6 74.Kb3 a1=Q 75.Qxa1 Kd5 76.Qf6 Ke4 77.Kc3 Kd5 78.Qe7 Kc6 79.Kc4 Kb6 80.Qd7 Ka6 81.Kc5 Ka5 82.Qb5# 60.Rh8 seems ok, 60.Rb5+ is not bad either.
|
|
| Jul-23-08 |
| stukkenjager: 59...Nd1 60.Rh8 Kb4 61.Rxh5 Kxa4 62.Rc5 Kb4 63.Rc7 Nc3 64.h5 Nb5 65.Rb7 c3 66.Ke2 a4 67.Kd3 a3 68.Rxb5+ Kxb5 69.Kxc3 a2 70.Kb2 a1=Q+ 71.Kxa1 Kc5 72.h6 Kd5 73.h7 Ke5 74.Kb2 Ke4 75.Kc3 Kd5 76.h8=Q Ke6 77.Kd4 Kf5 78.Qh6 Kg4 79.Ke4 Kg3 80.Qd2 Kg4 81.Qg2+ Kh5 82.Kf5 Kh6 83.Qg6# 1-0 Qf8+ lines remain elusive, but there is still time... |
|
| Jul-24-08 |
| kb2ct: If GMT plays Nd1 then Rb5+ and Rxa5 causes immediate resignation It gives GMT the choice between a tablebase loss and a +16.78 one last chance to out think Rybka
:0) |
|
| Jul-25-08 |
| kb2ct: I was able to do a little better for black with Rybka than Guenter was able to do with Shredder. Capturing either rook pawn ends in a tablebase win. GMT will resign after 61. Rxa5 :0)
1. d4 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 g6 4. c4 Bg7 5.
Nc3 O-O 6. Nf3 d6 7. O-O c6 8. Qb3 Na6 9. Rd1 Kh8 10. Qa3 Nc7 11. d5 Bd7 12.
Rb1 a5 13. dxc6 bxc6 14. c5 Ne4 15. cxd6 exd6 16. Bf4 d5 17. Be5 Re8 18. Bxg7+
Kxg7 19. Rbc1 Qe7 20. Qxe7+ Rxe7 21. Na4 Nb5 22. Nb6 Ra6 23. Nxd7 Rxd7 24. Ne5
Rd6 25. f3 Nf6 26. a4 Nc7 27. Bf1 Re6 28. f4 Ne4 29. e3 Rb6 30. Bd3 Na6 31. b4
Nxb4 32. Bxe4 fxe4 33. Nd7 Rb7 34. Nc5 Ree7 35. Nxb7 Rxb7 36. g4 Rc7 37. Rc5
Ra7 38. h4 Ra6 39. Rcc1 Kf6 40. Rf1 Nd3 41. Rb1 h5 42. gxh5 gxh5 43. Rb8 c5 44.
Rfb1 d4 45. Kf1 dxe3 46. Rf8+ Ke7 47. Rbb8 Rg6 48. Rbe8+ Kd6 49. Rxe4 Kd5 50.
f5 Rg3 51. Rfe8 c4 52. f6 Rf3+ 53. Ke2 Rxf6 54. Kxe3 Rc6 55. Rd4+ Kc5 56. Rb8
Re6+ 57. Re4 Rxe4+ 58. Kxe4 Nf2+ 59. Kf3 Nd1 60. Rb5+ Kd4 61. Rxa5 c3 62. Ke2 {Impotent c-pawn, two white passers Ne3 63. Rxh5 Nf1 64. Kd1
Ne3+ 65. Kc1
click for larger viewAnalysis by Rybka 2.3.2a 32-bit :
65...Ng2 66.Rg5 Ne1 67.Rg4+ Ke5 68.h5 Kf5 69.h6 Kxg4 70.h7 Nd3+ 71.Kc2 Nb4+ 72.Kxc3
 (11.43) Depth: 21 00:56:06 318926kN |
|
| Jul-25-08 |
| kb2ct: I consider Nd1 solved.
GMT is best off accepting a tablebase loss as it prolongs mate by two moves :0)
1. d4 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 g6 4. c4 Bg7 5.
Nc3 O-O 6. Nf3 d6 7. O-O c6 8. Qb3 Na6 9. Rd1 Kh8 10. Qa3 Nc7 11. d5 Bd7 12.
