Tweet
New York 1927
May 4, 2020
Almost every chess player probably has at one time owned a copy of the Dover edition of the New York 1924 chess tournament. The competitors were Capablanca, Emanuel Lasker, Alekhine, Bogoljubow, Maroczy, Reti, Tartakower, Yates, Marshall, Janowski and Edward Lasker.
Emanuel Lasker won at 55-years of age, Capablanca suffered his first loss in eight years and Alekhine produced the tournament book with masterful annotations and comments.
Three years after this event, New York 1927 was organized.
From Dejan Bojkov at chess.com
This time only six players competed in a quadruple round robin tournament from February to March. Naturally, the favourite was the reigning champion Capablanca, but two other remarkable players had an important fight of their own.
Both Alexander Alekhine and Aaron Nimzowitsch challenged the champion at the beginning of that year, but the Cuban had not yet answered those challenges definitively. Alekhine stated that “Nimzowitsch’s challenge was purely platonic” (i.e. he did not have the money to raise the prize fund in accordance with the recently established London rules for the World Championship). Nevertheless, in private correspondence, Capablanca strongly advised Alekhine that participation in the event was necessary in order for him to define his challenger. Thus, the tournament had the unofficial status of qualification for a World Championship match.
A curious fact is that one of the strongest players of the time Efim Bogoljubow refused to take part in this “mediocre tournament” and offered instead a direct match between himself and the champion. He was then replaced by Rudolph Spielman. The field was rounded out with the American Champion Frank Marshall and Milan Vidmar.
The event became an absolute triumph for Jose Raul Capablanca, who claimed the title undefeated, scoring 14/20. He also won the best game prize.
https://www.chess.com/article/view/new-york-1927
Alekhine annotated and studied the games and concluded that Capablanca was not unbeatable. But the tournament book only appeared in German, by De Gruyter in 1928. Both Tartakower and Grekov produced subsequent Russian editions.
I first heard of the tournament as a teenager when reading Botvinnik’s 100 Selected Games.
Botvinnik says that Alekhine set himself the task of surpassing both Capablanca and Lasker. If he was to excel the Cuban player he must assimilate all the new elements that Lasker and Capablanca had introduced into chess Technique. Lasker had brought the art of playing in simple positions to great perfection. Capablanca was fond of playing more complicated games, he was a master of the middle-game; but in the later period of his career he too was attracted by simple positions.
If Alekhine had not succeeded in assimilating their art and technique especially in simple positions, he could not have beaten Capablanca.
During these same years Alekhine also mastered the technique of preparing contests. Botvinnik wrote that he made no bones of the fact that when his turn came to prepare for the world championship contest, his first step was to make close and detailed acquaintance with Alekhine’s introductory article to his collection of games of the New York 1927 Match-Tournament. In this article he related how he had prepared for the match against Capablanca, subjected Capablanca’s creative art to thorough analysis, and revealed his own thoughts and his own plans.
_______
I was able to get a copy Das New Yorker Schachturnier 1927, published by Walter de Gruyter in 1963 and dogged my German teacher in the ‘80s in helping me translate that introduction. Chess Digest had come out with a 78-page pamphlet about the tournament in 1972 but made no attempt at an extensive translation.
Finally, in 2011, Russell Enterprises came out with an English translation, with a foreword by Andy Soltis.
________
I thought that in this time of the covid-19 pandemic, when there are so few tournaments for enthusiasts to follow, that giving the round-by-round games of New York 1927 would be diverting. I shall often use contemporary comments.
For those who may wonder why the tournament book wasn’t published in English in the 20s and what comments Alekhine made about Capablanca’s play – the purchase of the recent translation is de rigueur.
