Answers.Body: <p><strong>Yes</strong>. I found the game on:</p>
  <ul>
  <li><a href="https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2126517" rel="nofollow noreferrer">chessgames.com</a></li>
  <li><a href="https://old.chesstempo.com/gamedb/game/727977" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Chess Tempo</a></li>
  <li><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/47qyD.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Chessbase Mega Database</a></li>
  </ul>
  <p>All these suggest that 29. Ne1 was indeed played.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-12-26T21:21:35.973Z
Answers.Text: This only proves that all these databases share a common source. It is still totally possible that Nc1 was actually played but the operator who registered the game misread Ne1 instead. That happens very often (https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/27042/14079) but unless we can ask one of the players or find a video of the game that will be impossible to prove or disprove.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Evargalo
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-12-27T06:14:24.043Z
Answers.Text: @Evargalo you could claim the same thing for every chess game that we don't have a video of.
Answers.UserDisplayName: double-beep
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-12-27T09:08:43.270Z
Answers.Text: But most grandmaster games don't have the same - blunder an obvious mate in 1 - miss the mate in 1 - resign (or get flagged) - sequence, and a plausible alternative scenario like 29.Nc1. We need the testimony of one of the players, or a photo of the gamesheet, to be sure, and otherwise we'll just never know. Anyway, the game was certainly entered only once into the databases, so even if we collect ten links to this game with Ne1, this doesn't prove more than one single link. The correct answer imo is "we don't know". (unless @Vladimir who answered **is** GM Akopian)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Evargalo
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-12-24T12:28:22.520Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-12-24T12:28:22.520Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: double-beep
Body: <pre><code>[FEN &quot;&quot;]
  [Event &quot;Ubeda op 6th&quot;]
  [Site &quot;Ubeda&quot;]
  [Date &quot;2001.01.25&quot;]
  [EventDate &quot;?&quot;]
  [Round &quot;5&quot;]
  [Result &quot;0-1&quot;]
  [White &quot;Comas Fabrego, Lluis&quot;]
  [Black &quot;Vladimir Akopian&quot;]
  [ECO &quot;A70&quot;]
  [WhiteElo &quot;2508&quot;]
  [BlackElo &quot;2656&quot;]
  [PlyCount &quot;58&quot;]
  
  1. d4 e6 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nf3 c5 4. d5 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. Nc3 g6 7. e4 Bg7 8. h3  O-O 9. Bg5 h6 10. Be3 Re8 11. Bd3 c4 12. Bc2 b5 13. a3 Na6 14. O-O b4 15. axb4  Nxb4 16. Rxa7 Rxa7 17. Bxa7 Bxh3 18. gxh3 Nxc2 19. Qxc2 Qd7 20. Ra1 Qxh3 21.  Ne1 Re5 22. f4 Qg3+ 23. Ng2 Rh5 24. Ne2 Qh3 25. Kf1 Qf3+ 26. Kg1 Ng4 27. Ra3 c3  28. bxc3 Rh2 29. Ne1 Qh3 0-1
  </code></pre>
  <p>In this brilliant game, I wonder whether White's last move was Nc1 instead of Ne1 since the text move allows two different mates in one. 29. Nc1 would make more sense as it makes the reply Qh3 absolutely logical. Does someone know the source of this game to clarify this?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-12-24T09:17:29.900Z
Comments.Text: Could it be that this is just an analysis? https://www.chessgames.com/perl/nph-chesspgn?text=1&gid=1420514 stops far earlier, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n-mORv3xe0 (didn't watch) gives Ne1 indeed.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Hauke Reddmann
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-12-24T10:03:57.533Z
Comments.Text: @HaukeReddmann that's another game (notice the date and the first few moves). It looks like [this is the correct one](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2126517) from chessgames.com and according to it, Ne1 was indeed played. I also found that game on [Chess Tempo](https://old.chesstempo.com/gamedb/game/727977) and it has Ne1, too.
Comments.UserDisplayName: double-beep
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-12-26T08:29:30.270Z
Comments.Text: @bof f2 is covered by the bishop on a7.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Peter
Tags: <famous-games><master-games><reference-request>
Title: Was White's last move actually Ne1?
ThreadText: # Was White's last move actually Ne1?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2021-12-24)
  
  ```
  [FEN ""]
  [Event "Ubeda op 6th"]
  [Site "Ubeda"]
  [Date "2001.01.25"]
  [EventDate "?"]
  [Round "5"]
  [Result "0-1"]
  [White "Comas Fabrego, Lluis"]
  [Black "Vladimir Akopian"]
  [ECO "A70"]
  [WhiteElo "2508"]
  [BlackElo "2656"]
  [PlyCount "58"]
  
  1. d4 e6 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nf3 c5 4. d5 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. Nc3 g6 7. e4 Bg7 8. h3  O-O 9. Bg5 h6 10. Be3 Re8 11. Bd3 c4 12. Bc2 b5 13. a3 Na6 14. O-O b4 15. axb4  Nxb4 16. Rxa7 Rxa7 17. Bxa7 Bxh3 18. gxh3 Nxc2 19. Qxc2 Qd7 20. Ra1 Qxh3 21.  Ne1 Re5 22. f4 Qg3+ 23. Ng2 Rh5 24. Ne2 Qh3 25. Kf1 Qf3+ 26. Kg1 Ng4 27. Ra3 c3  28. bxc3 Rh2 29. Ne1 Qh3 0-1
  
  ```
  
  In this brilliant game, I wonder whether White's last move was Nc1 instead of Ne1 since the text move allows two different mates in one. 29. Nc1 would make more sense as it makes the reply Qh3 absolutely logical. Does someone know the source of this game to clarify this?
  
  **Tags:** famous-games, master-games, reference-request
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Could it be that this is just an analysis? https://www.chessgames.com/perl/nph-chesspgn?text=1&gid=1420514 stops far earlier, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n-mORv3xe0 (didn't watch) gives Ne1 indeed.  
  > **username_2**: @username_1 that's another game (notice the date and the first few moves). It looks like [this is the correct one](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2126517) from chessgames.com and according to it, Ne1 was indeed played. I also found that game on [Chess Tempo](https://old.chesstempo.com/gamedb/game/727977) and it has Ne1, too.  
  > **username_0**: @bof f2 is covered by the bishop on a7.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2021-12-24. Score: 4
  
  **Yes**. I found the game on:
  
  * [chessgames.com](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2126517)
  * [Chess Tempo](https://old.chesstempo.com/gamedb/game/727977)
  * [Chessbase Mega Database](https://i.sstatic.net/47qyD.png)
  
  All these suggest that 29. Ne1 was indeed played.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_3**: This only proves that all these databases share a common source. It is still totally possible that Nc1 was actually played but the operator who registered the game misread Ne1 instead. That happens very often (https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/27042/14079) but unless we can ask one of the players or find a video of the game that will be impossible to prove or disprove.  
  > **username_2**: @username_3 you could claim the same thing for every chess game that we don't have a video of.  
  > **username_3**: But most grandmaster games don't have the same - blunder an obvious mate in 1 - miss the mate in 1 - resign (or get flagged) - sequence, and a plausible alternative scenario like 29.Nc1. We need the testimony of one of the players, or a photo of the gamesheet, to be sure, and otherwise we'll just never know. Anyway, the game was certainly entered only once into the databases, so even if we collect ten links to this game with Ne1, this doesn't prove more than one single link. The correct answer imo is "we don't know". (unless @Vladimir who answered **is** GM Akopian)  
  
  ---
  
  