IM Rashid Nezhmetdinov - SNM Oleg Chernikov;
  Russian Federated Team Championships, 1962. 

   To see this game in a  java-script replay format, (lightly annotated); please click  here  

I first saw this game - probably in a trap book - many, many years ago. I was pleased to reacquaint myself with it. 

I initially started out to make this just a very lightly annotated game. But the  VERY  different annotations of this game in (more than) three different books caused me to wonder who was right. So I decided to deeply annotate this game ... and TRY to discover the truth. Whether or not I have succeeded is for you - the reader - to judge. 
(I have tried to make this the best possible annotation of this game.) 

I started on this game right after I purchased several books, notably the Soltis book. (See the Bibliography, below.) Everyone seems to have a RADICALLY different opinion of this game, Soltis ranks it VERY highly ... in the 100 best games of the whole of the 20th century. But he also awards Black's play like three question marks ... giving the impression that Black played the defense very poorly. Pishkin calls this game a glittering and exceptional brilliancy and praises the way that Black handled his defense in this game!! A book on tactics called it amazing, but I got the impression that they questioned the validity of some of the moves. In the end, curiosity got the better of me, and I decided to find out for myself exactly what the 'real deal' was here. So far ... the analysis of this game - as of this writing, (May 04, 2003) - runs more than 10 pages ... and I am still not finished with it yet. 

I first started on this game in 1999 or 2000 ... but like so many of my projects, I eventually laid it aside. (Dope!) Then I started working on it again a year or two later. (I only did this on a very intermittent basis.) Then in approximately February of 2003, an IM on the Internet Chess Club asked me my opinion of this game. This renewed my interest. We corresponded by e-mail and traded variations and ideas for several weeks. Then I finally broke down and decided to spend several hours a day and try to finish it. 

This is a pretty detailed analysis, but I have skipped or left off many of the "LONG" variations that run 10-20 (or more) moves. I don't feel they are necessary, and they are not really critical to your understanding of this game. I also have tried to provide at least a glimpse (a brief repertoire) into this opening. The notes contain a lot of tricks, traps, and tactics. You would do well to study these very carefully. I think that everything that is necessary to your ability to be able to study this game in its entirety has been provided. It is a wonderful game with a very original finish. Please enjoy it, and be sure to tell me what you think.

   For an explanation of the symbols that I use, please click  here.    

 This is mostly a text-based page, with only a few diagrams. Therefore, you will probably need a chess board.  [replay on cg]  

 Rashid Nezhmetdinov (2650) - Oleg Chernikov (2525) 
 Russian Federated Team Championship 
 Rostov-on-Don, RUS; 1962 

[A.J. Goldsby I]

  nez-che_r62med.gif, 02 KB


A brilliant game  ...  and a truly stunning combination. 

Black plays a tricky line that was very much in vogue at that time. 
 ... ... ... he stumbles into a tornado of tactics.

I first saw this game MANY years ago ...  probably in a trap book. 
I was pleased to see this game again. (And to be able to study it.)

In 2002, many of the best computer programs do not find these tactics, 
at least not right away.
(This game is in several books on Soviet chess, and it is also in several 
 of the biographies on Nezhmetdinov. And it has appeared in a few problem/
 tactics books as well.) 

{The ratings are expressed in terms of 2000 ratings and have been adjusted 
 for inflation.} 


1.e4 c5;  2.Nf3 Nc6;  3.d4 cxd4;  4.Nxd4 g6;  5.Nc3 Bg7;  6.Be3 Nf6;  

White plays the most aggressive development possible in this position, 
- typical of Nez. 


     [  White could try:  7.f3!?;  (with an interesting game.) 


        Also playable is: 7.Be2 0-08.Nb3! d6;  {Diagram?} 
        The most sensible move. 

            (Too risky was:  8...a5!?9.a4! Nb4!?10.f4 d5!?11.e5 Ne4;  
              12.Bf3! Bf513.Nd4 Qc7!?;  {Diagram?}   
              This is probably an idea of a highly dubious nature. [?!]  

                (Maybe  ...Rc8.)    

             14.Ncb5 Qc815.c3 Na616.Nxf5 gxf517.Qxd5, ''  {D?}  
              White is clearly better ("+/") and went on to win a nice game.