Cycle I
Round 1
New York 1927
Round 1, Feb. 19, 1927
Alekhine, Alexander – Vidmar, Milan
D30 Queen’s Gambit Declined
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nd7 4.Nc3 Ngf6 5.Bg5 Bb4 6.cxd5 exd5 7.e3 O-O 8.Bd3 c5 9.O-O Bxc3 10.bxc3 c4 11.Bc2 Qa5 12.Ne5 Qxc3 13.Nxd7 Nxd7 14.Qb1 Re8 15.Bxh7+ Kh8 16.Bc2 Nf8 17.Ba4 Re6 18.Qb5 Rg6 19.Qxd5 Qb4 20.Bc2 Be6 21.Qe4 f5 22.Qf4 Nh7 23.h4 Nxg5 24.hxg5 Qe7 25.Qh4+ Rh6 26.Qg3 Rh5 27.f4 Qa3 28.Qf3 g6 29.e4 Qb2 30.exf5 Qxd4+ 31.Qf2 Qxf2+ 32.Kxf2 Bxf5 33.Bxf5 gxf5 34.Rfd1 Rh7 35.Rd5 Rc8 36.Rxf5 Rd7 37.Re5 c3 38.Rc1 c2 39.Re2 Rdc7 40.Kf3 b5 41.f5 Kg7 42.Re6 Rd7 43.Re2 Rdc7 44.Re6 Rd7 45.Re2 1/2-1/2
After 7.e3 the game has transposed into the Manhattan variation of the QGD, appropriate given the location of the tournament.
Also, the combination beginning with 12.Ne5 and culminating in 15.Bxh7+ is a thing of beauty and a testament to the genius of Alekhine.
- 7..0-0 was a new move but seems less thematic than the much more popular 7..c5. Alekhine suggested 12..Re8 13 Nxd7..Nxd7 14 Qd2..b5 15 a4 though White would still have had an advantage. 32 Kxf2? was an error after which Black was able to draw; winning would have been 32 Rxf2..Bxf5 33 g4..Bxg4 34 Bxg6..Rh3 35 Be4..Rb8 36 f5. Better chances would have been offered by 35 g4..fxg 36 Kg3.
- Stockfish suggests 32.Rxf2 Bf5 33.g4 Bxg4 34.Bxg6 Rh4.....
New York 1927
Round 1, Feb. 19, 1927
Capablanca, Jose Raul – Spielmann, Rudolf
D35 QGD, Exchange variation
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 Nd7 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nc3 Ngf6 6.Bg5 Bb4 7.Qb3 c5 8.a3 Bxc3+ 9.Qxc3 c4 10.Qe3+ Qe7 11.Qxe7+ Kxe7 12.Nd2 h6 13.Bh4 b5 14.e4 g5 15.Bg3 Nxe4 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.a4 Ba6 18.axb5 Bxb5 19.b3 Rhc8 20.h4 a6 21.bxc4 Bxc4 22.hxg5 hxg5 23.Rh6 Nf6 24.Ra5 Bb5 25.Bxb5 axb5 26.Rxb5 Ra1+ 27.Kd2 Ra2+ 28.Kd1 Ra1+ 1/2-1/2
- Good play by Spielmann. I preferred his position throughout this game.
- Capablanca's opening with 7 Qb3, 9 Qxc3 and 12 Nd2 (12 e4..dxe 13 Ne5 was stronger) was imprecise and led to Black taking the initiative. Black would have had good winning chances had he played 17..f5, instead after 17..Ba6 White was able to draw with the help of some clever tactics.
