|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Nov-30-07 | | Hafen Slawkenbergius: I remember reading somewhere (possibly in Euwe's book about the Middlegame?) that in their matches, Lasker often allowed Janowsky to get the two bishops, knowing how much he loved them - but made sure the position would be one which favoured the knights. Janowsky usually fell in for the ploy, grabbed the two bishops and then watched his position deteriorate. If that is correct - it seems that Lasker learned this strategy from experience. |
 |
Nov-30-07
 | | keypusher: <al wazir> LOL!
Chigorin is very far from having a blockade when the 2B v. 2N ending arises, of course. In OMGP I, Kasparov queries 15...Rc8, saying 16....f5 was <essential>. But even then, <after 17. a4 Rc8 18. Bc1 Rf7 19. Ba3 all chances are with White.> As per Ray Keene's notes, 17. f5 would have been very strong, and 18. f5 was still possible. Kasparov says that after 26. Bxe7 Nxe7 27. Kd2 Nd5 28. Rb5 <White would still have retained some edge>. After 35...g5?!, Lasker found 36. Ke2 <threatening 37. fxg5 Nxg5 38. e4> gxf4 37. e4 Nf6 38. Bxf4!, and Kasparov says <the game is opening up to White's obvious advantage>. After 38....Nh5, Kasparov (or, let's be honest, maybe Plisetsky/Fritz) writes: <39. Be3?!
In a time scramble White misses a chance to consolidate his unexpected advantage. Previous commentators recommended 39. Bd2, but to me the most promising seems to be 39. Rg1+!? Kf8 40. Bc1! Ra5 41. Ra1.> Interestingly, Kasparov claims that <the calm 47. Bc2! would still have left White the better chances>. |
|
Nov-30-07
 | | kevin86: Even the great Doctor could not cope with a tightly closed position with his clergymen against Chigorin's cavalry. The fights of knights vs bishops can be compared with the debates on state vs the church or even the material vs the spirit. Who do we put out hope and faith in:Calvary or cavalry? |
|
| Nov-30-07 | | Riverbeast: You're chiggin' it, baby! (Go 'head, baby)
You're chiggin' it baby! (Go 'head, girl...) |
|
| Nov-30-07 | | keres777: Chigorin's style in this game reminds me alot of Topalov's positonal attacking play with Black. Pretty! |
|
Nov-30-07
 | | Calli: "Kasparov claims that <the calm 47. Bc2!"
Plisetsky copied Bc2 from Khalifman's Chess Stars book. However, Chess Stars is also notorious for not citing sources, just like OMGP (Oh My Great Plagiarisms). |
|
Nov-30-07
 | | Sneaky: "Chiggy" sure loved his knights. This is a great example of his now forgotten theory of the "power of knight pair." I don't blame him, I love them too. It's not an objective thing, it's just that I love how they hop around pieces, and how confusing they can be. Any beginner can quickly figure out which squares a bishop might get to in two or three moves, but try figuring that out with a knight. It's enough to make even a strong player's head spin. |
|
| Jun-18-08 | | Lutwidge: Steinitz, in the tournament book, has some interesting comments on this game. For instance, regarding the opening: "Tchigorin's practical genius is almost privileged to defy theoretical modern principles, but I must consistently dissent. Black's game is inferior ; White's two Bishops and his compact centre will more than neutralise the drawback of the doubled King's Bishop's Pawn, and the two open Knight' file for the Rook ought also to outweigh the isolation of the two Rook' Pawns, which are practically inaccessible to Black's attack. White little alterations, chiefly of a transposing character, White has copied the lines of attack first adopted by Steinitz in his second Havanna mach against Tchigorin, 1891-92." His comment to 15. f4 is also interesting:
"If he intended in the near future to dissolve the doubled Pawn by P to B5, then this was all right. But events show that he does not, and no good cause can be given why five of his centre Pawns should all have been placed on black squares and on diagonals where they exercise little command, when 15. P to K4, with the view perhaps of proceeding with P to QB4 later, would have grouped a strong front of Pawns abreast. 15. ...P to K4, which perhaps he feared, would have been no good on account of simply 16. PxP, Kt x P ; 17. B to K2." Phew. :)
|
|
