Analytical Corrections, Additions and belong in this collection, examples being and enhancements are cases where Enhancements games 72, 95, 98, and 129. On the other Alekhine found good moves, but Rybka hand, Rybka ringingly endorses Alekhine merely found better ones which we for in other quite difficult games, for example thought would interest the reader (e.g. validating both text moves and complex forcing mate in preference to winning the My Best Games of Chess 1908-1937 analytical variations in games 106, 121, queen in Game 5, Alekhine-Vidmar, by Alexander Alekhine 124, 133, 153 and 175. Carlsbad 1911). Also the fact that sometimes Alekhine’s opponents erred by Taylor Kingston We did notice what seemed to be two when they could have equalized, is not to minor patterns in Alekhine’s mistakes. be taken as meaning Alekhine did not The games and note variations in this book One, though he was often admirably deserve to win. Had they not erred at, say, were converted to algebraic notation using objective in pointing out his own errors, on move 25, then they likely would have at ChessBase, with the analysis engine Rybka occasion he tended to “analyze by result,” some later point. 3 UCI running in the background. During i.e. to make it seem, especially if he won this process much of the book’s analysis by a sparkling combination, that his every We do not claim the list below is came to be compared to Rybka’s. On the move must have been a strong link in a comprehensive; not every variation of whole, Alekhine’s judgment was upheld logical chain, and his victory the every game was examined. Nor do we much more often than not, but like a inexorable result of a master plan, when in claim it is inerrant; though today’s engines football referee overruled by instant fact the game was not nearly so are very strong, they can miss things replay, even a world champion can be harmonious, the plan not infallible, and he beyond their analytical horizon. The proven wrong – sometimes dramatically so won simply because of a lapse by the interested reader is encouraged to examine – by the relentlessly objective scrutiny of opponent at a crucial point. Examples are further on his own. an unblinking silicon eye. games 60, 95, 96, 98, 100, 134, 135, and 193. Secondly, in positions where he was Game 1, Alekhine-Gregory, St. We present here the corrections, additions attacking, he tended sometimes to Petersburg 1909: Alekhine’s notes are on and enhancements thus revealed that we overlook important defensive resources by the whole quite sound here; we note only consider significant: not minor half-pawn which his opponents could have salvaged some minor improvements and differences, but cases where an important draws, especially when perpetual check corrections. In the note to White’s 20th tactical shot was missed, where a resource was involved. See for example games 9, move, after 20.Qxh1 d5, that could have changed a loss to a draw or 25, 42, 129, 168, 179, 191, 202, 210, and win was overlooked, where a good move the Colle game from Baden-Baden 1925 was called bad (or vice versa), or where a embedded in the notes to game 103. We cuuuuuuuuC position was misevaluated. Also some might conjecture that the former tendency {wDkDw4n4} {0pDw1w0w} cases where there was no real mistake, but derived in part from the fact that, at least {wDpDPDw0} an especially interesting variation, or a until he won the world title in 1927, {DwDp0w)w} much stronger one, was not pointed out. Alekhine’s annotations were, to some {wDBDw)w)} Generally, we did not concern ourselves extent, sales pitches. Seeking backers for {)w)PDwDN} with openings, though a few instances of a his challenge to Capablanca, he wanted to {wDPGwDwD} major change in theoretical evaluation appear omniscient. That does not explain {DRDwIwDQ} vllllllllV were noted. the latter tendency, seen mostly in post- 1927 games. Numbers given with some variations White is not obliged to cede Black the represent Rybka’s evaluation of the Still, the vast majority of his mistakes initiative with the retreat 21.Bb3; instead position to the nearest hundredth of a came from note variations, not actual game he has 21.Bxd5! cxd5 22.Qxd5 Rd8 (if 22...hxg5 23.Rxb7! Qxb7 24.Qc5+ Qc7 pawn, e.g. a difference of exactly one moves. In frequency and degree of 25.Qxf8+ etc.) 23.Qxe5 and with four pawn, with no other relevant non-material annotation error, Alekhine fares no worse, pawns for the exchange, White is clearly differences, has the value +1.00. A and in some cases better, than other all- winning. position where Rybka considers White time greats – Lasker, Botvinnik, Smyslov, better by 3½ pawns (or the equivalent, Najdorf, Tartakower, Fine, Timman – Therefore 20.Qxh1 was not inferior to the such as a minor piece) would get the value whose works we have analyzed in similar text continuation 20.Qxa7, +3.50; one favoring Black to the same fashion. It simply was not possible then for extent would be -3.50. These numbers may a single chess master, no matter how great, cuuuuuuuuC vary some from one machine to another, or to come anywhere near the accuracy and {wDkDw4n4} with the length of time allowed for thoroughness of today’s chess engines, {!pDw1w0w} analysis, but are generally valid and which can