|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
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?> Not likely. |
|
| 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. |
|
| Jul-01-18 | | joddon: this game develops every world champion to come....its like Motzart symphony..i think even Fischer took this idea and grew on it....its the seed that sowed the imagination of chess....im not wrong!! |
|
| Oct-05-18 | | goser: Great game by Lasker! By the way, the engine believes that Black was not significantly worse at any single moment of the game (despite sometimes its position looked suspiciously). |
|
| Nov-01-19 | | N.O.F. NAJDORF: Although White blundered, what else could he have done? Black was threatening 50 ... Nd3
Other possibilities are:
50 Qe7 Rh5+
51 Kg1 Rd2
50 Rf1 e5
threatening
51 ... Rd2 |
|
| Apr-24-21 | | N.O.F. NAJDORF: After
51 Qc3+ e5
52 Qxe5+ Rxe5
53 Rxe5
black would be a piece up |
|
| Jan-05-24 | | Mathematicar: Amazing game by old Lasker. From his part, it was the mix of experience, talent, wisdom and youthful dynamic touch. |
|
| May-04-24 | | Amarande: I first encountered this game in <The Complete Chess Course> by Reinfeld, as one of the longer full stories published in that book (Reinfeld seems to have been definitely partial to shorter games when citing them in full, usually giving only the ending for most that would've been longer; in fact, the only one that I remember offhand in the book that was longer was Pillsbury vs Tarrasch, 1895 at 52 moves). As with the Pillsbury-Tarrasch game it was quite some years before I learned the identity of the players (I think perhaps not till I discovered Chessgames, even) - Reinfeld was notorious for not citing games' origins except in a few works like his book on Capablanca. Euwe erred most heavily not in taking the Queen (the sac gives Black but a slight advantage) but on clinging too long to his own (based on the silicon analysis returning it at move 38 yields only this slight disadvantage, while after 38 Rc1 Ne4, the game is virtually lost). Eventually, the Queen is lost under even more lamentable circumstances (else mate on the h-file, which or the win of the Queen seems already forced a move earlier with 49 ... Rg5! - Euwe's final move was a despairing attempt to avoid the jaws of 50 ... Nd5 attacking the Queen and forcing her trade for one Rook or another - 51 ... Rh4+ also being threatened, and 51 Qh2 being countered by Rh5). When accepting a sacrifice, always consider later if you can return some of the material to mitigate or eliminate the opponent's impetus, it's not just something for the King's Gambit! |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