Rb1 a5 13. dxc6 bxc6 14. c5 Ne4 15. cxd6 exd6 16. Bf4 d5 17. Be5 Re8 18. Bxg7+
Kxg7 19. Rbc1 Qe7 20. Qxe7+ Rxe7 21. Na4 Nb5 22. Nb6 Ra6 23. Nxd7 Rxd7 24. Ne5
Rd6 25. f3 Nf6 26. a4 Nc7 27. Bf1 Re6 28. f4 Ne4 29. e3 Rb6 30. Bd3 Na6 31. b4
Nxb4 32. Bxe4 fxe4 33. Nd7 Rb7 34. Nc5 Ree7 35. Nxb7 Rxb7 36. g4 Rc7 37. Rc5
Ra7 38. h4 Ra6 39. Rcc1 Kf6 40. Rf1 Nd3 41. Rb1 h5 42. gxh5 gxh5 43. Rb8 c5 44.
Rfb1 d4 45. Kf1 dxe3 46. Rf8+ Ke7 47. Rbb8 Rg6 48. Rbe8+ Kd6 49. Rxe4 Kd5 50.
f5 Rg3 51. Rfe8 c4 52. f6 Rf3+ 53. Ke2 Rxf6 54. Kxe3 Rc6 55. Rd4+ Kc5 56. Rb8
Re6+ 57. Re4 Rxe4+ 58. Kxe4 Nf2+ 59. Kf3 Nd1 60. Rb5+ Kd4 61. Rxa5 c3 62. Ke2
Ne3 63. Rxh5 Nf1 64. Kd1 Ne3+ 65. Kc1 Ng2 66. Rg5 Ne1 67. Rg4+ Ke5 68. h5 Kf5
69. h6 Kxg4 70. h7 Nd3+ 71. Kc2 Nb4+ 72. Kxc3 Mate in 12 |
|
| Jul-25-08 |
| kb2ct: If GMT accepts early tablebase entry, he can get mated on move 86 not move 84. :0)
1. d4 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 g6 4. c4 Bg7 5.
Nc3 O-O 6. Nf3 d6 7. O-O c6 8. Qb3 Na6 9. Rd1 Kh8 10. Qa3 Nc7 11. d5 Bd7 12.
Rb1 a5 13. dxc6 bxc6 14. c5 Ne4 15. cxd6 exd6 16. Bf4 d5 17. Be5 Re8 18. Bxg7+
Kxg7 19. Rbc1 Qe7 20. Qxe7+ Rxe7 21. Na4 Nb5 22. Nb6 Ra6 23. Nxd7 Rxd7 24. Ne5
Rd6 25. f3 Nf6 26. a4 Nc7 27. Bf1 Re6 28. f4 Ne4 29. e3 Rb6 30. Bd3 Na6 31. b4
Nxb4 32. Bxe4 fxe4 33. Nd7 Rb7 34. Nc5 Ree7 35. Nxb7 Rxb7 36. g4 Rc7 37. Rc5
Ra7 38. h4 Ra6 39. Rcc1 Kf6 40. Rf1 Nd3 41. Rb1 h5 42. gxh5 gxh5 43. Rb8 c5 44.
Rfb1 d4 45. Kf1 dxe3 46. Rf8+ Ke7 47. Rbb8 Rg6 48. Rbe8+ Kd6 49. Rxe4 Kd5 50.
f5 Rg3 51. Rfe8 c4 52. f6 Rf3+ 53. Ke2 Rxf6 54. Kxe3 Rc6 55. Rd4+ Kc5 56. Rb8
Re6+ 57. Re4 Rxe4+ 58. Kxe4 Nf2+ 59. Kf3 Nd1 60. Rb5+ Kd4 61. Rxa5 c3 62. Ke2
Nb2 63. Rxh5 Nxa4
click for larger viewMate in 23 |
|
Jul-25-08
 |
| rinus: FWIW After <59.Kf3 Nd1> The World - Gert Jan Timmerman, Chessgames Challenge 2007
click for larger viewAnalysis by Fruit 2.3.1 (32-ply):
1. (10.21): 60.Rb5+ Kd6 61.Rxh5 c3 62.Rh6+ Ke7 63.h5 Kf7 64.Rh7+ Kf6 65.Ra7 c2 66.Rc7 Nb2 67.Rxc2 Nd3 68.Ke3 Nb4 69.Rg2 Kf5 70.h6 Nd5+ 71.Kd4 Nf6 72.Rf2+ Kg6 73.Rxf6+ Kxf6 74.Kc5 Kg6 75.Kb5 Kxh6 2. (9.73): 60.Rh8 Nc3 61.Rxh5+ Kb4 62.Rg5 Na2 63.Ke3 c3 64.Rg1 c2 65.Kd2 Kb3 66.h5 Kb2 67.h6 c1Q+ 68.Rxc1 Nxc1 69.h7 Nb3+ 70.Kd1 Nd4 71.h8Q Kc3 72.Qe5 Kd3 73.Qxa5 Ke4 74.Qc3 Kd5 75.a5 Nb5 3. (5.76): 60.Rc8+ Kb4 61.Rh8 c3 62.Ke2 c2 63.Kd2 Kb3 64.Rxh5 Nc3 65.Rh8 Ne4+ 66.Kc1 Ng3 67.Rb8+ Kxa4 68.Kxc2 Nh5 69.Rh8 Nf4 70.Rg8 Kb5 71.h5 Nxh5 72.Rg5+ Kb4 73.Rxh5 a4 74.Rh4+ Kb5 75.Rd4 Kc5 4. (5.67): 60.Ra8 Kb4 61.Rh8 c3 62.Ke2 c2 63.Kd2 Kxa4 64.Rxh5 Kb4 65.Rh8 Ne3 66.h5 Ng4 67.Rg8 Nh6 68.Rg6 Nf5 69.h6 Nxh6 70.Rxh6 a4 71.Kxc2 Kc5 72.Ra6 a3 73.Rxa3 Kb5 74.Kc3 Kb6 75.Kc4 Kc6 5. (5.67): 60.Rd8 Nb2 61.Rh8 Kd4 62.Rxh5 c3 63.Ke2 Nxa4 64.Rxa5 Nb6 65.Kd1 Nd5 66.h5 Nf6 67.h6 Ke4 68.Ra7 Kf4 69.h7 Nxh7 70.Rxh7 Ke3 71.Kc2 Kd4 72.Rh5 Ke3 73.Kxc3 Kf3 74.Kd4 Kg4 75.Ra5 Kf4 6. (5.62): 60.Rf8 Nb2 61.Rf5+ Kd4 62.Rxh5 Nd3 63.Rh8 c3 64.Rd8+ Kc4 65.Ke3 Ne5 66.Rc8+ Kb3 67.h5 Nf7 68.Rc5 Kb4 69.Rc7 Nh6 70.Kd3 Kxa4 71.Kxc3 Kb5 72.Rg7 Ka4 73.Rd7 Ka3 74.Rd6 Ng4 75.h6 Nf2 |
|
Aug-06-08
 |
| Karpova: <My list will go on> Every night on my screen
I read you, I type you,
That is how I know you vote on
Far across the distance
And spaces between us
You have come to show you vote on
Near, far, wherever you are
I believe that the list does go on
Once more you write the post
And you're here on my list
And my list will go on and on
Evals can touch us one time
And last for a lifetime
And never let go till we've won
Listing was when I listed you
