< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Jan-03-08|| ||perfidious: <ulhumbrus> IMO, Lasker allowed White to play e5 because he believed, as I do, that opening the a2-g8 diagonal for the bishop and ceding f5 plus d5 were more troublesome than gaining d4, whose weakness is a long way from being exploited.|
|Mar-28-08|| ||wrap99: Is there something wrong with black taking the queen on move 32? I understand that there is then the check and discovered check but it seems like black ends up with a Q for a R and a Knight...|
|Mar-28-08|| ||mistreaver: I think that if black took the queen with 32 ... Rxe4 that white would play f7ch and then Nxe4ch when he would have positional advantage i guess|
|Mar-28-08|| ||keypusher: <wrap 99, mistreaver>|
32....Rxe4 33. gxf7+ Kg7 34. fxe8/N+ Rxe8 35. Rxe4 and White gets two pieces and a rook for the queen.
|Mar-29-08|| ||mistreaver: <keypusher> In your line white gets rook and a piece for a queen|
|Mar-29-08|| ||keypusher: <mistreaver> you are right; I can't count. I looked up Andrew Soltis' notes in his book <Why Lasker Matters>; he writes that 32....Rxe4 33. gxf7+ Kf8 34. fxe8/Q+ Kxe8 35. Nxe4 would have given White the advantage. So it looks like your original note was correct.|
|Jan-25-09|| ||nasmichael: Many thanks to CG for "Guess the Move", and Thanks also to "JoinTheArmy" for helping getting it here. After taking some time to work through this game, I can appreciate the depth of thought required to play a game at this level. Satisfyingly, I did ok--and as a fan of Lasker in particular, I could see some (I say, some) of what he was trying to accomplish with Black, and it gave me some things to think about in terms of controlling the board. |
An exercise well -worth doing, for any level player.
|Jan-06-10|| ||ZZer: One interesting point in this game is that both players try a Queen sacrifice. The one who accepts the sacrifice is defeated in the end...|
|Jan-06-10|| ||laskereshevsky: Ilyin-Zhenevsky vs Lasker, 1925|
Another famous case of Lasker defy his opponent to accept the change of the Queen 4 a Rook, a piece, and a Pawn....
Definetly, Emmanuel full knowledged how to handle this unbalanced forces set-up.
|Jan-06-10|| ||Boomie: Can it be overemphasized that Lasker was 66 when he played this game? If he hadn't taken so much time off from the game, would anyone have challenged him for best ever?|
Anyhoo, this position after 41...Nd3 is certainly memorable.
click for larger view
|Jan-06-10|| ||I play the Fred: Well, sure it's amazing, but one can easily make a player's advanced age the one and only point of discussion.|
A 66-year old man wins a great game and it's, "Wow, and he did that despite being 66!"
A 66-year old man loses in terrible fashion and it's, "Well, jeez, give him a break, he was 66 after all!"
The way I tend to look at it is that players like Lasker, Smyslov, and Korchnoi (and Bronstein IMO) were so strong in their youth they could still play top-notch chess at advanced ages. Not to take anything away from a great game by a 66 year old, but it's Lasker.
Now a truly remarkable story would be some ordinary-in-his-youth GM (I'll just throw out the name John van der Wiel, no offense intended) became a top 20 or greater player after turning 50. It would overturn the apple cart of our age-based expectations while giving us all hope to improve.
|Feb-06-11|| ||Everett: Well, Smyslov was in the top 20 throughout his 50's, and top 10 for a few years in his early 60's.|
Kochnoi, for his part, didn't drop out of the top 20 until 1990, when he was just nearing 60. Pretty amazing!
|Sep-05-11|| ||perfidious: <Fred>, <Everett> It comes down to understanding the game; while the ability to calculate variations decreases as one ages, experience and judgment, particularly in positional setups, still count for something.|
<Fred>, even on a humbler level, after being 2300 USCF in the 1980s, if I were to return to the game, I'm realistic enough to acknowledge that there's no chance of becoming an IM or GM, much less top 20, at the ripe old age of 51, so I'll leave that to the youngsters.
|Jul-31-12|| ||andyatchess: Agreed <Boomie>, definitely memorable|
|Oct-11-13|| ||SmokyRic3: (!)i need to go over this game again (!)|
|May-14-14|| ||FSR: <Boomie: Can it be overemphasized that Lasker was 66 when he played this game?>|
More like 65 1/2, but amazing, no question. This was his first serious game in nine years. Even more amazing is his performance a year later at Moscow (1935).
<If he hadn't taken so much time off from the game, would anyone have challenged him for best ever?>
|Jun-22-14|| ||SpiritedReposte: That last move ...Rd8 is like a bolt locking a door or the final nail in a coffin.|
|Dec-25-14|| ||TheFocus: Lasker finished in 5th place at the Zurich tournament held in Zurich, Switzerland with a score of +9=2-4. |
This round 1, July 14, 1934.
|Jun-05-15|| ||A.T PhoneHome: 49...Rg5, followed by 50...Rd8 is a whiplash by Dr. Lasker. Just brilliant!|
|Jun-06-15|| ||Howard: This game is fully annotated in How to Defend in Chess, by the recently-deceased Colin Crouch.|
|Mar-24-16|| ||CAPPYJAK: WHY after 32. hxg6 did not black play rxe4
am i missing something as simple as that?
|Mar-24-16|| ||Benzol: <CAPPYJAK> After 32...Rxe4 33.gxf7+ Kh8 34.f8=Q+ Qg8 35.Qxb4 defending the Rook at e1 Black is a piece down. If Black plays 33...Kg7 34.f8=Q+ Kg6 35.Nxe4 and White has the nasty threat of 36.Rg3|
|Mar-24-16|| ||Benzol: Thinking about it further White doesn't have to play 35.Qxb4. He could play 35.Qxg8+ Kxg8 36.Bxe6+ Kg7 37.Rxe4 when Black should probably resign.|
|Sep-25-16|| ||fredthebear: When it comes to the placement of rooks, Lasker was as good as they come.|
|Apr-23-18|| ||PJs Studio: What a gorgeous game by Lasker. The man had modern tactical motifs down so tight. The father of modern chess.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·