New York 1927
Round 1, Feb. 19, 1927
Marshall, Frank James – Nimzowitsch, Aron
C01 French, Exchange
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.exd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Ne7 6.Bd3 Nbc6 7.h3 Be6 8.O-O Qd7 9.Bf4 Bxc3 10.bxc3 f6 11.Rb1 g5 12.Bg3 O-O-O 13.Qe2 Rde8 14.Rfe1 Nf5 15.Bxf5 Bxf5 16.Qb5 Nd8 17.Qc5 b6 18.Qa3 Kb7 19.Qb3 Nc6 20.Nd2 Na5 21.Qb2 Rxe1+ 22.Rxe1 Re8 23.Rxe8 Qxe8 24.Qb1 Kc8 25.Qd1 Qe6 26.Nb3 Nc4 27.Nd2 Na3 28.Nf1 Nxc2 29.Qh5 Bd3 30.Qd1 Qe4 31.Nd2 Qe2 32.Qxe2 Bxe2 33.f4 Na3 34.fxg5 fxg5 35.Kf2 Bh5 36.Be5 g4 37.hxg4 Bxg4 38.Ke3 Bf5 39.Bg7 Be6 40.Bf8 Nb5 41.Nb1 a5 42.Kd2 Bf5 43.Na3 Nxa3 44.Bxa3 Bb1 45.Bf8 Bxa2 46.Bg7 Bb1 47.Ke3 Kb7 48.Bf6 Ka6 49.Kd2 Be4 50.g3 Kb5 51.Kc1 Kc4 52.Kb2 c5 53.Be5 cxd4 54.Bxd4 b5 55.Bb6 a4 56.Ba5 d4 57.cxd4 b4 58.Bb6 a3+ 59.Ka2 Kb5 60.Bc5 Ka4 0-1
1.e4 { Notes by Nimzowitsch } 1...e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.exd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Ne7 6.Bd3 Nbc6 7.h3 Be6 8.O-O Qd7 9.Bf4 Bxc3 10.bxc3 f6 { In order to safeguard the B against a possible Ng5 - the prophylactic meaning of 7...Be6 is thus clear. White now tried an attack on the open b-file, but it is not surprising that it failed, on account of the dynamic weakness of the double complex. } 11.Rb1 g5 12.Bg3 O-O-O { Looks risky, but is part of the plan initiated on the 9th move. } 13.Qe2 Rde8 { Not ...Rdg8 because a flank attack is best undermined by a concentration in the center and not by a counter-attack on the wing. } 14.Rfe1 Nf5 15.Bxf5 { The move 15 Ba6 proves insufficient after ...bxa6. } 15...Bxf5 16.Qb5 Nd8 17.Qc5 b6 18.Qa3 Kb7 19.Qb3 Nc6 { Already a blockader makes for c4 where it will demonstrate the weakness of the doubled pawn. } 20.Nd2 Na5 21.Qb2 Rxe1+ 22.Rxe1 Re8 23.Rxe8 Qxe8 24.Qb1 Kc8 { Here ...Qe2 was also good. } 25.Qd1 Qe6 26.Nb3 Nc4 27.Nd2 Na3 28.Nf1 Nxc2 { Now Black has an ending with a pawn plus but bishops of opposite colors, and many of the onlookers prognosticated a draw. } 29.Qh5 Bd3 30.Qd1 { Not ...Qe2 at once because of Qxe2 and Ne3. } 30...Qe4 31.Nd2 { If 31 f3 then ...Qe2 is sound. } 31...Qe2 32.Qxe2 Bxe2 33.f4 Na3 34.fxg5 fxg5 35.Kf2 Bh5 36.Be5 g4 37.hxg4 Bxg4 38.Ke3 Bf5 39.Bg7 Be6 40.Bf8 Nb5 41.Nb1 a5 { Here 41...Bf5 was also playable: 42 a4 Bxb1 43 axb5 Ba2 44 Kf4 Bc4 45 Ke5 Kd7 46 Bb4 c6 47 bxc6+ Kxc6 and the king migrates to b3. } 42.Kd2 { A winning line, not unlike that shown in the preceding note would be : 42 Kf4 Bf7 43 a4 Bg6 44 axb5 Bxb1 45 Kxe5 Ba2 46 Ke6 Bc4 with ...Kg7 and ...c6, etc. } 42...Bf5 43.Na3 Nxa3 44.Bxa3 Bb1 45.Bf8 Bxa2 46.Bg7 Bb1 47.Ke3 Kb7 48.Bf6 Ka6 49.Kd2 { If 49 Bd8 Black has a win the K penetrating to b3, e.g. : 49 Bd8 Kb5 50 Bxc7 Kc4 51 Bxb6 a4 with ...Kb3 and wins as the a-pawn cannot be stopped. This variation shows the enduring weakness of the dead and gone double complex. For in the passed a-pawn is mirrored the weakness of the defunct White a-pawn, and in the blocked long diagonal a1-f6 is manifested , in memoriam, the obstructive effect of the pawn formation c3 and d4. White might have resigned here. } 49...Be4 50.g3 Kb5 51.Kc1 Kc4 52.Kb2 c5 53.Be5 cxd4 54.Bxd4 b5 55.Bb6 a4 56.Ba5 d4 57.cxd4 b4 58.Bb6 a3+ 59.Ka2 Kb5 60.Bc5 Ka4 0-1
May 4, 2020
Almost every chess player probably has at one time owned a copy of the Dover edition of the New York 1924 chess tournament. The competitors were Capablanca, Emanuel Lasker, Alekhine, Bogoljubow, Maroczy, Reti, Tartakower, Yates, Marshall, Janowski and Edward Lasker.