One true file I saved to
In my life we'll always go on
h4, Kg2, whatever you vote
I believe that the list does go on
Once more you write the post
And you're here on my list
And my list will go on and on
You're here, there's one thing I fear,
And I know that my list will go on
We'll play forever this way
You are saved on my list
And my list will go on and on |
|
Aug-12-08
|
| Karpova: The game against GM Timmerman ended yesterday!
I won't go on with the poll after having maintained it for more than a year now during our game against GM Timmerman. |
|
Aug-13-08
|
| rinus: <Karpova>
Just checked your poll for a reason; I just read the first part of <whatthefat>'s annotations on the game. I couldn't figure out his vote (<8.Qb3> or <8.d5>), and that's a good thing. He's neutral and objective in his observations! But curious as always I couldn't resist looking at 'The List' to find out. Thanks for creating it. |
|
Aug-15-08
 |
| kutztown46: <dalbertz, mckmck, Karpova, Red October> My plan for the next game is to have eight forum hosts but no more than six forums active at any time. I will try to keep track and make sure each forum gets about the same amount of down time. Also, I am going to try to recruit three assistants for each forum. The forum host and assistants can decide how to split the workload. If I am successful, this should improve the chances that all the forums can be actively managed and fulfill all the hopes and expectations that the team has for the forums (minimal analysis of the assigned line, copying posts from the main page, etc.). The temporary forums will probably start up somewhere between moves 5 and 10. Are you willing to host a forum again for the GMAN2 game? I need to know how many new forum hosts I need to recruit. |
|
Aug-20-08
|
| Karpova: I'm going to repost the article I posted on Akiba Rubinstein here again. It's just more comfortable for me. |
|
Aug-20-08
|
| Karpova: <<Research about Rubinstein’s mental stability prior to the First World War>> First we have to gather a few facts. It’s not much but discussing the subject with even less knowledge about it wouldn’t lead anywhere. I’ll add a discussion afterwards. 1903
<First Salwe-Rubinstein match, 04-26 to 06-07>
Rubinstein drew the 20 year older Salwe with 7-7 unexpectedly. Salwe was already in 1882 considered to be one of Warsaw’s best players and moved to Lodz twelve years later. He belonged to Poland’s strongest players prior to the First World War. <Third All-Russian Chess Championship in Kiev, 09-01 to 09-26>
Due to their drawn match, Salwe and Rubinstein qualified for this event. It was Rubinstein’s (and Salwe’s) first major tournament. Rubinstein scored 11.5/18 (+10 =3 -5) and ended up on place 5/19 ahead of players like Znosko-Borowsky, Schiffers and Dus-Chotimirsky. Chigorin won the event. 1904
<Lodz Handicap tournament, 1903-12-06 to 1904-02-14>
Rubinstein was the runner-up behind Salwe with 18.0/21 (+16 =2 -2) ahead of Janowsky (15.0/21). <Second Salwe-Rubinstein match, March and April>
Rubinstein won the match. The most likely result is 5.5-4.5 (+4 =3 -3) but sometimes the result is given as 6-4 or 6.5-3.5 in Rubinstein’s favor. 1905
<Barmen main international tournament, 08-14 to 08-30>
Rubinstein’s first international tournament ended with a shared first place (together with Duras – they drew two tie-break games) with 12.0/15 (+11 =2 -2). <First Mieses-Rubinstein match, at the end of October>
Rubinstein won 3-0.
