< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
|Sep-05-11|| ||Schach and Awe: Just wanted to make two observations at the critical point in the game, namely Black's 14th move. NxN seems logical, as it prevents White from opening up black's Kingside after 14. .. Rf8 move ? (or other) 15.NxN BxN 16. BxB gxf6. It's not pretty, however it is not fatal.
My second observation is after 15. .. NxN as played in the game, for White to gain any appreciable advantage for the attack, Bxh7+ is mandatory, else QxN is thwarted by f5.|
Can anyone recommend a good book they've read on sacrifices ... their calculation is probably the weakest part of my game. ?
Thanks in advance to those who may respond.
|Sep-05-11|| ||playground player: <Didn't Dr. Lasker ever learn not to play with his food before he ate it?|
|Sep-05-11|| ||jheiner: <Yodaman> Thx U R Winning! Super Funny.|
|Sep-05-11|| ||RandomVisitor: 13...g6 would put a stop to white's excellent kingside adventure.|
|Sep-05-11|| ||DarthStapler: This has really never been GOTD before?|
|Sep-06-11|| ||kevin86: Another great Lasker gem.Features the two bishop sac.|
|Sep-07-11|| ||Shams: <Schach and Awe> Your question about Black's 14th move alternatives is covered nicely a page or two back by <Themofro>, he posting IM Timothy Taylor's annotations to the game, which I reproduce here. The variations are not so hard to see on one's own.|
click for larger view
<14.Nh5!><Now Lasker has finally set up the attacking position he's been aiming for, and there is no valid defense, e.g. 14...d4 15. Nxf6+ (15. Bxf6 with the idea of Qg4 also leads to a powerful attack) 15...Bxf6 (15...gxf6 16. Rf3 fxe5 17. Bxh7+ Kh8 [17...Kg7 18. Rg3+ Kf6 19. Qh5 and mates] 18. Rg3 mates or wins the queen) 16. exd4 cxd4 17. Bxf6 gxf6 18. Rf3 and white wins at least a pawn. Also ...14 Ne8 loses to 15. Bxg7! with the idea of Qg4, and the relative best 14...Rf8 (giving the king somewhere to run) allows 15. Nxf6+ Bxf6 16. Bxh7+ (intending to meet 16...Kxh7? with the crushing 17. Qh5+ Kg8 18. Bxf6 gxf6 19. Qh6 and black can only watch in horror as white forces mate with Rf3-g3 etc.*) 16...Kf8 and black can "continue to resist a pawn down" (Kasparov) but that would be a thankless task against a player of Lasker's ability.>
*I love this line.
|Oct-01-11|| ||Cemoblanca: 17.Bxg7!
This and 15.Bxh7+!! established Lasker's reputation, much like Carlos Torre's 25.Bf6!! against Lasker at Moscow 1925 and Fischer's 17...Be6!! against Donald Byrne. The 2 bishop-sack has been copied dozens of times and dubbed "Lasker's Combination," (more info >>> http://www.amazon.com/Laskers-Combi...) the title of a 1998 book devoted to it.
But this raises a question that will recur in these pages. Just how original was Lasker? There had been published examples of the 2 bishop-sack before, played in Great Britain in 1867 and 1884. Those combinations were carried out by masters (Cecil de Vere and John Owen) much better known than Lasker was in 1889. Why isn't it "de Vere's Combination"?
One school of thought would argue: What counts is who played an idea for the first time. Lasker doesn't deserve the credit for coming in third.
Another school replies: But Lasker was almost certainly unaware of the British games. (They were little known until mentioned in the British Chess Magazine in 2003.) Therefore Lasker was being original in terms of his own understanding of chess.
Besides, this school would argue, the Bauer game was played in an international tournament, one of the few held in the 1880s. Surely a player who first tests his ideas in major events deserves the credit. That's why openings such as Alekhine's Defense or the Benko Gambit have those names even though others played the moves earlier.
The argument can go back and forth: Is every 10-year-old who discovers the optimal strategy in tic-tac-toe being original simply because they didn't know what every previous 10-year-old had discovered? - From the book "Why Lasker Matters" by Andrew Soltis
|Oct-01-11|| ||Cemoblanca: ...and here's something for the laugh muscles:
Scroll ahead to 1914: World Champion Lasker has won the St Petersburg super-tournament. Tarrasch, his bitter rival, finished fourth but consoled himself with a brilliancy prize victory. However, it was only the second brilliancy prize because Tarrasch's winning idea, a 2 bishop-sacrifice, seemed to lack...something.