analyze thousands of moves in {wDp0PDw0} reliable. mere seconds. It should also be noted that {DwDw0w)w} – unlike this writer – Alekhine did not {wDBDw)w)} {)w)PDwDN} The one area where analysis engines are have the luxury of a leisurely pace in {wDPGwDwD} sometimes suspect is the endgame. In such writing his books: he generally led a very {DRDwIwDb} cases we consulted Dr. Stephen B. Dowd, busy life, filled with – besides frequent vllllllllV a published study composer and endgame serious play and its attendant preparations expert, for whose help we are most – many simultaneous exhibitions, lectures especially since instead of 20...c5, Black grateful. and blindfold displays, writing magazine could have put up stiffer resistance with and newspaper articles, transcontinental 20...b5!?, requiring White to find the more None of this should be taken as any travel, etc. (Not to mention the occasional difficult continuation 21.Qa8+ Kc7 disparagement of Alekhine as a player – war or revolution!) In further mitigation, 22.Qa5+ Kc8 23.a4! Qb7 24.axb5 Bd5 his greatness in that respect is indisputable. some of our corrections are to notes by 25.Bxd5 cxd5 26.fxe5 to win. Granted, Rybka’s impartial analysis does others whom Alekhine quotes, others reveal that some games, arguably, may not involve typos, and many of our additions At move 21, Game 6, Alapin-Alekhine, Carlsbad 1911: Qf5+ 44.Ke1 gxf6 45.Qxg4+ Qxg4 cuuuuuuuuC The note variation at move 19 can be 46.Rxg4+ Kf7, {wDkDw4n4} improved. After 20.Qxd6 Nxf3+ 21.Kf2 {!pDw1w0w} Qxd6 22.Rxd6 Nxe1 23.Rd2, cuuuuuuuuC {wDw0PDw0} {wDwDw4wD} {Dw0w0w)w} {0wDwDkDw} cuuuuuuuuC {wDBDw)w)} {wDpDw0wD} {rDwDrDkD} {)w)PDwDN} {DwDwDwDw} {0wDwDp0p} {wDPGwDwD} {w)wDwDRD} {wDpDwDwD} {DRDwIwDb} {DwDwDwDn} {DpDwDwDw} vllllllllV {wGwDwDw)} {wDwDwHPD} {DwDwIwDw} {DwDwGwDw} while there is nothing wrong with the text {P)P$wIw)} vllllllllV move 21.d4, it is only about 8th-best, and {DwDwhwDw} contrary to Alekhine’s claim, not strictly vllllllllV when Black is a pawn up but White has necessary. Best is 21.Ba6! Qc7 22.fxe5 good drawing chances, and Rybka rates dxe5 23.Bxb7+! Bxb7 24.Rxb7 Qxb7 rather than 23...g6, Black should play the position as virtually even. 25.Qxc5+ Qc7 26.Qxf8+, 23...Re4. The reason is that after 23...g6, rather than 24.Re2 as given, White can Game 7, Alekhine-Chajes, Carlsbad cuuuuuuuuC improve with 24.Ne2!, 1911: The note variation at move 18 can {wDkDw!n4} be improved considerably. After 18...Ne7, {Dw1wDw0w} cuuuuuuuuC {wDwDPDw0} {rDwDrDkD} cuuuuuuuuC {DwDw0w)w} {0wDwDpDp} {wDwDkDw4} {wDwDwDw)} {wDpDwDpD} {DwDphpDp} {)w)PDwDN} {DpDwDwDw} {bDw!pDpD} {wDPGwDwD} {wDwDwDPD} {DqDw)wDw} {DwDwIwDw} {DwDwGwDw} {whwDPGwD} vllllllllV {P)P$NIw)} {DwDwDwDw} {DwDwhwDw} {PDwDwDP)} and again White is winning easily. vllllllllV {DRDwDRDK} vllllllllV Game 3, Speyer-Alekhine, Hamburg e.g. 24...Re4 25.Bd4 c5 26.Bf6 Rae8 1910: 23...d4 may not have been as good 27.Kxe1 Rxg4, or 24...Ng2 25.Bh6 Nh4 the line given, 19.Qxb4 Qxb4 20.Rxb4 is as thought. 26.Bg5, in either case leaving Black with not good, a considerably smaller advantage than in cuuuuuuuuC the note variation (only about half a pawn cuuuuuuuuC {w4wDw4kD} {wDwDkDw4} at best), mainly because 23...g6 opens {DwDwDp0p} {DwDphpDp} convenient squares to the white bishop. {wDwDwDwD} {bDwDpDpD} {0p0w)wDw} {DwDw)wDw} {wDn0wDwD} In contrast, after 23...Re4, {w$wDPGwD} {)PGwDwDw} {DwDwDwDw} {wDPDw)P)} cuuuuuuuuC {PDwDwDP)} {DwIw$wDR} {rDwDwDkD} {DwDwDRDK} vllllllllV {0wDwDp0p} vllllllllV {wDpDwDwD} No mention is made of the variation {DpDwDwDw} because rather than 20...Bxf1? 21.Rb1+ {wDwDrHPD} 24.Bxd4!? cxd4 25.bxc4, when if etc., Black has 20...Nc6! after which he {DwDwGwDw} 25...bxc4 26.Re4=, or 25...Rfc8 26.cxb5 {P)P$wIw)} gets back one of the rooks with impunity Rxb5 27.Rd1 Rbc5 28.Kb1! Rxc2 {DwDwhwDw} and regains near equality. Instead, 29.Rc1=. vllllllllV completely decisive is (from previous diagram) 19.Rfd1!, Game 5, Alekhine-Vidmar, Carlsbad 24.Ne2? is answered by 24...Ng2!o, 1911: A trifling improvement to the note at while if 24.Re2 Rxe3 25.Rxe3 Nxc2 and cuuuuuuuuC move 33: we agree that 34.Qxf7 can lead Black is two pawns up. {wDwDkDw4} {DwDphpDp} to White losing his queen, {bDw!pDpD} The note at move 41 states that after {DqDw)wDw} cuuuuuuuuC 41...h5, {whwDPGwD} {wDwDwDwD} {DwDwDwDw} {Dw0wDQ0k} cuuuuuuuuC {PDwDwDP)} {wDpDwDw0} {wDwDw4kD} {DRDRDwDK} {$wDwDwDw} {0wDwDw0w} vllllllllV {w)wGPDwD} {Dw)wDwDP} {wDpDwDwD} {wDwDw)bI} {DwDqDPDp} which gets the Rf1 out of trouble and {w)wDRDPD} {DwDqDwDw} overburdens the black queen. Black has {DwDwDwDn} vllllllllV {wGwDwDw)} nothing better than 19...Nc8 20.Qxb4 {DwDw!KDw} Qxb4 21.Rxb4 and White is up the but after 34...Qh1+ 35.Kg3 Qxh3+ vllllllllV exchange with a dominant positional and 36.Kf4 Qf3+ 37.Ke5, Black can do even developmental advantage. better than 37...Qxf7 with 37...Qxe4#. there is nothing better than 42.Qc3, but this is questionable. After 42.Qe2! best Game 8, Alekhine–Dus-Chotimirski, play runs something like 42...hxg4 43.f6 Carlsbad 1911: The note at move 18 overlooks a winning shot for White. After cuuuuuuuuC 28.Nxf7+ Bxf7 29.Rxf7 Rxa2 30.Rff8 h5 18...c4 19.bxc4 Nxc4 20.Rc3 Rc8?? as {wDw4wiwD} 31.Rxg8+ Kh7 32.Nc3, {0wDw1wDr} given (better 20...Qe5y), {w0wDwDQD} cuuuuuuuuC