MARK RUBERY CHESS
In 1908 the 16-year-old Alekhine challenged the then champion of Moscow, Vladimir Nenarokov (1880-1953) to a match. The future champion’s ambitions did not quite match his ability at the time and after losing the first three games he withdrew from the match. When Alekhine wrote extensively about his chess career he never mentioned this early match that might have gone some way in shaping his play, and to a degree, his character.
Nenarokov,Vladimir Ivanovich - Alekhine,Alexander [C10]
Moscow (3), 1908
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nc6
(This passive move is not quite in the style of Alekhine but is experiencing a resurgence of popularity these days) 4.Nf3 Bb4 5.e5 f6 6.Bb5 Bd7 7.Bxc6 Bxc6 8.0–0 Qd7 9.Ne2 0–0–0 10.c3 Be7 11.a4 Rf8 12.b4 Qd8 13.Nf4 Bd7 14.Qe2 f5 15.Nd3 g5 16.Nc5 g4 17.Nd2 Bxc5 18.dxc5! (The gain of the d4 square for the knight and the impending pawn storm will soon leave Black without defence)…f4 19.f3 h5 20.Nb3 g3 21.h3 Ne7 22.b5 c6 23.Nd4 Qc7 24.a5 cxb5 25.a6 bxa6 26.Rxa6 Kb7 27.c6+! Bxc6 28.Qa2 Ra8 29.Nxe6 Qxe5 30.Nc5+ Kb8 31.Rxc6 Rd8 32.Qa6 1–0 (‘A dashing game-the kind we expect Alekhine to be on the winning side!-Reinfeld)
Of course Alekhine could not be denied his revenge and a decade later he won their encounter in a canter.
Alekhine,Alexander - Nenarokov,Vladimir Ivanovich [B34]
Moscow Three masters Moscow, 1918
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.h4 d5 8.Be2 h5 9.f3 Bd7 10.Qd2 a6 11.Nxd5 Nxd5 12.exd5 Ne5 13.c4 Rc8 14.Rc1 0–0 15.g4 hxg4 16.f4 Nf3+ 17.Bxf3 gxf3 18.h5 Bg4 19.hxg6 fxg6 20.Qh2 Qd7 21.Qh7+ Kf7 22.Rh6 Rh8 23.Qxg6+ Kg8 24.Ne6 Bxe6 25.Bd4 1–0
While Nenarokov is barely remembered these days he had a formidable record in his nation’s capital winning the Moscow championship in 1900, 1908, 1922 and 1924. At the age of 70 he was awarded the title of International Master in 1950, around the time Fide first began awarding titles.
BLACK TO PLAY AND WIN
‘Put snooker or darts on TV and even the uninitiated will soon pick up what is going on. With chess this isn’t the case. The esoteric nature of the game precludes the novice spectator from having a clue what is going on until he or she has put in many months, if not years of application. A chess columnist, and a chess magazine editor to a somewhat lesser extent, has the task of breaking down that barrier. It is therefore natural for him to publish violent and spectacular games, which are easy to explain. Of course these are not usually the best games, but the best games often have their own esoteric nature, hidden even from the majority of experienced players.’ (GM Keith Arkell)