1906
<Fourth All-Russian Championship in St. Petersburg, 01-02 to 01-23>
Rubinstein shares second place with Blumenfeld with 12.0/16 (+8 =8 -0) behind Salwe but ahead of Znosko-Borowsky, Alapin, Dus-Chotimirsky, etc. Maliutin and Rubinstein displayed great sportsmanship after Blumenfeld’s provocations (round 12, Rubinstein vs B Maliutin, 1906). <Lodz triple-round match tournament, possibly held in April or May>
Rubinstein won the tournament and his mini-matches against Chigorin (+2 =0 -1), Flamberg (+2 =1 -0) and Salwe (+1 =2 -0). <Ostende five-stage thirty-six-player tournament, Juna and July>
Rubinstein came in third with 19.0/30 behind Schlechter (21.0 points) and Maroczy (20.0 points) but ahead of players like Bernstein, Burn, Teichmann, Marshall, Janowsky and Perlis (those are the players who survived to the fifth stage – players like Duras, Znosko-Borowsky, Blackburne, Salwe and Spielmann failed to do so). <Lodz double round robin, 08-24 to 09-23>
Rubinstein won with 9.0/12 (+7 =4 -1) and only lost to Rotlewi (tied his mini-match with Rubinstein). Salwe came in third. |
|
Aug-20-08
|
| Karpova: 1907
<Lodz double round robin, perhaps between Jan and Apr>
Almost the same players as in 1906 and Rubinstein won again – this time with 8.0/10 (+7 =2 -1). <Ostende, 05-16 to 06-25>
29 players took part and Rubinstein shared first place with Bernstein with 19.5/28 (+14 =11 -3) ahead of players like Mieses, Nimzowitsch, Teichmann, Duras, Tartakower, Znosko-Borowsky, Spielmann, Blackburne, etc. <Carlsbad, 08-20 to 09-17>
Rubinstein won with 15.0/20 (+12 =6 -2) ahead of Maroczy, Nimzowitsch, Schlechter, Vidmar, Duras, Teichmann, Dus-Chotimirsky, Marshall, Spielmann, Tartakower, Janowsky, Mieses, etc.
Notable is the dramatic encounter between Maroczy and Rubinstein in round 17 extensively (Maroczy vs Rubinstein, 1907) when both were contenders for first place. Maroczy was 0.5 ahead of Rubinstein but the latter had to face weaker opposition subsequently and therefore Maroczy strived for a win with the white pieces. Rubinstein held him to a draw and won the next three games. Most famous is probably the last round game against Heinrich Wolf (H Wolf vs Rubinstein, 1907 compare it to Rubinstein vs H Wolf, 1923) when Maroczy could only catch Rubinstein to share first place with him if he won his game (he did indeed win against Janowsky) and Wolf beat Rubinstein. Wolf routed for his “countryman” Maroczy (both came from the Austro-Hungarian Empire) and promised to beat “that Polish upstart” as he put it. Rubinstein had no problems to equalise the game and refused Wolf’s draw offer (Wolf’s utterances apparently hurt Rubinstein’s feelings), outplayed Wolf until he had a winning position (24...Rh5) but still forced a draw: “Because ... with Wolf ‘I’ make a draw when I want to – not when ‘he’ wants to”, he explained (Kmoch, H. and Reinfeld, F.: “Chess Review”, Oct. 1950, pp. 299-301).
