|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-31-05 | | aw1988: 47. Nf5+? :) |
 |
| Sep-24-05 | | Averageguy: Somw strong tactical play by Blackburne. |
|
| Jun-17-06 | | GeauxCool: compare black's progress in 10 moves.
16.White On Move
click for larger viewwith
29.White On Move
click for larger view-Fine
(Black's attack starts at move 22...) |
|
| Jun-17-06 | | GeauxCool: Not 10 moves, 13. I just don't want to rewrite and plug in the Fen again. The game revolves around Blackburne's ability to mold the game from move 16, in which no one would ever think that Lasker could ever lose the game, to move 37., because from then on, the win is just technique. - Fine Great moves were: 22...g5!, 26...Ng4!, 27...Bg5!, 29...Bf4!, 31...Rh1+!! -Fine |
|
| Jun-17-06 | | offramp: François LeLionnais's book The Brilliancy Prize in chess gives 6 Lasker games that won a prize of some sort for one player or the other. Pillsbury vs Lasker, 1896, a loss. Steinitz vs Lasker, 1899, a win. Lasker vs Blackburne, 1899, this game, a loss. Schlechter vs Lasker, 1904, a loss. Capablanca vs Lasker, 1924, a loss. Lasker vs Capablanca, 1935, a win. |
|
| Jun-17-06 | | ughaibu: Offramp: Thanks. I also have the 1895 Pillsbury game in my collection, can that be confirmed one way or the other? |
|
| Jun-17-06 | | offramp: 1st Briliancy Prize at Hastings 1895 went, predictably, to Steinitz vs Von Bardeleben, 1895. 2nd prize went to Tarrasch vs Walbrodt, 1895. |
|
| Jun-17-06 | | ughaibu: Sorry, I meant the St Petersburg game. |
|
| Jun-17-06 | | ughaibu: Okay, thanks. |
|
Jun-17-06
 | | Calli: <ughaibu> I don't know about the brilliancy prize for Pillsbury vs Lasker, 1895 , but will try to find out. One thing you might try to fix is the date on that game. It took place on 4 January 1896. Not 1895. It was Round 10 and the fourth time they met. Pillsbury had already beaten Lasker twice with a draw in the third game. |
|
| Jun-17-06 | | ughaibu: Okay, thanks again. |
|
Jun-17-06
| | Calli: <ughaibu> Hannak, in "Life of a Chess Master", does refer to the game as winning the brilliancy prize (page 107, Dover Edition 1991). He does not label the game score as such, but in a later chapter when discussing Cambridge Springs etc, he refers to "the game that won the brilliancy prize and turned the tables...". |
|
| Jun-17-06 | | ughaibu: Thanks, I'll leave the game in. I believe the 1935 Capablanca game is in Hannak, does he label the score for that? |
|
| Jun-17-06 | | Maynard5: There is a curious parallel between this game, played in 1899, and Lasker's only other loss to Blackburne, played at Hastings, 1895. There also, Lasker was playing White in a Ruy Lopez, and completely underestimated the force of Black's coming assault on the kingside. Both games are an interesting example of Black's counterattacking opportunities in this opening. |
|
Jun-18-06
| | Calli: <ughaibu> No, the 1935 Capablanca game is not labeled or mentioned as a prize by Hannak. |
|
Jun-19-06
| | Calli: The prizes for Moscow 1935 were enumerated by Paul Albert on this page: Lilienthal vs Ragozin, 1935 Whatever happened to the kibitzer who asked Paul the question? :-> |
|
| Jun-19-06 | | ughaibu: Calli: Thanks, still no reason to doubt the Pillsbury game in that case. |
|
Sep-15-06
 | | keypusher: <ughaibu> For what it's worth, Soltis' book _Why Lasker Matters_ says that no brilliancy prizes were awarded in the St. Petersburg 1895-96 tournament. |
|
| May-08-08 | | aazqua: At move 16 black is close to resignation. It's amazing that one could so misplay an opening. |
|
May-08-08
| | keypusher: <aazqua: At move 16 black is close to resignation.> Why do you think so? |
|
| Oct-03-08 | | ughaibu: Maynard5: Compare the position of this one at move 32 with the other at move 23. |
|
| Dec-20-10 | | kjr63: A great game by Blackburne. He plays the opening in pure Steinitz style, but then attacks much more dangerously than Steinitz would/could have done. |
|
| Feb-16-13 | | NGambit: Why is this not GOTD yet??? |
|
Apr-13-13
 | | perfidious: <Pawsome: From an inferior position, "some amazing flower of combination springs up, a dynamic charge of genius explodes and enlarges a slight unrecognized flaw into a chasm of ruin." So wrote H.J.R. Murray....> 'Chasm of ruin'.
Really a delicious comment: no-one writes like that any more. |
|
| Apr-13-13 | | IndigoViolet: <Chasm of ruin> In modern parlance, <world of hurt>. |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
sac: 31...Rh1+