cuuuuuuuuC {Dw0w)wDw} {wDw$wDRD} {wDrDwiw4} {wDwDwDwD} {0w0wDw0k} {0pDw1bDp} {DwDwDwDw} {wDwDwDwD} {wDwDw0wD} {P)wDwDB)} {Dw)w4wDp} {DwDwDw0w} {DwDw$wIw} {wDwDwDwD} {wDnDPDwD} vllllllllV {DPHwDwDP} {Dw$wDw)w} {rDwDwDPD} {PDQDw)B)} when White has nothing better than {DwDwDwIw} {$wGwDwIw} perpetual check by 29.Rf1+ Rf7 30.Qh6+ vllllllllV vllllllllV Kg8 31.Rxf7 Kxf7 32.Qh7+ etc. Instead of 27.Rxg6?, White wins by (from and White is up a piece. Black will not have time for 21...Kg7 previous diagram) 27.Rf1+! Kg8 28.Rf6 because of 21.Ba3! forcing either 21...Rc5 forcing 28...Qxf6 29.exf6i. Game 11, Spielmann-Alekhine, 22.Bxc5 Qxc5 or 21...Nxa3 22.Rxc8+ Stockholm 1912: Contrary to the note at Kg7 23.Qc7, White winning in both cases. Game 9, Alekhine-Marco, Stockholm move 17, after 17...Bd6 White was not 1912: A minor correction to the note at forced to play 18.f4. Instead, 18.Rfe1! was The note at move 21 recommends move 19: after 20.Ng4 Be8, best. 21...Rhe8 as the best defense, but underestimates White’s attack in that line. cuuuuuuuuC cuuuuuuuuC {rDwDb4ni} {rDbDw4wD} cuuuuuuuuC {0p1wgwDw} {0p0wiw0p} {rDwDrDwD} {wDp0w0Q0} {wDwgwhwD} {0pDw1bip} {DwDwDPDw} {DPDwHwGw} {wDwDw0wD} {PDwGPDND} {wDBDpDwD} {Dw0w)w0w} {DPHwDwDP} {Dw)wDwDw} {wDwDwDwD} {w)wDwDPD} {PDwDw)P)} {DwDw$w)w} {DwDRDRIw} {$wDw$wIw} {P)QDw)B)} vllllllllV vllllllllV {DwDRDwIw} vllllllllV White need lose only a knight rather than If then 18...Bxe5? 19.Rxe4 regains the his queen, viz. 21.Nxf6 Bxf6 (21...Bxg6?? piece with advantage, while if 18...Bf5 After 22.exf6+ Qxf6 23.Rf3! Qe7 (if 22.Nfd5+i) 22.Qg3 etc. 19.Nf3 Kd7 20.Nd4 with some advantage 23...Bg6 24.Qxc5i) 24.Rxf7+! Qxf7 for White. 25.Qc3+, Game 10, Alekhine-Cohn, Stockholm At White’s 23rd move, 1912: Unnoticed is the fact that White cuuuuuuuuC could have wrapped up the game earlier. cuuuuuuuuC {rDwDrDwD} {rDwDk4wD} At move 26, {0pDwDqip} {0p0wDw0p} {wDwDwDwD} {wDwgbDwD} cuuuuuuuuC {Dw0wDw0w} {DPDnHwGw} {wDwDwDkD} {wDwDwDwD} {wDwDw)PD} {0w0wDp0p} {Dw!wDw)w} {Dw)B0wDP} {rDwDwDbh} {P)wDw)B)} {PDwDwDwD} {Dw)w4wHw} {DwDRDwIw} {$wDw$wIw} {wDwHwDwD} vllllllllV vllllllllV {DPDwDwDP} {PDwDwDPD} White wins in either 25...Kg8 26.Bd5 {DwDRDRIw} the possibilities 23.Be4 and 23.Nc4 were Re6 27.Qxc5i, or 25...Kf8 26.Bd5 Qg6 vllllllllV worth mentioning, both being considerably 27.Qxc5+ Kg7 28.Bxb7 Rab8 29.Qc3+ better than the text move 23.f5? or the Kh6 30.Qc7! and the threat of 31.Rd6 while the text 26.Nde6 was not at all bad, suggested 23.Bxh7, e.g. 23.Nc4 Bc5 (or forces 30...Rxb7 31.Qxb7i. stronger was 26.Nb5!, when there are two 23...h6 24.Nxd6+ cxd6 25.c4 Nxf4 main variations: (a) 26...Kf8 27.Nxc7 26.Bxf4 Rxf4 27.Rxe3) 24.f5 Bg8 The note at move 26 commits a serious Rxa2 28.Rd8+ Ke7 29.Re8+ Kd7 25.Nxe3, or 23.Be4 Nxf4 24.Bxf4 Rxf4 error. After 26...Bg6, 30.Rxe5 Kxc7, 25.Bxb7 Rb8 26.Bc6+. cuuuuuuuuC cuuuuuuuuC The last note is mistaken to claim that after {wDw4wiw4} {wDwDwDwD} 27...Ne2+ 28.Kg2 Rf2+ 29.Kh1 Bb4 {0wDw1wDp} {0wiwDp0p} 30.Rxg7 Black is forced to take a {w0wDwDbD} {wDwDwDbh} perpetual check. {Dw0w)wDw} {Dw)w$wHw} {wDwDwDwD} {wDwDwDwD} cuuuuuuuuC {DwDwDw$w} {DPDwDwDP} {rDwDkDwD} {P)QDwDB)} {rDwDwDPD} {0p0wDw$B} {DwDw$wIw} {DwDwDRIw} {wDwDPDwD} vllllllllV vllllllllV {DPDwDwGw} {wgwDwDPD} the recommended line 27.Rxg6 hxg6 and White is up the exchange with a {DwDw0wDP} 28.Qxg6 fails if, instead of the seeming passed pawn to boot; and (from previous {PDwDn4wD} typo 28...Qxe5??, Black plays 28...Rh7!, diagram) (b) 26...Kh8 27.Rd8+ Ng8 {DwDwDwDK} vllllllllV Black still wins with either 30...Rf1+ or cuuuuuuuuC cuuuuuuuuC 30...Nf4, viz. 30...Nf4 31.Rg8+ Bf8 32.e7 {b4wDwDwi} {wDrDwDkD} {DwDwDwDw} {DwDwDp0p} Kf7o, or 30...Rf1+ 31.Kg2 (if 31.Kh2 {wDrDwDwD} {pDwDpDwD} Bd6+ and mate shortly) 31...Nf4+ {0pDw0PDw} {DwDp)wDw} 32.Bxf4 (or 32.Kxf1 e2+ etc.) 32...Rxf4 {wDNDwDwD} {wDw$w)wD} 33.Rg8+ Ke7 34.Rxa8 e2 etc. However, {)wDwDwDP} {Dw0wDwDw} 27...Bb4, as actually played, was still the {wDBDwDPI} {wDBDwDP)} {DRDwDwDw} {DwDwDwDK} best move on the board. vllllllllV vllllllllV Game 12, Bernstein-Alekhine, Vilna rather than 33.Ne3 as given, best is when Black has three passed pawns for the 1912: Alekhine seems to imply that the 33.Bd3! Rc5 34.Nxa5 e4 35.Be2 Rxf5, bishop and very good drawing chances. note variation 21.Nf1-e3, when Black’s winning chances have cuuuuuuuuC suddenly become problematic. This whole Best instead is (from previous diagram) {b4w1w4kD} difficulty could have been skirted by 26.Rxa4! cxb2 27.Rxb2 Rxb2 28.Rxa5 {0wDw0wgp} avoiding 32...a5?! in favor of 32...Rfb6. Rxf2 29.Bxf2, {wDwDwDpD} {DpDnDwDw} cuuuuuuuuC Game 13, Nimzovitch-Alekhine, Vilna {wDp)BDwD} {wDrDwDkD} 1912: The note variation dismissed at {)w)wHwDP} {DwhwDp0p} {wDQDw)PD} move 13 has more sting than Alekhine {pDwDpDwD} {DRGRDwIw} thought. After 13.g5 Ng8 14.Qd3 Kf7, {$wDp)wDw} vllllllllV {wDwDw)wD} cuuuuuuuuC {DwDwDwDw} {rDwDwgn4} {wDwDwGP)} is not essentially different from the text {DpDwDk0w} {DwDBDwDK} move 21.Bg5?, as Black plays 21...Nxc3 {w1nDpDpD} vllllllllV in either case. This seems to overlook a {0B0pDw)p} critical difference, that after 21.Ne3 Nxc3 {PDw)wGw)} when with two bishops for a knight and 22.Bxa8 Nxd1 (or Nxb1), {DwHQ)wDw} two pawns, White should win. {w)PDw)wD} cuuuuuuuuC {$wDwIwDR} {B4w1w4kD} vllllllllV Game 16, Alekhine-Duras, St. Petersburg {0wDw0wgp} 1913: The second variation in the note to {wDwDwDpD} much stronger than the given move Black’s 22nd move can be improved. After {DpDwDwDw} 15.Rh3 is 15.dxc5!, when White gets a 22...Be7 the recommended line 23.Nd7 {wDp)wDwD} strong, probably winning attack no matter Nxd7 24.Qxe7 does not lead to much, {)wDwHwDP} {wDQDw)PD} how Black recaptures, viz. 15...Bxc5 16.Nxd5! exd5 17.Qxd5+ Kf8 18.Bc4 cuuuuuuuuC {DRGnDwIw} {wDwDw4kD} vllllllllV Nd8 19.Qf3 Ke8 20.0–0–0 etc., or {Dw0n!p0p} 15...Qxc5 16.0–0–0 Rd8 17.e4 Nge7 {w1wDwDwD} White can play 23.Bd5+, extricating the (17...dxe4? 