6k1/p6p/1p2PQ2/3p3p/2pP4/qnP5/6PP/6K1 w - - 0 34

The above FEN is from the famous Botvinnik-Capablanca game played in
1938 at the AVRO Tournament. It's listed as one of the 250 historic
games in the book "Chess Brilliancy" by Iakov Damsky from Everyman
Chess. In the above FEN position the author of this book claimed that
Botvinnik could have won very easily with this variation:

34.Qf7+ Kh8 35.e7

However, I took a look at this variation and I find this analysis to be
incorrect. Here's what I found:

34. Qf7+ Kh8 35.e7 {At this point Iakov Damsky stopped the analysis. But
had he looked further, he would have seen this: 35...Qc1+! 36. Kf2 Qd2+
37. Kg3 Qe3+ 38. Kh4 Qe4+ 39. Kg5 (39. Kh3?? Qg4#) 39... Qxg2+ 40. Kh6
Qd2+ 41. Kxh5 Qxh2+ 42. Kg5 h6+ 43. Kg6 Qg3+ 44. Kh5 Qh3+ {At this point
we have perpetual check}

It doesn't hurt to question the analysis of these chess authors. Because
you may end up disproving their analysis. Anybody out there agree with
my refutation to Damsky's variation?

"Alberich" schreef in bericht
. ..
6k1/p6p/1p2PQ2/3p3p/2pP4/qnP5/6PP/6K1 w - - 0 34

The above FEN is from the famous Botvinnik-Capablanca game played in
1938 at the AVRO Tournament. It's listed as one of the 250 historic
games in the book "Chess Brilliancy" by Iakov Damsky from Everyman
Chess. In the above FEN position the author of this book claimed that
Botvinnik could have won very easily with this variation:

34.Qf7+ Kh8 35.e7

However, I took a look at this variation and I find this analysis to be
incorrect. Here's what I found:

34. Qf7+ Kh8 35.e7 {At this point Iakov Damsky stopped the analysis. But
had he looked further, he would have seen this: 35...Qc1+! 36. Kf2 Qd2+
37. Kg3 Qe3+ 38. Kh4 Qe4+ 39. Kg5 (39. Kh3?? Qg4#) 39... Qxg2+ 40. Kh6
Qd2+ 41. Kxh5 Qxh2+ 42. Kg5 h6+ 43. Kg6 Qg3+ 44. Kh5 Qh3+ {At this point
we have perpetual check}

It doesn't hurt to question the analysis of these chess authors. Because
you may end up disproving their analysis. Anybody out there agree with
my refutation to Damsky's variation?


Hi,

First of all, I looked up this game in my database (Chessbase) and according
to the data there the game did not stop there but continued for another 7
moves;

34.e7 Qc1+ 35.Kf2 Qc2+ 36.Kg3 Qd3+ 37.Kh4 Qe4 38.Kxh5 Qe2+ 39.Kh4 Qe4+ 40.g4
Qe1+ 41.Kh5
at which point Capablanca resigned.

I agree with your analysis, and the fact that the continuation of the game,
as suggested by the author Iakov Damsky, is wrong, not only because he
claims the game after his continuation is won, but because HIS continuation
of the game is wrong. After 34.Qf7 Kh8 (forced) the strongest line is:
35.g3 enabling the white King to avoid perpetual check, with a possible
continuation....

35...Nxd4 36.e7 Qc1+ 37.Kg2 Qc2+ 38.Kh3 Qf5+ every other move by Black leads
to a mate 39.Qxf5 Nxf5 40.e8Q+ Kg7 41.Qe6 Nh6 42.Qxd5 Nf7 43.Kh4 +-

Regards

"Alberich" wrote in message
. ..
6k1/p6p/1p2PQ2/3p3p/2pP4/qnP5/6PP/6K1 w - - 0 34

The above FEN is from the famous Botvinnik-Capablanca game played in
1938 at the AVRO Tournament. It's listed as one of the 250 historic
games in the book "Chess Brilliancy" by Iakov Damsky from Everyman
Chess. In the above FEN position the author of this book claimed that
Botvinnik could have won very easily with this variation:

34.Qf7+ Kh8 35.e7

However, I took a look at this variation and I find this analysis to be
incorrect. Here's what I found:

34. Qf7+ Kh8 35.e7 {At this point Iakov Damsky stopped the analysis. But
had he looked further, he would have seen this: 35...Qc1+! 36. Kf2 Qd2+
37. Kg3 Qe3+ 38. Kh4 Qe4+ 39. Kg5 (39. Kh3?? Qg4#) 39... Qxg2+ 40. Kh6
Qd2+ 41. Kxh5 Qxh2+ 42. Kg5 h6+ 43. Kg6 Qg3+ 44. Kh5 Qh3+ {At this point
we have perpetual check}

It doesn't hurt to question the analysis of these chess authors. Because
you may end up disproving their analysis. Anybody out there agree with
my refutation to Damsky's variation?

I do. I've loved this game when first spied in the ancient tome, 'Chess
with the Masters', M. Beheim, 1974 Arco.

34. Qf7+ Kh8 35. e7 is a lovely way to throw away the win that Botvinnik so
wonderfully earned. I'm curious why Damsky's error is allowed to stand. Nice
catch.

As you know, White simply has to wait until Black runs out of checks as
played. While 34. Qf7+ isn't what was played, it doesn't lose the win, the
untimely 35. e7 would. Here's a winning line with that insistant 34. Qf7+

34. Qf7+ Kh8
35. g3 Nxd4
36. e7 Qc1+
37. Kg2 Qd2+
38. Kh3 Qc2+
39. Qxf5+ Nxf5
40. e8Q+

In article MweLb.780385$Tr4.2234481@attbi_s03, says...

"Alberich" wrote in message
. ..
6k1/p6p/1p2PQ2/3p3p/2pP4/qnP5/6PP/6K1 w - - 0 34

The above FEN is from the famous Botvinnik-Capablanca game played in
1938 at the AVRO Tournament. It's listed as one of the 250 historic
games in the book "Chess Brilliancy" by Iakov Damsky from Everyman
Chess. In the above FEN position the author of this book claimed that
Botvinnik could have won very easily with this variation:

34.Qf7+ Kh8 35.e7

However, I took a look at this variation and I find this analysis to be
incorrect. Here's what I found:

34. Qf7+ Kh8 35.e7 {At this point Iakov Damsky stopped the analysis. But
had he looked further, he would have seen this: 35...Qc1+! 36. Kf2 Qd2+
37. Kg3 Qe3+ 38. Kh4 Qe4+ 39. Kg5 (39. Kh3?? Qg4#) 39... Qxg2+ 40. Kh6
Qd2+ 41. Kxh5 Qxh2+ 42. Kg5 h6+ 43. Kg6 Qg3+ 44. Kh5 Qh3+ {At this point
we have perpetual check}

It doesn't hurt to question the analysis of these chess authors. Because
you may end up disproving their analysis. Anybody out there agree with
my refutation to Damsky's variation?

I do. I've loved this game when first spied in the ancient tome, 'Chess
with the Masters', M. Beheim, 1974 Arco.

34. Qf7+ Kh8 35. e7 is a lovely way to throw away the win that Botvinnik so
wonderfully earned. I'm curious why Damsky's error is allowed to stand. Nice
catch.

As you know, White simply has to wait until Black runs out of checks as
played. While 34. Qf7+ isn't what was played, it doesn't lose the win, the
untimely 35. e7 would. Here's a winning line with that insistant 34. Qf7+

34. Qf7+ Kh8
35. g3 Nxd4
36. e7 Qc1+
37. Kg2 Qd2+
38. Kh3 Qc2+
39. Qxf5+ Nxf5
40. e8Q+






In a way, I'm glad people are agreeing with my criticism of Iakov
Damsky's analysis. Because when I read his variation, I couldn't believe
he threw that in there. If that variation was THE correct one, then yes
I would have agreed with his view. But his line is so incredibly
wrong...especially in such a famous game as this that I've decided to
look through the book more carefully and see which other variations he's
included that look dubious.