Emanuel Lasker won at 55-years of age, Capablanca suffered his first loss in eight years and Alekhine produced the tournament book with masterful annotations and comments.
Three years after this event, New York 1927 was organized.
From Dejan Bojkov at chess.com
This time only six players competed in a quadruple round robin tournament from February to March. Naturally, the favourite was the reigning champion Capablanca, but two other remarkable players had an important fight of their own.
Both Alexander Alekhine and Aaron Nimzowitsch challenged the champion at the beginning of that year, but the Cuban had not yet answered those challenges definitively. Alekhine stated that “Nimzowitsch’s challenge was purely platonic” (i.e. he did not have the money to raise the prize fund in accordance with the recently established London rules for the World Championship). Nevertheless, in private correspondence, Capablanca strongly advised Alekhine that participation in the event was necessary in order for him to define his challenger. Thus, the tournament had the unofficial status of qualification for a World Championship match.
A curious fact is that one of the strongest players of the time Efim Bogoljubow refused to take part in this “mediocre tournament” and offered instead a direct match between himself and the champion. He was then replaced by Rudolph Spielman. The field was rounded out with the American Champion Frank Marshall and Milan Vidmar.
The event became an absolute triumph for Jose Raul Capablanca, who claimed the title undefeated, scoring 14/20. He also won the best game prize.
https://www.chess.com/article/view/new-york-1927
Alekhine annotated and studied the games and concluded that Capablanca was not unbeatable. But the tournament book only appeared in German, by De Gruyter in 1928. Both Tartakower and Grekov produced subsequent Russian editions.
I first heard of the tournament as a teenager when reading Botvinnik’s 100 Selected Games.
Botvinnik says that Alekhine set himself the task of surpassing both Capablanca and Lasker. If he was to excel the Cuban player he must assimilate all the new elements that Lasker and Capablanca had introduced into chess Technique. Lasker had brought the art of playing in simple positions to great perfection. Capablanca was fond of playing more complicated games, he was a master of the middle-game; but in the later period of his career he too was attracted by simple positions.
If Alekhine had not succeeded in assimilating their art and technique especially in simple positions, he could not have beaten Capablanca.
During these same years Alekhine also mastered the technique of preparing contests. Botvinnik wrote that he made no bones of the fact that when his turn came to prepare for the world championship contest, his first step was to make close and detailed acquaintance with Alekhine’s introductory article to his collection of games of the New York 1927 Match-Tournament. In this article he related how he had prepared for the match against Capablanca, subjected Capablanca’s creative art to thorough analysis, and revealed his own thoughts and his own plans.
_______
I was able to get a copy Das New Yorker Schachturnier 1927, published by Walter de Gruyter in 1963 and dogged my German teacher in the ‘80s in helping me translate that introduction. Chess Digest had come out with a 78-page pamphlet about the tournament in 1972 but made no attempt at an extensive translation.
Finally, in 2011, Russell Enterprises came out with an English translation, with a foreword by Andy Soltis.
________
I thought that in this time of the covid-19 pandemic, when there are so few tournaments for enthusiasts to follow, that giving the round-by-round games of New York 1927 would be diverting. I shall often use contemporary comments.
For those who may wonder why the tournament book wasn’t published in English in the 20s and what comments Alekhine made about Capablanca’s play – the purchase of the recent translation is de rigueur.