In his game against Maroczy, Rubinstein displayed strong nerves. His behaviour towards Wolf was unreasonable (though understandable – note that Carlsbad was also part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire) but doesn’t question his mental stability prior to the First World War. Kmoch included five games from this tournament in “Rubinstein’s Chess Masterpieces / 100 selected games” (Game Collection: Rubinstein's Chess Masterpieces) <Third Salwe-Rubinstein match, throughout the year>
Rubinstein won +12 =8 -2 (the number of draws is sometimes given as 5). |
|
Aug-20-08
|
| Karpova: 1908
<Fifth All-Russian Chess Championship, 1907-12-16 to 1908-01-15>
Rubinstein won but the games are hard to find. The event is notable for Rubinstein’s “immortal game”: Rotlewi vs Rubinstein, 1907 <Vienna, 03-23 to 04-17>
A disappointment for Rubinstein who came in fourth with 13.0/19 (+10 =6 -3) behind Duras, Maroczy and Schlechter who all shared first place with 14 points. Still, Rubinstein left players like Teichmann, Spielmann, Tartakower, Marshall and Mieses behind. Rubinstein started with 4 wins out of 4 games but only scored 2.0/4 at the end (winning with White against Johner and Spielmann, losing with Black to Marshall and Mieses – note that Rubinstein ended up 1 point behind the winners and 1 point ahead of Teichmann which explains why he started to play for a win against Mieses since a draw wouldn’t have helped). <Teichmann-Rubinstein match, 05-02 to 05-09>
Rubinstein won 3.5-2.5 and from Rubinstein’s point of view it looks like this: 0–1–½-1–0–1 <Prague, 05-18 to 06-12>
Rubinstein came in fourth again with 12.5/19 (+8 =9 -2) behind the winners Duras and Schlechter (both with 13.5) and Vidmar (13 points). Still, he scored better than players like Teichmann, Maroczy, Marshall, Janowsky, Dus-Chotimirsky, Mieses and Spielmann. Rubinstein scored 2.5 out of 4 in the last four rounds (Vidmar-Rubinstein 0-1, Maroczy-Rubinstein 1-0, Rubinstein-Spielmann 1-0 and Rubinstein-Süchting 1/2). <Lodz triangular tournament, autumn>
Rubinstein won the tournament and his two 8 game matches against Marshall (+3 =3 -2 or ½-1-1/2-1/2-1-0-0-1 ) and Salwe (+3 =4 -1 or 0-1-1-1/2-1-1/2-1/2-1/2) <Marshall-Rubinstein match, 10-25 to mid-Nov>
Rubinstein won like in the triangular tournament before with 4.5-3.5 (1-0-1-1-1/2-0-1/2-1/2). He weakened a bit towards the end and lost tragically in round 6 (Marshall vs Rubinstein, 1908 , Rubinstein had a win when he blundered on move 46 after defending superbly against Marshall’s risky play) but still he managed to draw the last two games and thereby win the match. 1909
<St. Petersburg, 02-22 to 03-12>
Rubinstein shared first place with Dr. Emanuel Lasker with 14.5/18 (+12 =5 -1). Both winners lost to Dus-Chotimirsky incidentally. Rubinstein scored 2.5/3 in the last three rounds. Before the start of the last round, Rubinstein was 0.5 ahead of Dr. Lasker but he managed to catch him by beating Teichmann with white. Rubinstein, having the black pieces, only drew against Tartakower. Pachman (“Decisive Games in Chess History”, pp. 43-44) regards this as a sign of weak nerves. In my opinion, it’s a bit questionable to regard a draw with black against Tartakower as a sign of weak nerves – especially not since Rubinstein didn’t spoil the game in such a way as against Marshall in their match (round 6). <Second Mieses-Rubinstein match, 05-12-05-27>
Rubinstein won 6-4 (+5 =2 -3). Mieses won his first three games but Rubinstein managed to recover well: 0-0-0-1-1/2-1-1-1-1/2-1 <Vilna, autumn>
Donaldson / Minev write: “Dus-Chotimirsky led after the first leg with 4 points out of 5, just ahead of Rubinstein at 3.5, but the [sic] Rubinstein had no trouble catching him as ‘Dus’ stumbled, scoring only 3.5 points in his remaining games.” (“The Life & Games of Akiva Rubinstein, Volume 1”, p. 203). Rubinstein won comfortably with 10.5/15 (+8 =5 -2) 1.5 points ahead of the runners up. <Warsaw handicap tournament, Nov to Dec>
Rubinstein won with 7.5/8 |
|
Aug-20-08
|
| Karpova: 1910
<Warsaw City Championship, 02-03 to 02-21>
Surprisingly, Flamberg won ahead of Rubinstein, the defending City Champion. Rubinstein scored 8.5/10. <Flamberg-Rubinstein match, 05-22 to 05-26>
This match may have been connected to Flamberg’s victory in the Warsaw City Championship. Rubinstein won 4.5-0.5 <WTZGSz tournament, 10-17 to 11-05>
Rubinstein tied for first with Rotlewi with 13.5/15 (+13 =1 -1). Bogolyubov participated also but lost to the three best players winning all his remaining games. 1911
<San Sebastian, 02-19 to 03-17>
