Counterplay / Readers Respond
Botvinnik or Alekhine? OF VIKINGS AND VESPUCCI
When analyzing the game Ghaem Maghami- Akobian in “Winning with Botvinnik” (February 2016 Chess Life), Lev Alburt cites the “famous Botvinnik Exchange Sacrifice,” referencing a Botvinnik game from 1931 Yurgis-Botvinnik, Leningrad, 1931). However —unless Botvinnik played a similar sacrifice much earlier—I wonder if it isn’t more appropriate to call it the “Alekhine Exchange Sacrifice,” since Alekhine played a similar sacrifice ten years earlier. See Black’s 20th move in Selezniev-Alekhine, Triberg, 1921:
a beautiful, near-perfect theory of that sacrifice; his impressed contemporaries called it, first by the word, then in writing, “Botvinnik’s Exchange Sacrifice.” Shades of Columbus and (Amerigo) Vespucci.
Mr. Kozinski’s knowledge of chess history is impressive and commendable, as even in the most mundane, practical sense we can learn a lot from Alekhine and Botvinnik, the great players of the past.
WE NEED TO LEARN OUR ABC’S
The given solution to problem 2 in the “ABCs of Chess” problems in the February 2016 issue lists 1. ... Bg4 as the solution.
CHESS LIFE’s 70th anniversary
This September, Chess Life will be celebrating its 70th anniversary as a publication. We would like to hear from you about what the magazine has meant to you in your life or any favorite articles or columns you remember—anything you think might be of interest.
Send your contributions to letters@
uschess.org.
Call for Postal Chess stories, MeMories and sPeCial GaMes
AFTER 20. ... Rb4 George Kosinski Hopkins Landing, British Columbia Although this move wins the Exchange, GM Lev Alburt responds:
The game Selezniev-Alekhine, 1921, was played a couple of years before Mischa Botvinnik, born in 1911, learned how rooks move. And, of course, Botvinnik knew this game, and some others, where a similar Exchange sacrifice occurred. Thus, in his comments to Yurgis-Botvinnik (1931), he called it, twice, “a standard,” well-known sacrifice, as I underscored in my article.
Annotating Yurgis-Botvinnik, and even more so, Lublinsky-Botvinnik (1943), Botvinnik provided
8 April 2016 | Chess Life
it is not the best move. 1. ... Bf5+ is. After 2. Ka2 Qa5+ 3. Kb3, 3. ... Bg4 now snares the queen. If 4. Qxe5 (or any other move that leaves the d1-a4 diagonal inaccessible to the queen), then 4. ... Bxd1 mate. Other queen moves lead to the loss of both the queen and the rook, e.g. 4. Qc2 Bxd1 5. Qxd1 Qa4+ 6. Kc3 Qxd1. The best White can do is either 4. dxe5 Bxe2 or 4. Qxg4 Nxg4, which nets Black a queen for a minor piece.
Chuck Bass North Highlands, California
I am putting together an article for Chess Life that will examine how corre - spondence chess has evolved over the years. I’d love to hear from any players who played and/or are currently active in our US Chess Correspondence Chess program. Feel free to include any inter esting games. Please e-mail your contri - bution to Joan DuBois at
jdubois@uschess.org no later than May 1, 2016.
Send your letters to
letters@uschess.org or post on the US Chess Facebook group or the
uschess.org Issues Forum. Letters are subject to editing for style, length, and content.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76