18.Qxe4) 18.Bc7 Rd7 (if {DpDwDwDw} bishop. Then after 23...Kh8 24.Qxd1, 18...Rc8 19.exd5) 19.Bxa5 intending, say, {wDw0wDPD} Black’s advantage is minimal compared to 20.Qf3+ Kg8 21.Qh3 etc. And the attack {DBDPDwDP} the game continuation. is all the stronger if Black does not {w)PDw)wD} {$wDwDwIw} recapture on c5. vllllllllV It bears mentioning that Black could have improved significantly at move 25. Game 14, Alekhine-Bernstein, Vilna if instead of 24...Qd6 Black plays 1912: Variation (b) in the note to White’s 24...Qc6!. Strongest, instead of 23.Nd7, is cuuuuuuuuC 22nd move goes wrong at the end. After {b4wDw4wi} 22...Bxc5 23.Bxc5 Rfc8 24.c3 Bxa4 23.Qf5, {0wDw0wgB} 25.Bd1 bxc3, {wDwDwDwD} cuuuuuuuuC {DpDqDwGw} cuuuuuuuuC {wDwDw4kD} {wDp)w)wD} {w4rDwDkD} {Dw0wgp0p} {)wDwDwDP} {DwhwDp0p} {w1wDwhwD} {wDQDwDPD} {pDwDpDwD} {DpDwHQDw} {DRDwDNIw} {1wGp)wDw} {wDw0wDPD} vllllllllV {bDwDw)wD} {DBDPDwDP} {w)PDw)wD} {Dw0wDwDw} {$wDwDwIw} Instead of 25...Qxd4+, best was {w)w$w!P)} vllllllllV 25...Bxd4+ 26.Kh2 Qxg2+ 27.Qxg2 {$wDBDwDK} Bxg2, and after either 28.Bg6 Bd5 or vllllllllV 28.Kxg2 Kxh7, Black has a pawn more when best play runs along the lines of than in the game continuation and a clearly not 26.b4, since this allows the forced line 23...g6 24.Qf3 Qc5 (if 24...Kg7? 26...Rxb4! 27.Bxb4 Qxb4 28.Rxa4 Qb1 25.g5i, or 24...Qd6 25.Nxf7 Rxf7 winning position. 29.Rdd4 Nb5 30.Qc2 (else 30...c2o) 26.g5i) 25.Re1 (not 25.Nxf7 Rxf7 The note at move 32 underestimates 30...Qxc2 31.Bxc2 Nxd4 32.Rxd4, 26.g5 Qxg5+, showing the point of 32.Nxc4. After 32.Nxc4 Rc6, 24...Qc5) 25...Kg7 26.g5 Nh5 27.h4 – defending the g-pawn and thus neutralizing 24...Qc5 – 27...Qb4 28.Kf1 Qd6 29.Nxf7 and wins. Game 17, Znosko-Borovsky–Alekhine, St. The given move 30...Qh3 leads to nothing rather than seeing this as to Black’s Petersburg 1913: In the note to move 17, after 31.Rh2 (instead of 31.Rg2?? as advantage, after 29.Qf1! (defusing the the line 17.Nf5 Nxf5 18.gxf5 Qc3 is given) 31...Qg4 32.c6 Rg6 33.Rg2=. Best threat of 29...Nc6) it evaluates the position probably not so good for Black as thought; instead is the waiting move 30...Rg6!, at about +1.48, nearly winning for White. when White cannot prevent either cuuuuuuuuC 31...Nxg3 or 31...Nf4 with a probably Then in the note to White’s 27th move, {rDwDw4kD} winning edge for Black. Even so, 30.Rd2 after 27.cxd3 Rxd3 28.Rg3 Bd4! 29.Qc2 {Dw0wDb0p} was by far the best chance for White, Bxe3 30.Qxc4 Red8, {pDpgw0wD} {DwDw0PDP} much better than 30.d7 as played. {wDwDPDwD} cuuuuuuuuC {wDw4wDkD} {DP1wGwDw} Game 19, Mieses-Alekhine, {0pDwDpDp} {PDPHQ)wD} Scheveningen 1913: At this point in the {wDwDwDpD} {$wDwIwDR} note at move 16, {DwDwDwDw} vllllllllV {wDQDw)P)} cuuuuuuuuC {DwDrgw$w} after 19.0-0!? (rather than the egregious {wDw4rDkD} {w)wDwDwD} 19.0-0-0??) 19...Qxc2 20.Rfc1 Qb2 21.h6 {0p0wDp0p} {DKDwDwDw} {wDwDwDwD} White has significant compensation for the vllllllllV {DwDwDbDw} lost c-pawn. {whwDwDwg} {DwDNGQDw} Alekhine says Black has “the better Game 18, Olland-Alekhine, {w)RDB)P)} game,” but Rybka sees White standing Scheveningen 1913: The note at move 15 {DKDwDwDw} slightly better after 31.Qe4, forcing overlooks an important move for White. vllllllllV 31...Rd1+ 32.Ka2 Bf7 (else 33.Qxb7) After 15.Nh2 h5 16.Bxg5 Nxd5, 33.Rh3 b6 34.h5, and White is getting the move given was 19...R-K5, i.e. counterplay. cuuuuuuuuC 19...Re4. Since this is a gross blunder that {rDbDkDw4} loses in at least ten possible ways, we Most importantly, in the actual game, at {Dw1wgpDw} {w0w0wDwD} presumed it to be a typo and substituted White’s 31st move, {0w0n0wGp} 19...Be4, which is indeed best answered {wDPDPDwD} by the note’s 20.Nxb4!. cuuuuuuuuC {)wDwDwDP} Further on, Rybka does not agree with {wDrDwDkD} {w)wHQ)PH} Alekhine’s evaluations at several points. {0pDwDpDp} {$wDwDRIw} {wDwDwgpD} First, at White’s 22nd move, vllllllllV {DwDwDwDw} {wDwDw)P)} cuuuuuuuuC {DwDpGQDw} White need not play 17.Bxe7; instead {wDw4rDkD} {w4wDwDwD} 17.exd5! Bxg5 18.f4 Be7 19.fxe5 dxe5 {0p0wDpDp} {DwDKDw$w} 20.Nhf3 leads to a strong, possibly {wDwDwgpD} vllllllllV winning attack, e.g. 20...f6 21.Qe4, or {DwDwhwDw} {whwDwHPD} 20...Bd6 21.Ne4i. {DwDwGQDw} Rybka agrees with Alekhine that 31.Rg2 Rybka does not support the conclusion of {w)PDw)w)} loses, but disagrees that it is the only the note to move 20, that in its ending {DK$wDwDw} defense against 31...Rcc2. Best instead – position, vllllllllV and more importantly, a saving move – is 31.Qe4!, cuuuuuuuuC Alekhine rejected 22.Qxb2 on principle, {rDwDwDwD} because it would open the b-file for cuuuuuuuuC {DwDwgkDw} {wDw0wDw0} Black’s rooks. However, as Kasparov {wDrDwDkD} {0pDwDpDp} {0wDP0PDq} pointed out in My Great Predecessors Part {wDwDwgpD} {wDPDwDwD} 1 (p. 345), and as our own analysis with {DwDwDwDw} {)wDQGwDw} Rybka concurs, there appears to be no way {wDwDQ)P)} {wDwDw)KD} Black can actually capitalize, e.g. 22.Qxb7 {DwDpGwDw} {DwDwDw$w} Rb8 23.Qg2 Nc4 24.c3 Na2 (not {w4wDwDwD} vllllllllV 24...Nxb2? 