             A.J. Goldsby - M. Esserman;  7th Annual S.C.C.O. 
             Gainesville, FL (USA); 1998.)  

        9.0-0 Be610.f4,  {Diagram?}  
        and we have transposed to a normal/routine classical variation 
        of the Sicilian Dragon. 

        There have been literally thousands games in this particular line.  

        One example is:  K. Grosar - S. Kudrin;  Mermaid Beach Club 
        Bermuda, 1997.  (1-0, 34.) 

        [ See also MCO-14; page # 277. ]  ]  


7...0-0;  8.Bb3,   
This is probably the safest move. 
(It is also the move that is recommended by most opening books and 
 volumes like MCO.)  {MCO = Modern Chess Openings.} 



     Another tricky line, (that I have personally used); is: 
        8.f3!? Qb6!9.Bb3!,   
        This is best. 

           (A common trap is: 9.Qd2, (?)  9...Nxe4!;  {Diagram?}    
            with a discovered attack on d4.  10.fxe4 Bxd4!; "/+"  {D?}     
            and Black has won a pawn.)     

        9...Nxe4!;  Black threatens to win a pawn. 
        10.Nd5! Qa5+11.c3,  "~{Diagram?}  
        with enormous complications.  
        (Theory still has not completely resolved this line.)  

        [ See the book: "Accelerated Dragons."  (c) 1998.  
          By IM John Donaldson and also Jeremy Silman. 
          Chapter No. Two, (2);  page # 31. ] 


        Also playable is:  8.0-0!?,  "~"  
        when Black may capture on e4 and follow up with ...d5.  ]  



This move was at the height of fashion in Master praxis at that
time. (I believe ...a5; is more often played today.) 


     [  By playing:  8...d69.f3 Bd710.Qd2 Ne511.0-0-0, "+/="  {Diag?}  
         we transpose back into the standard lines of the Yugoslav 
        Attack versus the Sicilian Dragon. 


        Black can also play:  8...a59.f3!? d5!?10.Bxd5 Nxd511.exd5 
        11...Nb412.Nde2 Bf513.Rc1 b514.0-0 Rc8;  {Diagram?}  
        The end of the column. 

        15.Nd4 Bxd416.Qxd4 Nxc217.Rxc2 Bxc218.Bh6 e519.Qxe5 f6;  
        20.Qe6+ Rf721.Ne4 Bxe422.fxe4 Qd723.Qxd7 Rxd724.Rxf6 Re8!; 
         ... "with an equal ending."  ("=")  - GM Nick DeFirmian  in  MCO

        GM N. de Firmian - GM Pigusov;  Moscow, (RUS); 1989.  

        [ See MCO-14; page # 281,  col. # 6,  and also note # (y.). ]   ]  


The correct reply, according to book/theory here. 

     [  9.Nxc6?! Nxe3!; "~"  - GM A. Soltis. ]  


9...Nxd4;  10.Qh4!?,   
A tricky and interesting move.  

The theory of the day said this move was good for nothing 
more than a draw.

     Theory recommends:  10.Qd1!,  "+/="  {Diagram?}  
        with a slight edge.  

        I.e.,  R. Fischer - S. ReshevskyMatch game, 16.07.1961  

        and also:  Z. Lanka - J. PribylBL2-Ost 1012 (5); 2001.  ]  


Black sets up some sneaky tactical tricks. 

     [  Black could play: 10...d611.0-0, "+/="  {Diagram?}  
        when White is just a tiny bit better here, in this position. 

        V. Kupriechik - M. Glienke;  Travemunde Open, 2001.  ]  


White (now) simply castles, avoiding any silliness by Black.  
11.0-0 Bf6!?;  {See the diagram just below.}  
This natural looking - move meets with a very shocking reply.
(Although no one has questioned it, this move could be inaccurate. 
 But this is not really 100% clear.)

 {Many strong chess programs play this move as well.} 



    White to move.  ---> The game seems to be going OK for Black ... (nezh-cher_r62pos1.gif,  54 KB)

 The actual game position after 11...Bf6. 