Cycle I
Round 1
New York 1927
Round 1, Feb. 19, 1927
Alekhine, Alexander – Vidmar, Milan
D30 Queen’s Gambit Declined
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nd7 4.Nc3 Ngf6 5.Bg5 Bb4 6.cxd5 exd5 7.e3 O-O 8.Bd3 c5 9.O-O Bxc3 10.bxc3 c4 11.Bc2 Qa5 12.Ne5 Qxc3 13.Nxd7 Nxd7 14.Qb1 Re8 15.Bxh7+ Kh8 16.Bc2 Nf8 17.Ba4 Re6 18.Qb5 Rg6 19.Qxd5 Qb4 20.Bc2 Be6 21.Qe4 f5 22.Qf4 Nh7 23.h4 Nxg5 24.hxg5 Qe7 25.Qh4+ Rh6 26.Qg3 Rh5 27.f4 Qa3 28.Qf3 g6 29.e4 Qb2 30.exf5 Qxd4+ 31.Qf2 Qxf2+ 32.Kxf2 Bxf5 33.Bxf5 gxf5 34.Rfd1 Rh7 35.Rd5 Rc8 36.Rxf5 Rd7 37.Re5 c3 38.Rc1 c2 39.Re2 Rdc7 40.Kf3 b5 41.f5 Kg7 42.Re6 Rd7 43.Re2 Rdc7 44.Re6 Rd7 45.Re2 1/2-1/2
After 7.e3 the game has transposed into the Manhattan variation of the QGD, appropriate given the location of the tournament.
Also, the combination beginning with 12.Ne5 and culminating in 15.Bxh7+ is a thing of beauty and a testament to the genius of Alekhine.
- 7..0-0 was a new move but seems less thematic than the much more popular 7..c5. Alekhine suggested 12..Re8 13 Nxd7..Nxd7 14 Qd2..b5 15 a4 though White would still have had an advantage. 32 Kxf2? was an error after which Black was able to draw; winning would have been 32 Rxf2..Bxf5 33 g4..Bxg4 34 Bxg6..Rh3 35 Be4..Rb8 36 f5. Better chances would have been offered by 35 g4..fxg 36 Kg3.
- Stockfish suggests 32.Rxf2 Bf5 33.g4 Bxg4 34.Bxg6 Rh4.....
New York 1927
Round 1, Feb. 19, 1927
Capablanca, Jose Raul – Spielmann, Rudolf
D35 QGD, Exchange variation
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 Nd7 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nc3 Ngf6 6.Bg5 Bb4 7.Qb3 c5 8.a3 Bxc3+ 9.Qxc3 c4 10.Qe3+ Qe7 11.Qxe7+ Kxe7 12.Nd2 h6 13.Bh4 b5 14.e4 g5 15.Bg3 Nxe4 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.a4 Ba6 18.axb5 Bxb5 19.b3 Rhc8 20.h4 a6 21.bxc4 Bxc4 22.hxg5 hxg5 23.Rh6 Nf6 24.Ra5 Bb5 25.Bxb5 axb5 26.Rxb5 Ra1+ 27.Kd2 Ra2+ 28.Kd1 Ra1+ 1/2-1/2
- Good play by Spielmann. I preferred his position throughout this game.
- Capablanca's opening with 7 Qb3, 9 Qxc3 and 12 Nd2 (12 e4..dxe 13 Ne5 was stronger) was imprecise and led to Black taking the initiative. Black would have had good winning chances had he played 17..f5, instead after 17..Ba6 White was able to draw with the help of some clever tactics.