25.cxb4 Rxb4?? 26.Nd5i, or {DwDKDw$w} 24...Na6? 25.Qc6! Rxb2+ 26.Ka1 Reb8 vllllllllV “White’s position would rapidly become 27.Qxc4i)25.Kxa2 Rxb2+ 26.Ka1 untenable.” After, for example, 29.Rc1 Nxe3 27.Qc6 Reb8 28.fxe3, and there is when according to Rybka Black can make Rg8+ 30.Kf1, Rybka finds the position nothing more than a draw by repetition. no headway at all and the position is completely even. Then in the note variation at White’s 26th completely even. If, for example, The note at move 30 does not give the best move, 26.g5 Bg7 27.Rd1 Rb5 28.Bd4 31...Rcc2? 32.Qxd3 forces the rook back reply to 30.Rd2. Re6. to c8. And if 31...Rb1+ 32.Kd2 and Black cuuuuuuuuC cuuuuuuuuC has nothing better than a draw by {wDw4wirD} {DwDwDpDw} {wDwDwDkD} repetition with 32...Rb2+ etc., or 31...a6 {wDw)wDwD} {0pDwDpgp} 32.Bc1 Rbc2 33.Be3 etc. {wDwDrDpD} {0w)w0wDn} {DrDwhw)w} {wDwDPDqD} {wDpGwDw)} Even after an overnight search to a depth {)wDQ$w)w} {DwDwDwDw} of 28 ply Rybka still gives 31.Qe4 an {wDw$wDwD} {w)PDQ)wD} evaluation of 0.00. If, as Alekhine thought, {DwDwDwIw} {DKDRDwDw} there is a win for Black, it is very deeply vllllllllV vllllllllV hidden. The only alternative Rybka sees as giving cuuuuuuuuC 28.Rc1 Qxc3 29.Rxc3 with a very even, {rDwDw4kD} Black any winning chances is at move 30, likely drawn game. {Dw0wgpDp} {PDwDwDwD} cuuuuuuuuC {DwDw0pDw} Game 25, Alekhine-Tarrasch, St. {wDwDrDkD} {whP1BDbD} Petersburg 1914: The note variation at {0pDwDpDp} {DwHw!wDw} Black’s 37th move fails to consider a {wDwDwgpD} {DwDwDwDw} {w)w)w)P)} crucial move. After Tarrasch’s {wDwDw)P)} {$wGwIwDR} recommended 37...Nf6, Alekhine’s vllllllllV {DwDpGQDw} intended 38.Nxh6 gxh6 39.Re6 {w4wDwDwD} cuuuuuuuuC {DwDKDw$w} after 19.Qxd4! exd4 20.Bxa8 Rxa8 (or {wDw4wiwD} vllllllllV 20...Nc2+ 21.Kf1 Nxa1 22.Bd5i) {0wDwDpDw} 21.Kf1! dxc3 22.dxc3 Rxa6 23.Rxa6 {w1wDRhw0} where instead of the text move 30...Rc8, it Nxa6 24.f3 Bh5, {DwDrDwDw} {w0wDw)w!} recommends 30...Be7, which it sees as {DP)wDwDP} cuuuuuuuuC giving Black a slight edge (about -0.64) {w)wDRDPI} {wDwDwDkD} but no forced win. {DwDwDwDw} {Dw0wgpDp} vllllllllV {nDwDwDwD} Game 20, Alekhine-Levenfish, St. {DwDwDpDb} Petersburg 1913: The note at White’s 10th {wDPDwDwD} is refuted by 39...Ng4+!, forcing 40.hxg4 move goes awry on the last move of the {Dw)wDPDw} fxe6, when White has nothing better than sub-variation 11.f3 exf3 12.gxf3 axb5 {w)wDwDP)} perpetual check by 41.Qf6+ Kg8 42.Qg6+ 13.Rxa8 Qxa8 14.fxg4: {DwGwDKDR} etc. vllllllllV cuuuuuuuuC Instead, after 37...Nf6, White has several {qDwDw4kD} White is clearly winning, with a bigger winning continuations, best of which is {Dw0wgp0p} advantage (+2.15) than in the given line probably 38.c4!, {wDnDwhwD} 18.Bb1 (+1.37). {DpDw0wHw} cuuuuuuuuC {wDwDwDPD} Game 21, Alekhine-Nimzovitch, St. {wDw4wiwD} {DB)wDwDw} Petersburg 1913-14: Contrary to {0wDwDp0w} {w)w)QDw)} {DNGwIwDR} Alekhine’s claim that “White must win” in {w1wDwhw0} {DwDr$NDw} vllllllllV the ending position of the note to move 11, {w0PDw)w!} from Bogoljuboff-Réti, Stockholm 1920, {DPDwDwDP} The correct continuation is not 14...Na5, {w)wDRDPI} cuuuuuuuuC which allows White to equalize with {DwDwDwDw} {rDwDrDkD} 15.Bxf7+ Rxf7 16.Rf1! Rf8 17.Qxe5. vllllllllV {Dw0qDp0p} Instead, Black wins with 14...Nd4! {pDNDwDwD} threatening 14...Nxe2, 14...Nxb3, and {Dphp!PDw} viz. 38...Rd2 (if 38...Rxe5 39.fxe5 Ng8 [if 14...Qxa1+. {wDwDwDbg} 39...Ne8 40.Qe7+] 40.c5 Qa5 41.Nd6 {Dw)wDwDw} Qc7 42.Rf2 f6 43.Qxb4i) 39.R2e3! In the note at Black’s 13th move, the sub- {P)BHwDP)} Ng8 (if 39...Rxb2? 40.Rg3i) 40.Qg3 g6 variation 13...Qc6 14.Nc3 e3 15.Bxf5 {$wGwDRIw} 41.c5 followed by 42.Nd6 and wins. vllllllllV Qxg2 16.Rf1 exf2+, Game 26, Tarrasch-Alekhine, St. Rybka sees a very even position with no cuuuuuuuuC Petersburg 1914: The famous “five queens {rDwDw4kD} win for White in view, best play for both game,” given in the note to move 5 as {hw0wgp0p} sides proceeding along the lines of having been played in Moscow in 1915, is {PDwDwhwD} 17...Qxc6 18.Qf4 Qb6 19.Kh1 Be2 now known to be an apocryphal invention {DwDw0BHw} 20.Qxh4 Bxf1 21.Nxf1 Re2 22.Bd2 Ne4 {wDPDwDwD} 23.Bxe4 Rxe4=. of Alekhine’s. Hoax though it is, several {DwHwDwDw} improvements are worth noting. First, for {w)w)Q0q)} Black’s 15th move, Game 23, Nimzovitch-Alekhine, St. {$wGwIRDw} Petersburg 1913-14: At White’s 25th vllllllllV cuuuuuuuuC move, {rhbDkDrD} the given line 17.Rxf2 Qxg5 18.d4 is not {0pDwgp)w} cuuuuuuuuC {wDwDpDw)} at all best for White, viz. 18...Qg1+ 19.Qf1 {wDk4rDwD} {1wDpDwDw} Qxf1+ 20.Kxf1 exd4 and White’s edge is {0pgwDpDp} {wDwDwDQD} quite small. Instead 17.Qxf2 Qxg5 18.d3 {wDwDwDwD} {DwDwDwDw} (or 18.d4) 18...Qh5 19.Rg1 White stands {DwDwDq0w} {P0PDK)wD} clearly better. {w)wDw)wD} {DRDwDBHR} {DwDPDRDw} vllllllllV {PDw!wDP)} At Black’s 17th move the note variation {$wGwDwIw} 17...gxf6 18.Be4 f5 is actually fine for vllllllllV the text 