| Jan-07-03 | | ughaibu: Another example of Lasker's resourcefulness. After an apparent lapse in the opening Lasker is the one who misses a win. |
 |
| Jan-09-03 | | Kenneth Sterling: I see another Centre Counter is being discussed. These are my favourite two twentieth century players. They did not meet as often as one might expect given the long overlap of their careers. If I am not mistaken, Alekhine was able to get the better of Lasker only the one time very late in Lasker's career. |
|
| Jan-09-03 | | ughaibu: Correct, Zurich 1934. |
|
| Jan-09-03 | | Kenneth Sterling: For many years Alekhine genuinely admired Lasker. They shared a mutual distaste for Capablanca who was the greatest threat each would ever confront (and, at times, avoid). |
|
| Mar-11-04 | | ughaibu: Another one for the draw collection. |
|
Mar-11-04
 | | Calli: <ughaibu> I don't see the win |
|
| Mar-11-04 | | ughaibu: I believe there's meant to be a win at move 17, perhaps Qa3? |
|
Mar-11-04
| | Calli: On 17.Qa3, Black has 17...Rd3. Better is 17.Qa6+ Kb8 18.Qe2 and if 18...Rd3 19.Rd1 is good for white. Black can play 18...Ng6 instead and the threats of Nh4+, Qh3 and Bxc5 should be good enough. |
|
| Mar-11-04 | | ughaibu: Maybe it was Qa3 on move 18? The analysis was in the Reinfeld-Fine book unfortunately I never really looked at it, only read it so to speak. |
|
Mar-11-04
| | Calli: Think I have it somewhere. Will have to look it up. |
|
| Mar-11-04 | | drukenknight: perhaps 19 Rxd8 but it still has a ways to go. |
|
| Mar-11-04 | | ughaibu: Calli: I think it was Reinfeld's Development of a Chess Genius not the Lasker book, it might be in Hannak as well but I dont really remember. |
|
Mar-11-04
| | Calli: Ugh - Yes it is in Reinfeld's Alekhine book. Unfortunately, he gives no analysis at all. "The right move was 18.Qa3 leaving Black with a hopeless game." -Reinfeld If you say so, Fred.
So, is 18.Qa3 Ke8 "hopeless"? |
|
| Mar-12-04 | | Lawrence: Sorry, Fred, your 18.Qa3 only merits a +0.45 whereas Lasker's 18.Rd1+ maintains the +1.23 he obtained when Alekhine played 15...Qe6. (Better would have been 15...Kb8, +0.65.) Lasker maintained this +1.23 advantage through moves 16, 17, and 18 but threw it away when he played 19.Qxd8. With 19.Rxd8 he would have kept it. (drukenknight, enhorabuena) 19.Qxd8 puts the eval at 0.00 and it stays there for the rest of the game. (Junior 8) |
|
| Jan-18-05 | | Grandpatzer: What interested me in this game was two chess greats going at it with a Scandinavian Defence. I had hoped it would be the Lasker Variation (1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.h3), because I'd like to document how this variation came into being, and how it could be named after Lasker if he, in fact, didn't use it (at least not within the database here). Can anyone shed some light on this paradox? |
|