New York 1927
Round 1, Feb. 19, 1927
Marshall, Frank James – Nimzowitsch, Aron
C01 French, Exchange
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.exd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Ne7 6.Bd3 Nbc6 7.h3 Be6 8.O-O Qd7 9.Bf4 Bxc3 10.bxc3 f6 11.Rb1 g5 12.Bg3 O-O-O 13.Qe2 Rde8 14.Rfe1 Nf5 15.Bxf5 Bxf5 16.Qb5 Nd8 17.Qc5 b6 18.Qa3 Kb7 19.Qb3 Nc6 20.Nd2 Na5 21.Qb2 Rxe1+ 22.Rxe1 Re8 23.Rxe8 Qxe8 24.Qb1 Kc8 25.Qd1 Qe6 26.Nb3 Nc4 27.Nd2 Na3 28.Nf1 Nxc2 29.Qh5 Bd3 30.Qd1 Qe4 31.Nd2 Qe2 32.Qxe2 Bxe2 33.f4 Na3 34.fxg5 fxg5 35.Kf2 Bh5 36.Be5 g4 37.hxg4 Bxg4 38.Ke3 Bf5 39.Bg7 Be6 40.Bf8 Nb5 41.Nb1 a5 42.Kd2 Bf5 43.Na3 Nxa3 44.Bxa3 Bb1 45.Bf8 Bxa2 46.Bg7 Bb1 47.Ke3 Kb7 48.Bf6 Ka6 49.Kd2 Be4 50.g3 Kb5 51.Kc1 Kc4 52.Kb2 c5 53.Be5 cxd4 54.Bxd4 b5 55.Bb6 a4 56.Ba5 d4 57.cxd4 b4 58.Bb6 a3+ 59.Ka2 Kb5 60.Bc5 Ka4 0-1
1.e4 { Notes by Nimzowitsch } 1...e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.exd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Ne7 6.Bd3 Nbc6 7.h3 Be6 8.O-O Qd7 9.Bf4 Bxc3 10.bxc3 f6 { In order to safeguard the B against a possible Ng5 - the prophylactic meaning of 7...Be6 is thus clear. White now tried an attack on the open b-file, but it is not surprising that it failed, on account of the dynamic weakness of the double complex. } 11.Rb1 g5 12.Bg3 O-O-O { Looks risky, but is part of the plan initiated on the 9th move. } 13.Qe2 Rde8 { Not ...Rdg8 because a flank attack is best undermined by a concentration in the center and not by a counter-attack on the wing. } 14.Rfe1 Nf5 15.Bxf5 { The move 15 Ba6 proves insufficient after ...bxa6. } 15...Bxf5 16.Qb5 Nd8 17.Qc5 b6 18.Qa3 Kb7 19.Qb3 Nc6 { Already a blockader makes for c4 where it will demonstrate the weakness of the doubled pawn. } 20.Nd2 Na5 21.Qb2 Rxe1+ 22.Rxe1 Re8 23.Rxe8 Qxe8 24.Qb1 Kc8 { Here ...Qe2 was also good. } 25.Qd1 Qe6 26.Nb3 Nc4 27.Nd2 Na3 28.Nf1 Nxc2 { Now Black has an ending with a pawn plus but bishops of opposite colors, and many of the onlookers prognosticated a draw. } 29.Qh5 Bd3 30.Qd1 { Not ...Qe2 at once because of Qxe2 and Ne3. } 30...Qe4 31.Nd2 { If 31 f3 then ...Qe2 is sound. } 31...Qe2 32.Qxe2 Bxe2 33.f4 Na3 34.fxg5 fxg5 35.Kf2 Bh5 36.Be5 g4 37.hxg4 Bxg4 38.Ke3 Bf5 39.Bg7 Be6 40.Bf8 Nb5 41.Nb1 a5 { Here 41...Bf5 was also playable: 42 a4 Bxb1 43 axb5 Ba2 44 Kf4 Bc4 45 Ke5 Kd7 46 Bb4 c6 47 bxc6+ Kxc6 and the king migrates to b3. } 42.Kd2 { A winning line, not unlike that shown in the preceding note would be : 42 Kf4 Bf7 43 a4 Bg6 44 axb5 Bxb1 45 Kxe5 Ba2 46 Ke6 Bc4 with ...Kg7 and ...c6, etc. } 42...Bf5 43.Na3 Nxa3 44.Bxa3 Bb1 45.Bf8 Bxa2 46.Bg7 Bb1 47.Ke3 Kb7 48.Bf6 Ka6 49.Kd2 { If 49 Bd8 Black has a win the K penetrating to b3, e.g. : 49 Bd8 Kb5 50 Bxc7 Kc4 51 Bxb6 a4 with ...Kb3 and wins as the a-pawn cannot be stopped. This variation shows the enduring weakness of the dead and gone double complex. For in the passed a-pawn is mirrored the weakness of the defunct White a-pawn, and in the blocked long diagonal a1-f6 is manifested , in memoriam, the obstructive effect of the pawn formation c3 and d4. White might have resigned here. } 49...Be4 50.g3 Kb5 51.Kc1 Kc4 52.Kb2 c5 53.Be5 cxd4 54.Bxd4 b5 55.Bb6 a4 56.Ba5 d4 57.cxd4 b4 58.Bb6 a3+ 59.Ka2 Kb5 60.Bc5 Ka4 0-1
Comment