     [  Or  11...Nc612.Bh6,  "+/="   
        with a slight edge for White.  ]  


12.Qxf6!!,  (Maybe - '!!!/!!!!')  {Diagram?}  
An amazing move  ...  to say the least! 

GM Andy Soltis  calls this move astonishing and completely unexpected. 

The move is certainly sound. Three straight MONTHS of computer- 
assisted work has failed to yield anything close to a refutation. But 
whether or not it leads to a purely forced win is another matter. 

I think we can safely conclude that White has more than sufficient 
compensation for this sacrifice.

     [  Black probably expected to make a draw by repetition of the position 
        with the series: 12.Qh6!? Bg713.Qh4 Bf6; "="  {Diagram?}   
        and it appears that neither side should avoid the draw here.  ]  


The best move here for Black in this position.
(GM A. Soltis also gives this move an exclam.) 


     [  Not good was the seemingly natural continuation of: 
        </=  12...exf6!?13.Bxd4 Qb4!?14.Rad1, "~"  (Maybe - '')  {D?}  
        & White has great play. 


        The seemingly winning line for Black ... has a nasty way of back-firing. 
         I.e., </=  12...Nxb3?!13.axb3! Qxa1!?14.Qxe7! Qa5; 15.Bh6,   
         15...Qd816.Nd5!, ("+/-")  {Diagram?}   Variation by  -  GM A. Soltis. ]   


13.Nxe2 exf6;  14.Nc3!,   
White had many other moves that were attractive here, but this is the simplest 
and the best.

A passage from  GM Andy Soltis's  work would be appropriate here: 
<< "Could Nezhmetdinov really have calculated exactly the consequences 
       of this sacrifice?" wrote V.F. Meshcheryakov.  "At the time of the 
       game's analysis, immediately after the finish, I was struck by how much 
       Nezhmetdinov saw at the board." >> 
       (Soltis's book: "The 100 Best,"  page # 176, the note after White's 
        fourteenth move.) 

     [ 14.Rad1!?; or  14.f4!? ]  


14...Re8;  (Maybe - '?!')   
This appears to be the correct move here, but Soltis questions it, 
 and awards this move a whole question mark. ('?') 
 {I think this is unwarranted.} 

(Many programs - like Fritz and ChessMaster - pick this move here as well. 

GM A. Soltis does note that an extremely unusual material imbalance has 
been reached here. Basically Black has a large material advantage, 
(A Knight-plus-a-Bishop, versus a whole Queen!); but White has nearly 
 all the play. 


     [  The more active move of:  >/=  14...d5!; "~"  {Diagram?}  
         was apparently called for. 

        MONTHS of analysis has failed to yield a convincing result, 
        or a really decisive line, so I will stop here and use the verdict 
        of completely unclear. {A.J.G.}  

        While ...d5 may be the correct move in terms of strategy, 
        Chernikov  - who today is a GM, see the FIDE or CB websites
        said that he did NOT like ...d5. He felt it was unnecessary to 
        give away the pawn for nothing, and many of the players who 
        were there - some were VERY strong GM's! - agreed with 
        Chernikov. (On this point.) 

        I must also hasten to add that it was the great Nezhmetdinov 
        himself who suggested ...d5! And he did so immediately after 
        the game.   ]  




"We have before us a typical example of an intuitive sacrifice, in which imagination and (also) intuition come to the forefront and enable us to realize more profoundly the richness and beauty of the art of chess." 

"That is why we were surprised when analyses soon appeared in the press, trying to prove the incorrectness of the Queen sacrifice. They criticized Black's last move and recommended 14.  ...d5!;  claiming that this move gives Black the advantage. It is indisputable that a good idea is contained in this move."  (In 14...d5.) 

However, a good idea was also contained in the move made in the actual game! Who knows, if Chernikov had played 14...d5 instead of 14...Re8 and lost with it, analysis may have appeared demonstrating that he (Chernikov) should have played, 14...Re8!"  

"In any case, Nezhmetdinov dreamed of playing this position against one of the press analysts, especially since they considered only 15.Nxd5!? Nezhmetdinov had an interesting surprise in store: (namely) 15.Bd4!  During our - rather lengthy - analysis together, we concluded that 15.Nxd5 leads to a position where perhaps Black has much more difficulties than White." 
 - Voloshin  (A good friend and sometimes trainer of Nezhmetdinov.) 