Rubinstein was the runner up (shared with Vidmar) 0.5 points behind Capablanca and the only player who managed to stay undefeated. He scored 9.0/14 (+4 =10 -0). According to Mieses, Rubinstein missed a win in the last round against Spielmann (Spielmann vs Rubinstein, 1911 , 29...Rh2+ 30.Ke1 etc. but Mieses overlooks 30.Kd3. Rubinstein’s move is stronger than Mieses’ “winning” suggestion). <Carlsbad, 08-20 to 09-24>
Rubinstein was the runner up (shared with Schlechter) behind Teichmann. Rubinstein scored 17.0/25 (+12 =10 -3) and finished ahead of players like Marshall, Nimzowitsch, Vidmar, Alekhine, Tartakower, Spielmann, etc.. He weakened a bit during the tournament losing badly to Marshall (round 8) and missed an excellent chance against Tartakower (round 9), in round 22 both Rubinstein and Kostic blundered horribly (double blunder, the game ended ½, Donaldson/Minev assume mutual time trouble) but Rubinstein also played beautiful games (Kmoch included four games from this tournament in the aforementioned book). <Warsaw City Championship (counts for 1912 but played in 1911), Dec>
Rubinstein won with 13.0/14 (+12 =2 -0) easily despite the presence of Salwe and Flamberg. |
|
Aug-20-08
|
| Karpova: 1912
<San Sebastian double round robin tournament, 02-19 to 03-20>
Rubinstein finished the first half of the tournament with an even score (+2 =6 -2) but then he crushed everything in his way with +5 =3 -0 (and a forfeit win since Fleischmann played only the first half of the tournament) prior to the last round. There he had to face Nimzowitsch with white who lead by half a point – Rubinstein won a dramatic encounter (sadly, both overlooked a mate in 2). “The Field” (March 23) describes: “A quiet defensive attitude would have only increased the first player’s advantage, so Nimzovitch boldly resolved upon a counter attack, which he conducted with great vigor, and in so complicated a manner that it was difficult to judge who had the better game. In these trying circumstances, Rubinstein, keeping cool and collected, emerged from the attack with a piece ahead; but even then Nimzovitch stuck to his guns, still trying for a draw, and only gave in when the last hope was gone.”
Rubinstein won ahead of Nimzowitsch, Spielmann, Dr. Tarrasch, Marshall, Duras, Schlechter, Teichmann, etc. <Pistyan, 05-19 to 06-12>
Rubinstein completely dominated the field an won with 14.0/17 (+12 =4 -1) 2.5 points ahead of the runner up Spielmann. He won ahead of players like Spielmann, Marshall, Duras, Schlechter, Teichmann and Yates. <Breslau, 07-14 to 08-07>
Rubinstein won the tournament (shared with Duras) with12.0/17 (+9 =6 -2) ahead of players like Teichmann, Schlechter, Dr. Tarrasch, Marshall, Spielmann, Mieses, etc.. He received criticism for his first round win over Barasz where Rubinstein alternated between good moves and blunders to spoil the win during the middle of the fight (Rubinstein vs Z Barasz, 1912). On the other hand, his defensive display against Mieses (Mieses vs Rubinstein, 1912) received highest praise (see Tartakower’s notes). <Russian National tournament in Vilna, 08-19 to 09-17>
Rubinstein won with 12.0/18 (+9 =6 -3) in this double round robin tournament against players like Bernstein, Nimzowitsch, Alekhine, Levenfish, etc.. Rubinstein lost his mini match against Freiman (aka Von Freymann) surprisingly with 0-2 but on the other hand he crushed Alekhine and Levenfish 2-0 and won against Nimzowitsch 1.5-05 and in the end, the whole tournament. Not all of the games are available (e. g. a win against Alekhine is missing). 1914
<St. Petersburg, 04-21 to 05-22>
The event was divided into two sections – a preliminary stage where each player played the other players once and a final stage for which the first five players qualified. Dr. Lasker won in the end in a dramatic fight and Capablanca came in second.
Rubinstein scored 5.0/10 (+2 =6 -2): In the first round, he drew Marshall, then he gained an advantage over Capablanca (28.c4 might have given him chances to win the game). In the fourth round he lost against Dr. Lasker followed by a loss to Alekhine (Rubinstein had the attack but overpressed and lost – not that he would have won but the loss was really unnecessary – “An unlucky game” as Dr. Lasker put it (“St. Petersburg 1914”, Caissa Editions, 1993, pp. 15-16). Inthe subsequent rounds, Rubinstein fought for 96 moves against Bernstein and 60 moves against Tarrasch until he managed to beat Janowsky (round 8) and Gunsberg (round 9) but he was unable to overcome Blackburne’s (round 10) and Nimzowitsch’s (last round) resistance.