At the final banquet, Tarrasch looked for an ally to appeal the prize jury's decision. According to Pyotr
Romanovsky, who was present, he found himself asking Lasker for support. "Isn't it true, Doctor, that my victory over Nimzovich was a genuine creation of art?" he asked.
"Oh, yes, without a doubt," Lasker replied. "Similar games are only played once in...25 years." :D :D :D
|Dec-21-11|| ||Penguincw: White just simplies the win.|
|Feb-16-12|| ||Penguincw: Lasker was probably 20 at the time, so this is impressive, for any age that matter.|
|Mar-18-12|| ||Phony Benoni: There's a little background to this game.
For the previous decade, the biennial German Chess Congress had included an "Hauptturnier" in addition to the master tournament. The winner of the Hauptturnier was recognized as a Master, with the right to play in major international tournaments.
Sometimes the winners went on to great careers (Siegbert Tarrasch, 1883). Others had average to mediocre careers (Curt von Bardeleben, 1881) or ended up not doing much of anything (Max Harmonist, 1885)
This game matched the two most recent winners, Bauer in 1887 and Lasker about a month before Amsterdam. Bauer hadn't played much since his victory, so Amsterdam was the first international test for both.
Would either of the players turn out to be a superstar? The game certainly provided an indication.
And one final point: <It was played in Round 1>. Has there ever been a more spectacular debut in the international arena?
|May-19-12|| ||Llawdogg: Wow! Great game. Spectacular debut.|
|Oct-31-12|| ||Conrad93: I have adopted Lasker's opening system with great success. The problem is that all of my opponents automatically go for attack.|
|Dec-24-12|| ||zakkzheng: This is a classical 2 bishop sacrifice attack|
|Jul-05-13|| ||tzar: This game shows the true genius of Lasker.
Not only he conceived the idea of the double bishop sacrifice but must have seen that black, even after sacrificing queen (only move) was left with clear material advantage, so at the same time he had to foresee Qd7 which wins one of the two black bishops, and even after that the final blow of the game is brilliant.
To conceive all this in one game, more than 100 years ago at age of roughly 20 is not human. Not bad for a coffee house player.
|Jul-05-13|| ||Nerwal: I don't think Lasker needed to see ♕d7 to play the double bishop sac (I am not saying he didn't foresee it). White would get a winning game by continuing the attack with 22. ♖f1 or, maybe more precisely, 22. ♕h3+ ♔g7 23. ♕g3+ ♔h7 24. ♖f1. With ♕ and 2 ♙ for 2 ♗ and ♖ white isn't even material down anyway.|
|Jul-05-13|| ||tzar: ...Probably Qd7 is not the only way to win, the king was in the open air crying for help already, but Lasker found the most practical and instructive way to win (probably foreseen before the combination) and finishing with an almost sadistic queen sac...not a good day for Bauer|
|Oct-03-13|| ||Maladetta: <Schach and Awe> You should check out "The Art of Attack" by Vukovic. Sometimes long-winded, but good discussions on accurate sacs and attacks|
|Oct-03-13|| ||JimNorCal: A great story reprinted in wikipedia is below. A lot of drama in the Hauptturnier event.
"Lasker shot up through the chess rankings in 1889, when he won the Café Kaiserhof's annual Winter tournament 1888/89 and the Hauptturnier A ("second division" tournament) at the sixth DSB Congress (German Chess Federation's congress) held in Breslau. Winning the Hauptturnier earned Lasker the title of "master". The candidates were divided into two groups of ten. The top four in each group competed in a final. Lasker won his section, with 2½ points more than his nearest rival. However, scores were reset to 0 for the final. With two rounds to go, Lasker trailed the leader, Viennese amateur von Feierfeil, by 1½ points. Lasker won both of his final games, while von Feierfeil lost in the penultimate round (being mated in 121 moves after the position was reconstructed incorrectly following an adjournment) and drew in the last round. The two players were now tied. Lasker won a playoff and garnered the master title. This enabled him to play in master-level tournaments and thus launched his chess career."|
|Nov-03-13|| ||Richard Taylor: Great game. Thanks to <Perfidious> for alerting me (and others I assume) to this game.|
|Feb-10-14|| ||jdc2: Kind of amazing how many games involving this particular type of sacrifice there
are, for example:
Gelfand vs Kramnik, 1994
A Stefanova vs N Kosintseva, 2012
|Feb-14-14|| ||tzar: I think this game became a model for future players as far as bishop against King's pawns sacs are concerned.|
|Dec-16-14|| ||kereru: 38.Qxd3 has a nice air of sarcasm about it|
|May-12-15|| ||whiteshark: < RandomVisitor: 13...g6 would put a stop to white's excellent kingside adventure.> Right and 13.Qe2 wasn't necessary for the combination, too.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·