15.Nd5 Re6;  16.Bd4 Kg7;  17.Rad1, ('!')  17...d6;   
This is probably the correct move here. 

     [  Not to be recommended is:  </=  17...Rxe4!?;  ('?!')  18.Bc3!
"+/="  {Diagram?}  
and White will probably win. 


        Also less than best is: 17...b5!?18.Rd3,  "--->"  {Diagram?}  
        If Black now captures on e4 - several programs say this is  
        forced - then White probably has a winning attack.  ("+/-") 


        Very bad would have been:  17...b6?!;  ('?')  18.Nc7 Bb7;  
        19.Bc3! Qc520.Nxa8 Bxa821.Rxd7!, ""  {Diagram?}  
        and White's attack continues without respite ... and he is 
        no longer even materially inferior. (Maybe "+/-")  ]   


White prepares to pile up on the f6-square.

(White has  several interesting moves  in this position. Despite 
 giving different  'boxes'  2 or 3 hours here, some very strong 
 programs like  Fritz 8.0  have a very hard time making the 
 decision as what is the correct move here.)  

     [ Interesting was:  18.f4!?, "~" ]  


18...Bd7;  19.Rf3 Bb5;  20.Bc3!,   
Driving away the Queen. (White had several interesting moves here 
to look at, and I am sure that Nez at least gave them a summary analysis. 
I know this, because large amounts of calculation was the essence of his 
style - at least when he was at his very best.)  

     [  20.Nxf6!?; or  20.Re1!?  ]  


20...Qd8;   {See the diagram just below.}   
Black appears to be defending.
(And doing well.) 


    This is the position after Black's 20th move. The second player seems to be all right, at least at a quick glance.  (nezh-cher_r62pos2.gif, 54 KB)

(The position in the game just after Black played ...Qd8.)



21.Nxf6!,  (Really - '!!')  {Diagram?}  
Another surprise. 

I might have expected Re1. 

Soltis also awards this move an exclamation point as well.

     [ 21.Re1 ]  


21...Be2;  {Box?}   
Seemingly forced ... and the first choice here of many different 
computer programs. 

     [  The capture on f1 might look testing, but meets with a bad 
        end, for example: </=  21...Bxf1; ('?!')  22.Ng4+ Kg8!?; 23.Bxe6, {D?} 
        This appears to be best. 

            ( White can also win with: 23.Nh6+ Kf8; 24.Nxf7 Qe7!?; 25.Ng5+!?,     
              25...Ke8; 26.Nxe6, "+/-"  {Diagram?}  
              and ... "the Black King is clearly  not destined for a long life."     
               - Iakov Damsky. )    

        23...Qg524.Bxf7+ Kf825.Bxg6+ Ke726.Bf6+,  ("+/-")  {Diag?} 
        and White wins back all of his material ... with interest.  ]  


Yet another surprise for poor IM Oleg Chernikov here. 
(By now, the poor fellow must have been truly in shock! 
 And today Chernikov is a GM.)

Nez almost seems to be playing with the intention of trying to sacrifice 
every piece he has!  

Soltis also awards this move an exclamation point as well.  

     [ 22.Nh5+!? ]  


This is probably forced.  

     [  Probably losing would be:  </=  22...Kxh723.Rxf7+ Kh6; 
        24.Bxe6 Bxf125.Bd2+ g526.Bf5 Qh8;  {Diagram?}  
        This looks forced.  

        (26...Qg8?; 27.Rf6+ Kg7; 28.Rg6+ Kf7; 29.Rxg8 Rxg8;    
         30.Kxf1, "+/-"  {Diagram?}     
         White has two Bishops AND three! (3) pawns for the Rook!  

        27.h4!,  ("+/-")  {Diagram?}  
        with an overwhelming game for the first player here. 

        Main line here by:  - GM Andrew Soltis.  

        (Iakov Damsky gives another line here with 24.Bd2+!? 
         But this line is not as accurate.)  ]  


White continues to gang up on the Black King.  

(White's big threat is now Knight-to-g5, winning.) 

