|Feb-10-04|| ||aragorn69: "In modern chess literature the word revenge is often used, but the
examples given are not very spectacular. A player loses a game and
then works for years on an opening novelty with which he avenges
his loss. Wunderkind Reshevsky is treated without respect by
Lasker, fifteen years later the mature Reshevsky wipes Lasker off
the board at Nottingham."
|Feb-10-04|| ||aragorn69: Comes from one of Ree´s best pieces, called "Revenge and Forgiveness". Definitely deserves a read at http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hans3... |
|May-08-04|| ||iron maiden: When was Reshevsky "treated without respect by Lasker?" By all accounts that I've heard, Lasker was a well-mannered gentleman. |
|May-08-04|| ||paulalbert: When a high level competitor defeats another high level competitor, be it in chess, tennis, football, business,etc. that is competition, not disrespect. Naturally, competitors want to win the next head to head contest and prepare to do so.I doubt that either Lasker or Reshevsky viewed this as a matter of personal animosity. It was a matter of professional competition. Paul Albert |
|May-08-04|| ||iron maiden: Well, if "treated without respect" means "defeated in a chess game", then I'd like to see that game, if a record exists. I thought Reshevsky and Lasker played only this one game. |
|May-08-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: I read the thing and don't see any mention of Lasker insulting Reshevsky, I think Hans Ree just said that Reshevsky was "treated without respect" to make it sound like Lasker utterly demolished Reshevsky the first time around. I've never seen the other game before (there is only an Edward Lasker game besides this). |
|May-08-04|| ||tamar: I think Ree had the Laskers mixed up.
American Chess Journal 1921 has the first hand account of this game by Edward Lasker,Reshevsky vs Edward Lasker, 1920
"Edward Lasker is impressed with the play of prodigy Sammy Reshevsky, but points out the only thing the child has to learn is to lose gracefully. 306pp."
|Jul-07-05|| ||calman543: What would be the finish up if white did not resign?|
|Jul-08-05|| ||suenteus po 147: <calman543> 23.Kh1 Qh5 and now there is no way for white to prevent mate without losing his queen.|
|Jul-08-05|| ||sheaf: <suenteus po 147> u mean 23.Kh1 Qg4 |
|Jul-08-05|| ||PivotalAnorak: <sheaf> well if 23.h1 h5 24.g2 g4+ is .|
|Nov-11-05|| ||RookFile: This game is misunderstood. Lasker
should have emerged from this game
with an advantage. The Queen to d5
idea shouldn't have worked out so
well for black.
|May-23-06|| ||netlava: <RookFile> The queen to d5 idea forces white to lose a pawn.|
|Jun-28-06|| ||RookFile: It does no such thing. Lasker should have been able to force the queen to retreat, and emerge with an opening advantage. I'll set up a reminder to myself to analyze this.|
|Jul-07-06|| ||RookFile: Ok. In my hands is great book, called "American Chess Masters from Morphy to Fischer", by Bisguier and Soltis.
This game is analyzed, and some of the notes are given below:|
"In this semi-open position, it is very much in Black's interest to exchange off minor pieces. On 14. Bxe7 Qxe7 15. Ncxd5 Bxd5 16. Be4, White concedes Black equality. Lasker chooses a tricky attacking line but misses the essential follow up three moves later."
14. Bc1 (!?)
16. a4 (!) Qd5 !?
".... Here White has offeed a strong pawn sacrifice that would allow him to play c4 and Bb2. The lost queen rook pawn is meaningless - that is, meaningless in the middlegame. Reshevsky's reply (16... Qd5) complicates the game, and although it is not as powerful as was thought duing the game, it's practical effect was powerful. Lasker now fumbles."
17. Nf3 ?
"A sorry retreat, but the seemingly aggressive 17. f4 could be effectively answered by .....b4!", Reshevsky wrote in his notes. But then 18. c4! puts Black in real trouble because 18... Qxd4+ 19. Be3 Qc3 20. Bxh7+! and 21. Rd3 is too strong. If Black must retreat his queen, White stands very well."
19.... Ng5 !
".... White has been victimized by Black's bluff and his otherwise very astute counterplay...."
|Dec-17-06|| ||shr0pshire: Here is how Reshevsky recounts the game in his book, "Great Chess Upsets."|
"I played Lasker only once. He was sixty years old when the following game was played. I had no difficulty equalizing with the black pieces, and Lasker also misplayed the middle game, making several dubious moves. On his 21st turn, Lasker blundered by over-looking a three move combiation, which forced his resignation."
Reshevsky doesn't mention anything about Lasker' attitude toward Reshevsky in either way.
|Dec-17-06|| ||suenteus po 147: <sheaf> You're right, your way is faster and thus better.|
|Sep-02-09|| ||WhiteRook48: 34 Kh1 Qh5 24 Kg1 Bxf3 25 Qe5 Qg4+ 26 Qg3|
|Sep-05-09|| ||backrank: 34. Kh1 is not answered by Qh5, but by the much stronger Qg4!, mating or winning the White Queen.|
|Aug-26-12|| ||Ulhumbrus: On 17 f4 instead of 17 Nf3 an alternative to 17...b4 is 17...Ne4! as in the game starting an attack on the c3 pawn.|
Lasker's first mistake may have been the withdrawal 14 Bc1?
An alternative to this is 14 Bd2. On 14...Nxc3 15 bxc3 Nf6 16 f4 Qd5 17 Bb1 Ne4 18 Be1 Rfc8 19 Rf3 f5 Black may be able to defend but that is much better for White than passing the advantage to Black