The fact that I've disproved his line for that FEN position at that
moment in the game proves that Botvinnik probably DID see that and
realized it to be a tempting but false continuation!! That makes his
combination against Capablanca even more incredible because he had to be
air tight sure his line was forced up to a certain point. To have
calculated this combination against someone like Capablanca himself is
something I bet Alekhine was envious of.

Just out of curiousity...are there any other games similar to this
famous one I should look through to see if Damsky's analysis may be
suspect? I have two other regrets about this book. the subtitle to the
book says 250 historic games from the masters. Which is half and half
true. Because some of these games included are merely fragments and not
entire games. I'm very surprised the Judit Polgar game against Van Wely
isn't included here. The one she played Black to Van Wely's White and
Judit played a fantastic game using her favorite Queen's Indian Defence.
It's clearly a brilliant game and it's not included?! I'm going to check
to see his analysis of one of my all time favorite games...Polagaevsky
vs Netzmetdinov which is listed as Game 31.

"Alberich" wrote in message
. ..

In a way, I'm glad people are agreeing with my criticism of Iakov
Damsky's analysis. Because when I read his variation, I couldn't believe
he threw that in there. If that variation was THE correct one, then yes
I would have agreed with his view. But his line is so incredibly
wrong...especially in such a famous game as this that I've decided to
look through the book more carefully and see which other variations he's
included that look dubious.

That's the spirit! With the advent of rapid analysis via computer, we can
check a large number of games any number of ways, or deeply deconstruct what
are now dusty old relics. But, like fine art, the age of the game is not
relevant, merely a reflection of the understanding of the times.

However, as efficient as that hyper-analysis is, it is not nearly as
personally rewarding as looking at a line and thinking, "That's just not
quite right" and wood-pushing until the discovery is made. That game in
particular is a real gem, with it's contribution to opening theory, it's
pyschological deceptions, it's high stakes, and the razor sharp calculations
up until the very end.


Just out of curiousity...are there any other games similar to this
famous one I should look through to see if Damsky's analysis may be
suspect?

If you are really feeling ambitious, I can suggest a game by Botvinnik that
has confounded and amazed and bewildered players and analysts since it was
played in 1960. I do not know if this game has been analyzed by Damsky
(Don't reject him for his errors):

Botvinnik-Tal, Moscow, 1960, 6th game of their World Championship Match.

This game is an explosion of excitement and physcological tension, The
Kinght sacrifice takes everyone by surprise, most notably his opponent,
demanding the highest level of defensive skill and precision. As you know,
Botvinnik had that precision and skill, but this time....this time he
overlooks an idea, misses the hidden chance to refute the sacrifice.

To date, most everyone says Tal was bluffing...but that doesn't detract from
this game in the least, in fact, it's only more elegant because of that.
I'll leave you with the PGN, and direct your attention to Black's 21st move.
From there, see if you can find the winning line for white...best of luck.

[Event "World Championship"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1/1/1960"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Botvinnik,M"]
[Black "Tal,M"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. d4 d6 6. Nc3 Nbd7 7. O-O e5 8.
e4 c6 9. h3 Qb6
10. d5 cxd5 11. cxd5 Nc5 12. Ne1 Bd7 13. Nd3 Nxd3 14. Qxd3 Rfc8 15. Rb1 Nh5
16. Be3 Qb4
17. Qe2 Rc4 18. Rfc1 Rac8 19. Kh2 f5 20. exf5 Bxf5 21. Ra1 Nf4 22. gxf4 exf4
23. Bd2
Qxb2 24. Rab1 f3 25. Rxb2 fxe2 26. Rb3 Rd4 27. Be1 Be5+ 28. Kg1 Bf4 29. Nxe2
Rxc1 30. Nxd4
Rxe1+ 31. Bf1 Be4 32. Ne2 Be5 33. f4 Bf6 34. Rxb7 Bxd5 35. Rc7 Bxa2 36. Rxa7
Bc4 37. Ra8+
Kf7 38. Ra7+ Ke6 39. Ra3 d5 40. Kf2 Bh4+ 41. Kg2 Kd6 42. Ng3 Bxg3 43. Bxc4
dxc4 44. Kxg3
Kd5 45. Ra7 c3 46. Rc7 Kd4 0-1