     [  Also very good was:  >/=  23.Nf6+!?, ''  ('!')  {Diag?}  
        with clearly the better game for White.   (Maybe  "+/-")    

        The computer said that this variation is superior to Rh3, 
         but only by an extremely small margin ... or point differential. 

        Nez said after the game that he avoided this line because 
        he knew his opponent would sacrifice back on f6, and his 
        attack would lose much if its steam.  ]  


Apparently this is forced.  

     [  Black no longer has the time to try and liberate his position: 
        </=   23...d5!?;  {Diagram?}  
        A nice attempt, but too late.  

        24.Bxd5 Bxf1!?;  {Diagram?}  
        Black has other moves, but they will also lose as well.

           ( Black also gets the short end of the stick after:   
              24...Rc8!?; 25.Ng5! Rxc3!; 26.Rh8+!!, {Diag?}     
              and White will win. ("+/-")    

        25.Ng5 Kf8;  {Diagram?}  
        This is forced.  

           ( Not  25...Qxg5??; 26.Rh8#.  

             Or   25...Rf6; ('?') 26.Bxf7+ Kf8[]; 27.Bb4+ Rd6; 28.Rh8+,   
             28...Ke7; 29.Rxd8 Raxd8; 30.e5, "+/-" )     

        26.Rh8+ Ke727.Rxd8 Rxd828.Kxf1 Rb629.Bxf7, "+/-"  {D?}  
        with an unusual - but winning! - material balance of three (3)  minor 
        pieces  AND  four (4) pawns ...  for the two (2) Black Rooks. 


        Bad for Black would be: </=  23...Rc8?24.Ng5!,  {Diagram?}  
        I think this is best.  

        (White gets a fairly simple win in this line ... all that is needed is 
         some basic calculation.)  

          (Damsky wrote that Nez intended to play the simple Bd4, trying     
           to maintain the tension: 24.Bd4 Bxf1?; 25.Ng5 Re5; 26.Nxf7, "+/-" {D?}    
           and White should win without any major difficulty.)       

        24...Rxc3[];  {Diagram?}  
        Not much choice here.  

           (24...Qxg5??; 25.Rh8#)     

        25.Rh8+ Kxh826.Nxf7+ Kg827.Nxd8 Rxb328.axb3 Re8; 
        29.Nxb7 Bxf1; 30.Kxf1 Rxe431.Nxd6,  ("+/-")  {Diagram?}  
        White has a  Knight  ... and  FOUR Pawns  for the Rook.  


        (I think Damsky gives the following line.)  
        Simply bad is:  23...Bh5?24.Bxe6 fxe6?!25.Nf6+ Kf7; 
        26.g4, ("+/-")  White has a win on material ... 
        and his attack continues.  ]   


Once again, the great Master of attack shows a complete disdain 
for any type of attempt at restoring the material balance. 

     [ 24.Re1!? ]  


24...Bxf1!?;  (Hmmm.)  {Diagram?}  
GM Andy Soltis questions this move, ('?') but fails to provide 
any explanation for his criticism. 

(ChessMaster 8000  says ...Rh5;  is better here, but only by a 
 few thousandths of a point.)  

     [  There is no saving the game, as the following variation - which was 
        tested on five different programs - clearly demonstrates:  
        = 24...Rh5; ('?!')  25.Nf6+ Kf8; 26.Nxh5 gxh5[]27.Rf2 Bg4!?;  
        28.Rd3 Qe729.Rd4 a5!?30.f5! b531.h3 b432.Bd2 Qe5; 
        33.c3 Bxh334.gxh3 a435.Bd5 bxc336.bxc3!,  ("+/-")  {Diag?}  
        and all the boxes agree that White is clearly winning. 

        The moves are just too easy to find in this line!  ]  


25.Kxf1 Rc8;   
Several computer programs pick this move, it threatens ...Rxc3!;  
with some counterplay.  

     [  The continuation of: 25...Rh5?!; ('?')  26.Nf6+ Kf827.Nxh5
        27...gxh528.Rxh5 Ke729.Rh7,
  "+/-"  {Diagram?}  
        with a dominating edge for White, is similar (transposition?) 
        to the line in the note given after Black's last move.  