15...Qxh2 is a serious mistake White: (+2.94). Best is 15...Bf8!?, which defuses the note neglects to mention that White White’s attack, e.g. 16.gxf8Q+ Kxf8 could probably have maintained equality 17.Qh4 Nd7= (-0.01). with 25.Qc3!, threatening 26.fxg5. Rybka sees play continuing along the lines of Then at White’s 20th move, 25...g4 26.Re3 Rxe3 27.Bxe3 Qxd3 cuuuuuuuuC 37...c4, presumably because White must However, Rybka does not support that {rDbDwDwD} give up his knight to stop the c-pawn, viz. punctuation. After 31.Nxe5 gxh3 32.gxh3 {0pDkgQ)w} 38.Ra1 Bc5 39.Nxc4 Rb4: Rb4 33.Nd3 Rxb5 34.Nxf4, {wDnDpDwD} {DwDpDwDw} cuuuuuuuuC cuuuuuuuuC {wDwDwDQD} {wDwDwDwD} {wDwDnDkD} {DwDwDKDw} {DwDwDwDw} {Dw0wDwDw} {w0qDw)wD} {pDwDwDkD} {w0wDwDwD} {DwDwDBHR} {DwgPDw0w} {DrDwDwDp} vllllllllV {w4NDwDKD} {wDwDPHwD} {DwDw)wDw} {DwDwDPDP} the text 20.Qgxe6+ (only +0.87!) {wDwDwDwD} {wDRDwIwD} dissipates much of White’s advantage {$wDwDwDw} {DwDwDwDw} compared to 20.g8Q! (+6.04). vllllllllV vllllllllV Finally, the “coup de repos” in which In that case, though, after the forced it sees a slight advantage for White, about Alekhine takes such pride, 24.Rh6, does 40.Rxa6+ Kf7 41.Kxg5 Rxc4, +0.67, with no clear way for either side to not work as well as he thought. gain a significant advantage. cuuuuuuuuC cuuuuuuuuC {wDwDwDwD} Game 31, Alekhine-Fahrni, Mannheim {rDbDwDQD} {DwDwDkDw} 1914: The note variation at move 17 can {0pDwDwDw} {RDwDwDwD} {winDwDw$} {DwgPDwIw} be improved considerably. After 17...Qd6, {DwgpDwDw} {wDrDwDwD} {wDwDw!wD} {DwDw)wDw} cuuuuuuuuC {DwDw!KDw} {wDwDwDwD} {rDbiwhw4} {wDqDw)wD} {DwDwDwDw} {0pDnDwDp} {DqDwDBHw} vllllllllV {wDp1w0w$} {DwDpDwDw} vllllllllV {wDw)pHwD} Black has no more pawns and slim {DwHBDw!w} As was pointed out by Dutch master Tim practical winning chances. {P)PDw)PD} Krabbé as far back as 1985 (pre-Rybka!), {DwIw$wDw} overlooked is 24...Bg4+!, which probably Game 28, Flamberg-Alekhine, vllllllllV draws (+0.53). Mannheim 1914: We took the liberty of changing the note at move 37. After the line given, 18.Bxe4, leads to only a Game 28, Duras-Alekhine, Mannheim 37.Qe1, small advantage for White if instead of 1914: The note at White’s 17th move says 18...dxe4, Black plays 18...Ne6!, when that 17...d6 18.exd6 Rxe1+ 19.Rxe1 cxd6 cuuuuuuuuC after either 19.Nxe6+ Qxe6 20.b3 dxe4 20.Re8 gives White “a winning position,” {wDwDwDkD} 21.Nxe4 Rg8 (+0.82), {DwDwhw0p} {w1wDwDwD} cuuuuuuuuC cuuuuuuuuC {DwDp)pDw} {w4bDRgkD} {rDbiwDrD} {bDw)w)wD} {DwDwDp0p} {0pDnDwDp} {Dw$wDwDw} {pDw0wDwD} {wDpDq0w$} {w0wDwDP)} {Hw0wDwDw} {DwDwDwDw} {4BDw!wGK} {wDwDwhwD} {wDw)NDwD} vllllllllV {DNGwDwDw} {DPDwDw!w} {P)PDw)P)} {PDPDw)PD} {DwDwDwIw} the note originally read B-Kt4, i.e. {DwIw$wDw} vllllllllV 37...Bb5, which would be a serious error vllllllllV allowing White to win the b-pawn by but after 20...Ra8 Rybka does not agree, 38.Rb3, completely turning the tables. or 19.Rh4 Nxf4 20.Bf5 Nb6 21.Qxf4 (if evaluating the position as close to perfectly Thus we suspect “B-Kt4” was a misprint, 21.Bxc8 Rxc8 22.Rxf4 Rc7 (+0.76)) even. and B-Kt6, or 37...Bb3, which preserves 21...Qxf4+ 22.Rxf4 Bxf5 23.Rxf5 Nd7, the win, was intended. White is then At White’s 37th move, helpless against the threat of 38...Ba2. cuuuuuuuuC {rDwiwDw4} cuuuuuuuuC Game 30, Mieses-Alekhine, Mannheim {0pDnDwDp} {wDwDwDwD} {wDpDw0wD} 1914: The note at move 30 says that in the {DwDwDwDw} {DwDpDRDw} {pDwDwDkD} event of 30.Kf2 Alekhine intended 30...g4, {wDw)wDwD} {Hw0PDw0w} to which he gave an exclam. {DwHwDwDw} {wDwDwDpD} {P)PDw)PD} {gwDw)KDw} cuuuuuuuuC {DwIw$wDw} {w4wDwDwD} {wDwDnDkD} vllllllllV {DwDwDwDR} {Dw0wDwDw} vllllllllV {w0wDwDwD} White’s only real advantage is his better {DPDw0wDp} kingside pawn structure. Much better than {wDN4P0pD} the text move 37.Ke4 may not deserve the 18.Bxe4 is 18.Nxe4!, {DwDwDPDP} “!” Alekhine gives it, while the {wDRDwIPD} unmentioned 37.Kg3 appears to be best, {DwDwDwDw} Rybka finding no win for Black in that vllllllllV case. Also, 37.Kxg4 may not be as bad as thought. Alekhine considered it refuted by cuuuuuuuuC 23.Qxf4 Rhg8 24.Be3 Qe6 25.Rxg3, and the given move 19...c6 is a serious {rDbiwhw4} White stands better (about +0.96). mistake. Instead 19...cxd6! wins out of {0pDnDwDp} hand, e.g. 20.Qxd6 0–0–0 (-7.56) or {wDp1w0w$} {DwDpDwDw} Far worse in that line is that after 21.Ng1?, 20.Qd5 Nf2 (-3.39). This is the {wDw)NHwD} the given (and supposedly winning) line continuation that justifies 15...Nc6. {DwDBDw!w} 21...Nh3 22.gxh3 f3, {P)PDw)PD} At Black’s 20th move, {DwIw$wDw} cuuuuuuuuC vllllllllV {wDk4wDw4} cuuuuuuuuC {0w0wDpDp} {wDk4wDw4} when if 18...dxe4 19.Rxe4 followed by {wDpDwDwD} {0p0wDpDp} 20.Qg7 (+4.27), or 18...Qe7 19.Rhh1! {DwDw)wDw} {w1wDwDwD} {w!wDwdwD} {DwDB$wDw} (threatening 20.Nc3 Qf7 21.Nfxd5 cxd5 {Dw)wDp0P} {wDwHw0nD} 22.Qd6 followed by 23.Nxd5i) {P)wDwdwD} {!w)wDw0w} 19...dxe4 20.Rxe4 etc. (+3.47). {$wGw$KHq} {P)wDwDPD} vllllllllV {$wGwDwIw} Also in the same note, after 18...dxe4, vllllllllV overlooks the saving check 23.Qg4+ and cuuuuuuuuC 24.Qxg3, when White wins. Instead, Black 20...Rxd5 is given an exclam it does not {rDbiwhw4} must play 21...Ng4!, deserve, for reasons explained below. {0pDnDwDp} Correct is 20...Nxe5!, forcing 21.Qb3 {wDp1w0w$} {DwDwDwDw} cuuuuuuuuC Qxb3 22.Bxb3, and after 22...c5 or {wDw)pHwD} {wDk4wDw4} 22...Ng6, Black is somewhat better. {0w0wDpDp} {DwHwDw!w} {wDpDwDwD} {P)PDw)PD} {DwDw)wDw} At this point in the note to move 22, {DwIw$wDw} {w!wDw0nD} vllllllllV {Dw)wDw0w} cuuuuuuuuC {P)wDwDPD} {wDwDwDw!