<Honza Cervenka>: “[...] in St. Petersburg 1914 super-tournament he was completely out of form.” (see 2006-03-01, Blackburne vs Rubinstein, 1914). |
|
Aug-20-08
|
| Karpova: <<Discussion>> Now I’ll discuss the issue and I think it’s sensible to look at the 8 years from 1906 to 1914 (he didn’t seem to have played in 1913). One paragraph per year will make the reader’s task easier so that he doesn’t have a large pile of continuous text in front of him. <1906>
St. Petersburg was surely a success and the missed win against Maliutin can be fully explained by Blumenfeld and his crew’s behaviour. It’s hard to concentrate if people shout and yell next to you.
The Ostende mammoth tournament was a great success and Rubinstein greatly enhanced his reputation. You need chess skills, endurance and also strong nerves to reach the third place. Don’t forget that it wasn’t just a monstrous tournament where everybody played each other but a tournament divided into five stages where you always had to fight to survive and avoid extinction. Players like Spielmann failed to do so. <1907>
29 players competed in Ostende and Rubinstein managed to share first place.
But his result in Carlsbad was even better. Let’s recall the situation before his 17th round game against Maroczy: He was half a point behind but would have to face weaker opposition afterwards. So he decided on the plan to hold Maroczy to hold Maroczy to a draw and score wins in the following games. The plan turned out excellently – he managed to draw against Maroczy after good defense and scored 3.5/4 subsequently to become the sole winner of the tournament. Sure, the story behind the last game is amusing but rather connected to insulted honour and not a nervous breakdown. <1908>
Vienna and Prague saw Rubinstein end up on fourth place and a surely disappointing result for him but is it really that bad. Other players like Marshall and Spielmann scored much worse than Rubinstein. The latter failed catastrophically in Prague with 7.5/19 (+6 =3 -10) and place 15. Both times, Rubinstein build up good plus scores (but not as good as the winners) and there weren’t dramas in the last rounds (like I already said, in Vienna he didn’t have anything to lose against Mieses in the last round and nothing to gain from a draw, that’s why he went all-out).
Against Teichmann, Rubinstein came out victorious in a tense struggle where White won all the games (except for the third game where Rubinstein held the draw) and before the last game Rubinstein had scored 2 wins, 1 draw but also 2 losses. Rubinstein won the last game and the whole match. Not a proof for bad nerves.
The Lodz triangular tournament ended with a convincing win for Rubinstein and the match against Marshall followed later that year. Before the start of the sixth round Rubinstein lead 3.5-1.5 but then a “typical Rubinstein blunder” occurred:
After 46.Kh2 [see diagram]
click for larger view
Rubinstein played 46...Qxd6 and lost to 47.Qg8#
I’ll look at the game first and then at the whole picture: Marshall plays aggressive as usual but Rubinstein defends superbly. So Marshall takes even greater risks but his play is unsound. Still, he manages to put pressure on Rubinstein throughout the game and finds new resources. In the end, Rubinstein has a winning position (46...Qh5+ would have been the move) but loses tragically. There are different possible explanations for this blunder: the famous chess blindness we encounter frequently, tiredness (after hours of play and having to defend precisely) or already bad nerves? So let’s have a look at the remaining two games after Marshall reduced the score to -1. Even if the blunder in game 6 wasn’t due to bad nerves it may cause a breakdown. A player with bad nerves may have a problem to hold the advantage of +1 against an attacker like Marshall. In game Nr.7 Rubinstein gets an advantage but the game ends in a draw so all comes down to game 8 where Marshall has the white pieces. Marshall played on for 94 moves (the last 32 are not available) after not getting much out of the opening. Marshall wins a pawn in a BOC ending with queens on the board but the endgame is drawn and Marshall can’t find a way to break through. Rubinstein wins the match. |
|
Aug-20-08
|
| Karpova: <1909>
St. Petersburg was a great success for Rubinstein who shared first place with Dr. Lasker. Rubinstein failed to win against Tartakower with black in the last round. Tartakower gets an advantage but finally Rubinstein manages to hold a draw. A win would have secured him the sole first prize. Still, it’s hard to argue that Rubinstein’s nerves were weak: He had won in round 16, 17 and 18 before the draw against Tartakower (btw. Tartakower finished with a -1 score). Tartakower was a strong player and it would have been no shame to even lose to him if you had the black pieces. A nervous breakdown looks different.