        For the missing Queen, White has two (2) Bishops, three (3) 
        Pawns  ...  and a TON of threats!  

        ALL the computer programs agree that White has a DECISIVE 
        edge in this position!!  ]  


Nez liked keeping the material on the board - he seemed to thrive on 
complications. But fxe5 was probably an improvement over the actual
game continuation. 

(But we would have also been denied the very extraordinary 
 finish to this game!)

   "White should play 26.fxe5 (!) because otherwise 26...Rh5! defends.    
     Black also missed ... Rh5! at move(s) 24 and 25."    
     - GM Andrew Soltis.  ('The 100 Best.'  page # 177.)      

The above statement is just plain WRONG and INCORRECT!!!  
 (The analysis here pretty much proves that beyond any doubt. 
  And some of these lines were checked by over half-a-dozen 
  different chess programs.) - LM A.J. Goldsby I.  

     [  Slightly better (here) was:  >/=  26.fxe5!, ("+/-")  {Diagram?}  
        and White is winning. 
        (But White's attack loses much of its impetus, which is 
         probably why Nez did not play this way!) 

        --->  Damsky calls the move fxe5, "hasty."  ]   


I don't know if there was a move to save the game for Black here.  

Soltis gives this move a whole question mark ('?') here and goes 
on to claim that ...Rh5?!; would defend the position, but this is just 
plain incorrect.
 (His question mark here seems to be completely unjustified.)    


     [  Several authors  have mistakenly claimed that ...Rh5;  would 
        have better defended the game than what was played, but 
        the following line shows that this is wrong: 
        26...Rh5?!; ('?')  27.Nf6+ Kf828.Nxh5 gxh529.Rxh5 Ke7;  
        30.Rh7 d5!?31.Bxd5 Rxc232.b4!, "+/-"  {Diagram?}  
        All the programs agree that White is winning ... and by a  
        fairly large {point} margin.  

        (One winning plan is for White to march his g-pawn to the  
          g5-square, and then play Rxf7+.) 


        Black's only chance may have been to try: 
        26...Rxe4!?27.Nf6+ Qxf628.Bxf6 Rxf4+29.Rf3 Rxf3+;  
        30.gxf3''   (Maybe  "+/-")  {Diagram?}  
        but I had no problem winning  this position against Fritz 7. 


        Maybe  26...Rc7!?;   
        but this could just transpose back into the game.  
        (Or now just  27.c3, "+/-")  ]   


Nez's method of playing here is almost hypnotic. 
(More pressure, more pressure.)  

Soltis also awards this move an exclamation point as well.

     [  Also playable was:  27.fxe5 dxe528.Be3,  {Diagram?}  
         and White is clearly better.  ]  


White now finishes off with a rain of strong and striking tactical blows. 
(Soltis only awards one exclam to White's 27th, 28th, & 29th moves.) 
This could be forced. 

     [  </=  27...Rc4?28.Bxc4 bxc429.Bxe5 dxe530.Rh8+ Kxh8; 
        31.Nxf7+ Kg732.Nxd8, "+/-"  {Diagram?}  
        White has an obvious win.   


        If ...Qf6; Nez had already worked out the following line over-the-board. 
        </=  27...Qf6;  ('?!')  28.Bxf7+ Kg729.Rh7+ Kf830.Ne6+ Ke7?;  {D?} 
        This is bad. 

            ( The only chance for Black is:  
               >/=  30...Rxe6; 31.Bxf6 Rxf6; 32.Rh8+ Kxf7; 33.Rxc8 Rxf4+; 34.Ke2,    
               34...Rxe4+; 35.Kd3 Rg4; 36.g3 Ra4!?; 37.a3, ''  {Diagram?}     
               (Maybe "+/-")  but the win is really only a matter of technique here. )      

        31.Bxg6+! Kxe632.f5+ Rxf5+[]33.exf5+ Qxf5+[]34.Bxf5+ Kxf5;  
        35.c3,  ("+/-")  {Diagram?}   with an easy win for White.  ]   


28.Bxf7+!! Rxf7;  {See the diagram just below.}  
Has Black defended? 



