Emanuel Lasker vs Joseph Blackburne (1899)

Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players ·

Kibitzing

Emanuel Lasker vs Joseph Blackburne
London (1899), London ENG, rd 4, Jun-03
Spanish Game: Steinitz Defense (C62) · 0-1

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

Given 32 times; par: 74 [what's this?]

explore this opening	find similar games	16 more Lasker/Blackburne games
sac: 31...Rh1+	PGN: download \| view \| print	Help: general \| java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can step through the moves by clicking the < and > buttons, but it's much easier to simply use the left and right arrow keys on your keyboard.

For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.

PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE OF THIS GAME IS AVAILABLE. [CLICK HERE]

< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 · Later Kibitzing>
Apr-07-03		ughaibu: This is another Lasker loss that was awarded a brilliancy prize. I'm still keen to get a complete list of games featuring Lasker, either as winner or loser, that were awarded brilliancy prizes. Has anybody got a copy of the 1000+ brilliancy prize games book?

Apr-18-03		Honza Cervenka: 31...Rh1+ was an ugly surprise for Lasker. After 32.Kxh1 Bxg3 he had to give up the Queen as 33.fxg4 would have led to a mate in two moves: 33...Qh4+ 34.Kg1 Bf2#.

Apr-19-03		drukenknight: would 35 Ne2 BxN 36 R(b)xd1 offer a better defense?

May-05-03		Honza Cervenka: DK, I don't think so. In your line white position is hopeless as well as it was in the game. Of course, after 35.Ne2 black can also play 35...Ne3 or 35...Bh3 36.g3 Ne3 instead of 35...Bxd5.

Sep-02-04		Zembla: <ughaibu> Is there such a book? What is its' title? Maybe you'll see this 1 1/2 years after your post:)

Sep-03-04		ughaibu: Zembla: Yes there is but I dont remember the title.

Jan-30-05		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 in his "History of Chess" of the best play of Blackburne, citing this game as an example.

Jan-31-05		iron maiden: Appropriately, this game turned out to be Lasker's only loss in the entire 28-round tournament.

Jan-31-05		suenteus po 147: I have to laugh. I thought I saw a win for Lasker there when he resigned, but I forgot the knight was pinned. As if no one else would have caught that before me! :) Anyway it was very clever on Blackburne's part.

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 view with 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? :->

search thread:
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 · Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
No trolling.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.