The match with Mieses was tough since Rubinstein lost his first three games. Still, he managed to bounce back winning 5 games and drawing 2 not losing a single game anymore. If Mieses had played a nervous wreck he might not have lost the match clearly after winning the first three games.<1911>
San Sebastian was a good tournament for Rubinstein and he didn’t lose a single game. He managed to outplay Spielmann with black in the last round but Mieses was wrong claiming he missed a clear win. Rubinstein’s actual move was even better than Mieses “winning” move and in the end, Rubinstein’s advantage wasn’t enough to win the game.
Carlsbad (26 contestants) was a good and solid tournament for Rubinstein who scored better than a lot of strong and promising masters. In some games he played uneven but there were also nice games. <1912>
In San Sebastian Rubinstein recovered from a slow start and squelched his opponents in the second half beating Nimzowitsch in their final encounter (Nimzowitsch was half a point ahead prior to the last round) to become the sole winner. Both missed a mate in 2 but Dr. Lasker writes that time trouble affected them.
His victory in Pistyan was so overwhelming that there’s not much to say about it.
Breslau was the next challenge and Rubinstein won again. His first round win over Barasz was far from being a masterpiece but Tartakower was impressed with his defence against Mieses. Rubinstein finished the tournament with a win over Marshall.
Vilna was the next tournament and Rubinstein won again. His two losses against Freymann were surprising especially since he had a promising position in their first game. It’s also notable that Rubinstein had a tough schedule in 1912 playing in strong tournaments from February 19 to September 17 (71 games and that’s 1912 not 2008 when you can travel by plane, etc.!) |
|
Aug-20-08
|
| Karpova: <1914>
St. Petersburg is considered to be a great failure since WW1 prevented the planned WC against Dr. Lasker and Capablanca emerged as Dr. Lasker’s main rival. I don’t know if Rubinstein’s nerves failed but it’s not that he committed grotesque blunders. He missed a good chance against Capablanca and overpressed against Alekhine even losing the game. The game against Dr. Lasker was not a blunderfest though Rubinstein didn’t put up the best defence. He tried hard in the end but to no avail. As <Honza Cervenka> said, he was out of form (it’s nothing known about serious chess games in 1913 and he probably spend most of the time organising the WC match).All in all, Rubinstein always ended up with positive scores in the tournaments/matches we know about – except for his first event (the drawn match against Salwe in 1903) and the last event (his even score in St. Petersburg 1914). No negative scores prior to the First World War. His worst results (apart from St. Petersburg 1914) were Vienna and Prague 1908 where he came in fourth. It’s good to look at the results of players like Marshall and Janowsky (they ended up in the middle of the field) who played matches for the WC title against Dr. Lasker to put things into perspective. On a sidenote, Capablanca claimed prior to San Sebastian 1912 (http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...) that Rubinstein had never been lower than third in international competition which appears to be incorrect but Capablanca’s viewpoint is simply different: In Vienna, Rubinstein was behind three players who were tied for first (Duras, Maroczy and Schlechter) and in Prague Duras and Schlechter tied for first so Rubinstein had the second best and third best amount of points (I’m writing this not in defence of Rubinstein but Capablanca). There were a lot of situations in which Rubinstein proved strong nerves, e.g. Ostende 1906, Carlsbad 1907, Teichmann-match 1908, Mieses match 1909 and San Sebastian 1912. You may even want to count the Marshall match in 1908 where he rescued the match victory despite the “typical Rubinstein blunder”. Some instances turn out to be no sign of bad nerves like St. Petersburg 1909 or San Sebastian 1911 (Mieses’ false claim). The problem is that we know about Rubinstein’s fate after the War so bad nerves as an explanation for failures suggest thermselves but what if you try to look at those results and games and don’t attribute them to player Rubinstein but player X and look how the mysterious player X plays and at his results – would bad nerves be the first thing that came to your mind (especially if you follow modern chess and observe GMs resign in drawish BOC games, overlooking simple mate threats and blundering away pieces)? Sure, he played bad games but I also tried to present the whole picture (impossible but that’s why I say “tried”) and also gave the dates of the competitions, etc.. In some years he played only some minor tournaments or no tournaments at all but then again he plays matches and tournaments one after another (1908, 1912). Judge yourself if the results prior to WW1 were only marginally worse than what was to come after the War and if Rubinstein’s mental instability was obvious prior to the War and only slightly less worse than afterwards. |
|
Aug-21-08
 |
| Boomie: <Karpova> Excellent slice of history. I enjoyed it a lot. If Rubenstein had "nerves", I wish I had them, too...heh. Thanks for the great job you've done with the Team List. You have certainly earned a vacation. Good luck in all. |
|
Aug-21-08
 |
| Stonehenge: Thanks for your hard work <Karpova>. You're one of my favourite kibitzers! |
|
Aug-21-08
 |
| Waitaka: Enjoy your vacation from The List! :) |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
|
|
heart failure community and support group
|
|
|