    The position ... just before White administers the 'coup-de-grace.'  (nezh-cher_r62pos3.gif, 53 KB)

(The actual position in the game after 28...Rxf7.)



Bxe5!? trying to con Black into playing ...Qxg5??; Rh8 mate does not work. 
The second player responds to Bxe5 with  ... Rf6!  with a rather unclear 

     [  Or  </=  28...Kg7?29.Ne6+,  ("+/-")  and White wins. ]  



The move actually played by White wins easily. 
29.Rh8+! Kxh8;  30.Nxf7+ Kh7;  31.Nxd8 Rxe4;  32.Nc6 Rxf4+; 
33.Ke2,   Black Resigns. (1-0)   

(A Master knows that his game is completely untenable here. 
 White has a pawn and two minor pieces for the Rook, Black's pawn structure 
 stinks, and all of White's pieces are nearly ideally placed.) 

A fantastic game. Some of Nez's moves truly take your breath away. 
{A good game to study tactics!} 

A game like this also explains why M. Tal - easily one of the greatest tacticians 
of all time - was so enamored of Nez's style of play.

  It also is one of the most original finishes of a chess game ever.     

"A mighty game which will undoubtedly enter into and  enrich the treasury of 
 chess art."  - SM Vladislav Meshcheryakov. (A Nezhmetdinov biographer.) 

This is game number sixty-five (#65)  in GM Andy Soltis's book of  
 "The 100 Best."   He used like one double-exclam, 8-10 exclams, 
and also 3 question marks in annotating this game. (I feel he was too 
liberal in his use of the question mark appellation, and two of these 
cannot be substantiated at all.)

  1 - 0  


 Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby I.  Copyright (c) A.J.G;  2003. 



I consulted several different books in annotating this game. 

# 1.)  'Chess Brilliancy, ' 250 historic games;  by  NM Iakov Damsky
          (Game # 18, Page # 20.) 
          Published by EVERYMAN Chess, formerly Cadogan Books. 
          Translated by K. Neat. (Copyright 2002.) 

# 2.)  [The Mammoth Book Of]  "The World's Greatest Chess Games," 
          by  Dr. (& GM) John Nunn, GM John Emms, and FM Graham Burgess
          Published by Carroll  & Graf books. Copyrighted by the authors, 1998. 

# 3.)  "Chess Highlights of The 20th Century," 
('The Best Chess 1900-1999 In  Historical Context')  
by  FM Graham Burgess
          Published by Gambit Books, Copyright G. Burgess, 1999. 

# 4.)  "The 100 Best,"  (The 100 Best Games of The 20th Century, Ranked.) 
          by  GM Andrew Soltis.  (Game # 65, page # 175.)  
          Published by McFarland Books. Copyright () 2000 by A. Soltis. 

# 5.)  "The Games of Rashid Nezmetdinov,"  (annotated on CD-ROM); 
            by GM A. Khalifman. (And others.) 

# 6.)  "Super-Nez,"  by  A. Pishkin.

# 7.)  "Nezhmetdinov's Killer Instinct,"  by  Pyshkin
           (Pretty much the same book as above.) 

# 8.)  "Nezhmetdinov's Best Games Of Chess,"  by  IM Rashid Nezhmetdinov. 
           Translated from the original Russian version of this book. 
            Published in the U.S.A. by Caissa Books, 2000, by Dale A. Brandeth. 

# 9.)  "Chess Tactics" (This is from memory, I think this book is by Schiller and 
           Shamkovich, but I am not sure. I could not find it at the moment.) 



  (Code Initially)  Generated with  ChessBase 8.0   

There is no site map, but you can click  here.  

 Click  here  to go to - or return to - my page of:
ANNOTATED GAMES,  (Angel-Fire 2); Page #2. 

Click  here  to return to the main  "Recent GM Games"  
(home/main)  page. 

  Click  here  to go (or return) to my big GC website.  

 (To contact me concerning this analysis, click  here.) 

This page was last updated on 12/24/06 .

  Copyright ()  LM A.J. Goldsby, 2003, 2004, & 2005.  

   Copyright () A.J. Goldsby, 2006.  All rights reserved.  

A counter for my web page. (Counter.gif, 02 KB)