} the original descriptive notation, 19.RxP, {$wGw$KHq} {Dp0kDpDp} was ambiguous, since three pawn captures vllllllllV {wDwDwDwD} {DwDqDwDw} by rooks are possible. We corrected this to {wDwHw0nD} the clearly intended move 19.Rxe4. threatening 22...Nh2+ 23.Ke2 Qxg2#, {Dw)KDw0w} when the forced continuation is 22.Qe4 {P)wDwDwD} Game 32, Alekhine-Zhukovsky, Nh2+ 23.Ke2 f3+ 24.gxf3 Qg2+ 25.Ke3 {$wGwDwDw} correspondence 1905-06: This game has Nf1+ 26.Kf4 Qxg1 27.Qxc6 g2! 28.Qa6+ vllllllllV perhaps more errors, and of greater Kb8 29.Qb5+ Qb6 and Black wins. magnitude, in both the actual game and the the suggestion that Black could “utilize his notes, than any other in the entire At Black’s 15th move, dangerous passed pawns on the kingside collection. This is at least partly explained by playing 27...f3” is refuted by 28.Bf4! by the fact that it was played when cuuuuuuuuC Nf2+ 29.Kd2 c5 30.Bxg3 Qg5+ 31.Kc2 {rhwDkDw4} Alekhine was only twelve years old. Qxg3 32.Qxh7 cxd4 33.Qxf7+ and wins. {0p0bDpDp} Furthermore, we suspect that the {wDwDwDw1} Also strong is 28.Qxh7. annotations are based on his original notes {DwDPgwDw} At White’s 24th move, the aforementioned from that time, without much further {wDB)w0nD} inadequacy of 20...Rxd5 is demonstrated. examination. Otherwise it is hard to {!w)wDN0w} explain so many tactical mistakes that the {P)wDwDPD} cuuuuuuuuC {$wGw$wIw} {wDkDrDwD} mature Alekhine would never make. But, vllllllllV {0p0wDpDp} as he himself said, it does have “extremely {wDwDwDw1} interesting complications most difficult to while the text move 15...Nc6 probably {DwDRDwDw} fathom.” {wDwDw0wD} deserves the exclam Alekhine gives it {!w)wDN0w} (though for different reasons explained The note variation at move 15 hits an {P)wDwhPD} eventual snag; after 15.Qb4 Nc6 16.dxc6 b1e6l.oBwb)3, oKbdje8c!t i1v7e.ldyx bee5s Nt ifs2 1 158....Kb5f1!, Nvidz.3 {v$lwlGlwlDlKlDlwl}V Bxc6 17.Bb5 0–0–0 18.Bxc6 bxc6 19.e6 (relatively best) 19...Nxe1 20.Nxe1 19.dxe5 Nf2 20.Kf1 Qh1+? (better fxe6 21.dxe6 Re8 22.Qc5 (22.exd7?? Here 24.Bxf4 is said to be White’s “only 20...Nd3 or Ng4), Qh1#) 22...Bxe6 and wins (-3.20). resource,” but it only draws and does not cuuuuuuuuC deserve the exclam given. Instead, White {wDk4wDw4} In the note at Black’s 17th move, after wins by 24.Re5!, with the following main {0w0wDpDp} 17...Bd7 18.Qc5 f6 19.d6, lines: (a) 24...Rxe5 25.Bxf4!! {wDpDwDwD} cuuuuuuuuC cuuuuuuuuC {DwDw)wDw} {rDwDkDw4} {wDkDwDwD} {w!wDw0wD} {0p0bDwDp} {0p0wDpDp} {Dw)wDN0w} {wDw)w0w1} {wDwDwDw1} {P)wDwhPD} {Dw!wgwDw} {DwDw4wDw} {$wGw$KDq} {wDBDw0nD} {wDwDwGwD} vllllllllV {Dw)wDN0w} {!w)wDN0w} {P)wDwDPD} {P)wDwhPD} White need not play 21.Ng1 as given. Best {v$lwlGlwl$lwlIlwl}V {v$lwlDlwlDlKlDlwl}V is 21.Ke2, with then the forced continuation 21...Qxg2 22.Rg1 Qh3 (Now this is right. Not 25.Nxe5?? Qh1+ cuuuuuuuuC when mate (threatened by 28...Qe2+ etc.) 26.Ke2 Qd1#.) 25...Qxf4 26.Qf8+ Kd7 {wDk4wDwD} can only be temporarily postponed, e.g. 27.Qxf7+! {0p0wDpDp} 29.Be3 Rxe3 30.Qf8+ Kd7 31.Kg1 {wDwDwDwD} Nxh3+ 32.gxh3 Qf3 and mate is cuuuuuuuuC {DwDw$wDw} {wDwDwDwD} {wDwDwDqD} inevitable. {0p0kDQDp} {!w)wDwDw} {wDwDwDwD} {P)wDKGwh} The lengthy note at move 27 goes awry at {DwDw4wDw} {$wDwDwHw} several late points. After 27...Nh2+ {wDwDw1wD} vllllllllV 28.Kg1 Nf3+ 29.Kh1 Rg8 30.Bxg3 Rxg3 {Dw)wDN0w} 31.Qf8+ Kd7 32.Rd1+ Kc6 33.Qe8+ {P)wDwhPD} viz. 30.Ke1 Qg2 and now not 31.Ke1 as Kb6 34.Qe3+ Ka6 35.Qd3+, {$wDwDKDw} in the note, but 31.Bd4!, vllllllllV cuuuuuuuuC cuuuuuuuuC {wDwDwDwD} 27...Qxf7 28.Nxe5+ Ke7 29.Nxf7 Kxf7 {wDk4wDwD} {0p0wDpDp} 30.Re1i; {0p0wDpDp} {kDwDwDwD} {wDwDwDwD} {DwDwDwDq} (b) 24...Qh1+ 25.Ng1 Rxe5 26.Bxf4 {DwDw$wDw} {wDwDwDwD} {wDwGwDwD} {Dw)QDn4N} cuuuuuuuuC {!w)wDwDw} {P)wDwDPD} {wDkDwDwD} {P)wDwDqh} {DwDRDwDK} {0p0wDpDp} {$wDwIwHw} vllllllllV {wDwDwDwD} vllllllllV {DwDw4wDw} 35...b5 is said to fail “because of 36.Qd7 {wDwDwGwD} when the best Black can do is win the rook threatening mate in three moves.” But in {!w)wDw0w} on a1 but still lose the game: 31...Qf1+ that case, 36...Ne5 holds; {P)wDwhPD} 32.Kd2 Qxa1 33.Kc2i (+2.23). {$wDwDKHq} vllllllllV cuuuuuuuuC {wDwDwDwD} Instead, Black must play 29...Ng4!, {0w0QDpDp} 26...Re6 (if 26...Re8 27.Qc5 c6 {kDwDwDwD} cuuuuuuuuC 28.Qd6i) 27.Qf8+ Kd7 28.Qxf7+ Re7 {DpDwhwDq} {wDk4wDwD} 29.Qd5+ Ke8 30.Bg5 Re4 31.Rd1 and {wDwDwDwD} {0p0wDpDp} {Dw)wDw4N} mate in at most nine moves. {wDwDwDwD} {P)wDwDPD} {DwDw$wDw} {DwDRDwDK} At White’s 26th move, {wDwDwDnD} vllllllllV {!w)wDwDw} cuuuuuuuuC {P)wDKGqD} {wDkDrDwD} {$wDwDwHw} the best White can do is perpetual check {0p0wDpDp} vllllllllV by 37.Qc8+ Kb6 38.Qb8+ etc. {wDwDwDwD} {DwDRDwDw} when after the forced 30.Qxa7 b6 31.Rf1 At move 34 of that note, {wDwDwGnD} Nxe5 he is still alive and kicking in an {!w)wDw0w} unclear position. cuuuuuuuuC {P)wDwDPD} {wDwDQDwD} {$wDwDKHq} {0p0wDpDp} vllllllllV The above-mentioned inadequacy of {wiwDwDwD} 26.Rh5?? is shown at Black’s 27th move, {DwDwDwDq} 26.Rh5 is given an exclam when it {wDwDwDwD} actually deserves “??”, as will be shown cuuuuuuuuC {Dw)wDn4N} {wDkDrDwD} {P)wDwDPD} below. Correct is 26.Re5. Contrary to {0p0wDpDp} {DwDRDwDK} Alekhine’s analysis, it is the only move {wDwDwDwD} vllllllllV that draws. After the forced continuation {DwDwDwDq} 26...Nh2+ 27.Ke2 Rd8 28.Bg5! {wDwDwGnD} rather than 34.Qe3+, best for White is {!w)wDw0N} cuuuuuuuuC {P)wDwDPD} 34.Qd7, which forces a draw (0.00). After {wDk4wDwD} {$wDwDKDw} 34.Qe3+?! Black can keep some chances {0p0wDpDp} vllllllllV alive with 34...c5!? {wDwDwDwD} {DwDw$wGw} where instead of the text 27...Qb5+ or the cuuuuuuuuC {wDwDwDwD} {wDwDwDwD} equally indecisive note variation {!w)wDw0w} {0pDwDpDp} {P)wDKDPh} 27...Nh2+, Black could have won with {wiwDwDwD} {$wDwDwHq} 27...Nf2!, {Dw0wDwDq} vllllllllV cuuuuuuuuC {wDwDwDwD} {wDkDrDwD} {Dw)w!n4N} (surer than Alekhine’s 28.Bxg3) Black is {0p0wDpDp} {P)wDwDPD} {wDwDwDwD} {DwDRDwDK} forced to take perpetual check by {DwDwDwDq} vllllllllV 28...Qxg2+ 29.Ke3 Qf2+ etc. {wDwDwGwD} {!w)wDw0N} Further on in that note variation, after {P)wDwhPD} (about -0.45) rather than accepting the 28...Bxg3 Qxg2+ 29.Bf2, the given move {$wDwDKDw} draw by 34...Ka6. Contrary to the note, in vllllllllV this position, which the note reaches after 29...Qg4+ actually loses, the further repetitive moves 34.Qe3+ Ka6 35.Qd3+ Kb6 36.Qe3+, the line 37.Rd6+ Ka5 38.Rh6 Qf5 35.Ng1 does not win for continuation where this is correct. cuuuuuuuuC White: Relatively best for White is 21.Qxf4, in {Ngw1w4wi} {DpDwDw0p} which case play proceeds 21...Bxf4 {pDpDwDwD} cuuuuuuuuC 22.Bxf4 Ng7 (about -0.41), since if {Dw)pDbDw} {wDwDwDwD} 22...Nxd4?? 23.Be5+. While if 21.Qh3 {wDw)wDwh} {0pDwDpDp} (probably the move Alekhine had in {DB!w$wDw} {wDwDwDw$} {iw0wDqDw} mind), {P)wDw)p)} {wDwDwDwD} {$wGwDwIw} {Dw)w!n4w} cuuuuuuuuC vllllllllV {P)wDwDPD} {Ngb1w4wi} {DwDwDwHK} {DpDwDwDp} White has more hope of holding on with vllllllllV {pDpDwDpD} 22.Bd1 (-1.17), compared to the given {Dw)pDnDw} move 22.f3 (-6.19 after 23...Be4). {wDw)w0wD} Black actually stands somewhat better {DBDwDwDQ} after 35...Qg5!. {P)wDR)P)} Contrary to the note at move 24, there was {$wGwDwIw} no reason to avoid the line 24...Qh3 Finally, at move 28, the variation 28.c4 is vllllllllV 25.Bc3 Rg8 26.Qe5 Nf4 27.Qg5, said to “leave Black winning chances,” but after 28...Qxc4+ 29.Kg1 Qd4+ 30.Kh1 21...Nxd4? loses to 22.Qc3 Qf6 23.Re1 cuuuuuuuuC Nf2+ 31.Nxf2 gxf2, (about +2.09). Correct instead is 21...Ng3! {NDbDwDri} cuuuuuuuuC (-1.36). {DpDwDw0p} {wDkDrDwD} {pDpDwDwD} {0p0wDpDp} {Dw)pDw!w} {wDwDwDwD} Several problems occur in the second line {wDwDwhwD} {DwDwDwDw} of that note. In the sub-variation {DBGwDpDq} {wDw1wGwD} 19.Qd3Bf5 20.Qd1, {P)wDw)w)} {!wDwDwDw} {$wDwDwIw} {P)wDw0PD} cuuuuuuuuC vllllllllV {$wDwDwDK} {Ngw1w4wi} vllllllllV {DpDwDw0p} since Black need not play 27...Bg4 {pDpDwDwD} allowing the draw by 28.Bxg7+. Instead {Dw)pDbDw} Alekhine does not consider 32.Qh3+ Kb8 27...h6 forces White to give up his queen {wDw)w0wh} 33.Qg3, which Rybka rates as virtually just to postpone mate. {DBDwDwDw} even (-0.07). {P)wDR)P)} {$wGQDwIw} Game 36, Blumenfeld-Alekhine, match Game 34, Wygodchikoff-Alekhine, vllllllllV 1908: In the note to White’s 18th move, correspondence 1909-10: The note at line (b), the sub-variation 18.f3 Nf4 move 15 can be improved in one line; after it is unclear why Alekhine gives an exclam 19.Rf2 Bxf5 20.Nxf5 Bc5 21.Ne3 Qb6 15...Qg5 16.c5 Nh4, to 20...Qg5, since it is countered 22.a5 Bxe3 23.axb6, adequately by 21.Qf1, when Black has cuuuuuuuuC nothing better than the inconclusive cuuuuuuuuC {rDbDw4wi} 21...Nf3+ 22.Kh1 Qh5 23.h3 Nxd4 24.f3 {rDw4wDkD} {{DppD0wpgDwwD0wpD}} Bd3 25.Bd1=. More promising is 20...f3. {{0wp)DpwDDww00wpD}} {Dw)NDw1w} {DwDw0wDw} {wDw)w0wh} In the main line of that variation, after {wDwDPhwD} {DBDwDQDw} 19.Qd3 Bf5 20.Qc3 f3, the next move {DPDwgPDw} {P)wDR)P)} given, 21.Re3, {wGPDw$P)} {$wGwDwIw} {$w!wDwIw} vllllllllV cuuuuuuuuC vllllllllV {Ngw1w4wi} better than the given move 17.Qg3 is {DpDwDw0p} Black does win a pawn as given with {pDpDwDwD} 23...Bxc1 24.Rxc1 axb6, but he can do 17.Qe4!, simply moving the queen out of {Dw)pDbDw} much better with the Zwischenschach danger and winning the trapped bishop. If {wDw)wDwh} 23...Ne2+! 24.Kf1 Nxc1 25.Bxc1 Bxf2 then 17...Nxg2 18.Kh1!i. {DB!w$pDw} 26.Kxf2 axb6, and Black is up a pawn and {P)wDw)P)} the exchange. The first variation in the note to move 19 {$wGwDwIw} likewise can be improved at the end. After vllllllllV Game 40, Alekhine-Levitsky, match 1913: 19.Qh5 g6 20.Qh6 Nf5, The note variation at move 9 does not win rather than the exclam given it, instead as claimed. After 9.Nf4 Re8+ 10.Kf2 cuuuuuuuuC deserves “??”, since then Black can win at {Ngb1w4wi} once by 21...Bxh2+!! (instead of 21...fxg2 Ng4+ 11.Kg3 Nf2, {DpDwDwDp} as given) 22.Kf1 (if 22.Kxh2 Qg5 23.g3 {pDpDwDp!} cuuuuuuuuC {Dw)pDnDw} Qg4 24.Kg1 Qh3 25.Re5 Qg2#) {rhw1rDkD} {wDw)w0wD} 22...fxg2+ 23.Ke2 g1Qo. Rather than {0p0wDp0p} {DBDwDwDw} 21.Re3??, White should play 21.Re5, {wDwDwDwD} {P)wDR)P)} when after 21...Bxe5 22.dxe5 Black has a {DwDPDwDw} {$wGwDwIw} definite but not overwhelming advantage. {wgB)wHwD} vllllllllV {DwHwDPIb} {P)PDwhw)} Further in that note, after 21.Re3 fxg2, {$wGQDwDR} the note says Black will follow up with vllllllllV 21...Nxd4. However, there is no