| Jul-26-08 | | madlydeeply: How to experience the maximum confusion. (A) work hard all day and come home with a migraine. (B) drink 4 cups of coffee (c) play fox news full blast in the other room for some nice background ambiance (d) "talk" (listen) to your girlfriend about how the day went whilst (e) "guess the move" this sumb***h. |
|
| Jul-23-09 | | Knight13: 17. Rg3, 18. Rag1 isn't that good unless...f5 can be played. |
|
| Nov-12-09 | | sfm: 46.-,Ned8
Fine. It does not take a GM to see that if Black next move plays Nc6, the rook is forced away from the covering of the a-pawn, and White loses it, and Black's a-rook, after eating the pawn can get nasty from the side. This is, AFAICS, the main threat. In response to this, White plays 49.Rd2. Guess what happens. What's wrong with White's position? What are Black's threats? There are now obvious weaknesses, or easy-to-reach fat squares. No pawns to be easily squeezed and grabbed. So why not simply 49.Bc2? |
|
| Nov-12-09 | | sfm: Hmm, looks like I am a copycat. Now I am carefully going to read it all before my next question... OK, not mentioned:
If 47.Bb1-c2 is the best move, then 45.Bc2-b1 appears to have been en error, giving away to tempi? |
|
| Jan-17-11 | | Lennonfan: <above posts>Some of you guys really know your chess history it was really interesting reading all that...im really interested in 19th century chess,my fav player being the great morphy...and that NN weren't too bad either lol |
|
| Feb-17-11 | | redorc19: why 57. Bg5 |
|
| May-27-11 | | BUNA: Look at this game and after that at Nimzowitschs "My system". Here you have quite a lot of a system, this system. Put to a test against the regning world champion. Remarkable game. |
|
| Oct-02-11 | | 7Heaven: One of my most favorite games and one of the best games even in my (humble)opinion.The modern opinion is that bishops are better to have than knights almost 100% of the time or bishops in open games and knights (only) at closed games.Knights must never be underestimated,that game proves it-Lasker was not a random folk.The knight's ability to jump over the pieces is somewhat magic I believe,it escapes the boundaries of a board game.Also,the attacks and threats it can cause are unique(for example,when a knight threatens a piece,that piece cannot threaten the knight unless it's a knight).I love the knights soooo much. Kashdan's "stubbornness" to keep the bishop pair at all costs sometimes put him in difficult positions,another case. |
|
| Oct-03-11 | | 7Heaven: I mean ever played,not even.. |
|
| Jan-05-12 | | AVRO38: <One of my most favorite games and one of the best games ever in my (humble)opinion.> This is one of my all time favorites as well. Lasker is known for playing the man rather than the board, but it was really Chigorin that pioneered this approach. Even Steinitz seems to agree when he said "Tchigorin's practical genius is almost privileged to defy theoretical modern principles, but I must consistently dissent." Although that was a quote by Steinitz about this particular game from Hastings, it really describes the whole 1892 Havana match in a nutshell i.e. Chigorin playing the man (gambit lines against the old Steinitz), a very practical approach forcing an old man to defend and calculate, and Steinitz "dissenting" and playing the board by trying to refute Chigorin's attacks. |
|
| Jan-05-12 | | M.D. Wilson: Positionally-inclined players may prefer bishops; tactically-inclined beasts love knights. The more chess that I play, the more I value knights. |
|
Jan-05-12
 | | TheFocus: The more chess I play in the day, the more I value my nights. |
|
| Jan-06-12 | | M.D. Wilson: I do my best work after midnight. |
|
Jan-06-12
 | | OhioChessFan: It's always after midnight. |
|
| Jan-09-12 | | AVRO38: <It's always after midnight.> Except at midnight!
BTW this game is a Queen's Gambit Declined Chigorin Defense not a Queen's Pawn Game Anti-Torre. |
|
| Mar-21-12 | | LoveThatJoker: Guess-the-Move Final Score:
Lasker vs Chigorin, 1895.
YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF CHIGORIN.
Your score: 111 (par = 100)
LTJ |
|
| Mar-16-13 | | Tigranny: I hate games like this when the bishop pair loses to a knight pair. :( |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Annotations by 