|
|
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]
|
|
******************************************************************
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;
7.Bc4!?,
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 0-0; 8.Nb3! d6;
{Diagram?}
The most sensible move.
(Too risky was: 8...a5!?;
9.a4! Nb4!?; 10.f4 d5!?; 11.e5 Ne4;
12.Bf3! Bf5;
13.Nd4 Qc7!?; {Diagram?}
This is probably an idea of a
highly dubious nature. [?!]
(Maybe ...Rc8.)
14.Ncb5 Qc8; 15.c3 Na6; 16.Nxf5 gxf5;
17.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 Be6; 10.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. ]
*******
8...Ng4!?;
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...d6;
9.f3 Bd7; 10.Qd2 Ne5; 11.0-0-0,
"+/=" {Diag?}
we transpose back into the
standard lines of the Yugoslav
Attack versus the Sicilian
Dragon.
***
Black can also play: 8...a5; 9.f3!? d5!?;
10.Bxd5 Nxd5; 11.exd5,
11...Nb4;
12.Nde2 Bf5; 13.Rc1 b5; 14.0-0 Rc8;
{Diagram?}
The end of the column.
15.Nd4 Bxd4; 16.Qxd4 Nxc2; 17.Rxc2 Bxc2;
18.Bh6 e5; 19.Qxe5 f6;
20.Qe6+ Rf7;
21.Ne4 Bxe4; 22.fxe4 Qd7; 23.Qxd7 Rxd7; 24.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.). ] ]
9.Qxg4,
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. Reshevsky; Match game, 16.07.1961
and also: Z. Lanka - J. Pribyl; BL2-Ost 1012 (5); 2001. ]
10...Qa5!?;
Black sets up some sneaky
tactical tricks.
[ Black could play: 10...d6;
11.0-0, "+/=" {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.}
*******
|
|
The actual game position after 11...Bf6.
*******
[ Or 11...Nc6;
12.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!? Bg7;
13.Qh4 Bf6; "=" {Diagram?}
and it appears that neither side
should avoid the draw here. ]
12...Ne2+!;
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...Qd8;
16.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.
THEY ALSO
EVALUATE BLACK'S POSITION
AS COMPLETELY
WINNING, ("-/+"); FOR THE SECOND
PLAYER HERE!!!!!)
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!,
18...Qc5; 19.Nxf6,
"+/=" {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! Qc5;
20.Nxa8 Bxa8; 21.Rxd7!, "±" {Diagram?}
and White's attack continues without
respite ... and he is
no longer even materially inferior.
(Maybe "+/-") ]
18.Rd3!,
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.)
*******
|
|
(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...Qg5;
24.Bxf7+ Kf8; 25.Bxg6+ Ke7; 26.Bf6+, ("+/-")
{Diag?}
and White wins back all of his
material ... with interest. ]
22.Nxh7+!,
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+!? ]
22...Kg8;
This is probably forced.
[ Probably losing would be: </=
22...Kxh7; 23.Rxf7+ Kh6;
24.Bxe6 Bxf1;
25.Bd2+ g5; 26.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.) ]
23.Rh3,
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. ]
23...Re5;
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+ Ke7; 27.Rxd8 Rxd8; 28.Kxf1 Rb6;
29.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+ Kxh8; 26.Nxf7+ Kg8; 27.Nxd8 Rxb3;
28.axb3 Re8;
29.Nxb7 Bxf1;
30.Kxf1 Rxe4; 31.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. ]
24.f4!,
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 Qe7;
29.Rd4 a5!?; 30.f5! b5; 31.h3 b4; 32.Bd2 Qe5;
33.c3 Bxh3;
34.gxh3 a4; 35.Bd5 bxc3; 36.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+ Kf8;
27.Nxh5,
27...gxh5; 28.Rxh5 Ke7;
29.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!! ]
26.Bd4!?,
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." ]
26...b5!?;
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+ Kf8;
28.Nxh5 gxh5; 29.Rxh5 Ke7;
30.Rh7 d5!?;
31.Bxd5 Rxc2; 32.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+ Qxf6; 28.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, "+/-")
]
27.Ng5!;
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 dxe5;
28.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.)
27...Rc7;
This could be forced.
[ </=
27...Rc4?; 28.Bxc4 bxc4; 29.Bxe5
dxe5; 30.Rh8+ Kxh8;
31.Nxf7+ Kg7;
32.Nxd8, "+/-" {Diagram?}
White has an obvious
win.
***
If ...Qf6; Nez had already worked out the following line over-the-board.
</= 27...Qf6;
('?!') 28.Bxf7+ Kg7;
29.Rh7+ Kf8; 30.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+! Kxe6; 32.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 actual position in the game after 28...Rxf7.)
*******
Now:
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
position.
[ 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.)
******************************************************************
Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby I. Copyright (c) A.J.G; 2003.
***
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
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.
|
|
