< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|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.|
|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)
|Mar-16-13|| ||Tigranny: I hate games like this when the bishop pair loses to a knight pair. :(|
|Dec-30-13|| ||maverickx: Quote from wikipedia(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhai...) about Chigorin:|
<In all likelihood, his best performance occurred at the Hastings 1895 chess tournament, where he placed second, ahead of reigning world champion Emanuel Lasker, Tarrasch and former world champion Steinitz. All of the greatest players of the time participated in the event and Chigorin's outstanding result included winning his individual encounter with tournament victor, Harry Nelson Pillsbury. Pillsbury had great respect for Chigorin's ability and for good reason, as Chigorin had a marginal lifetime plus score against him (+8-7=6). Although Chigorin had a poor record against Lasker in serious play (+1-8=4), he was victorious with the black pieces in their first game of this 1895 tournament, in which he outplayed Lasker in a classic two knights versus two bishops ending.>
|Mar-15-16|| ||yurikvelo: multiPV: http://pastebin.com/84XSaDeP
Bad play both sides and bad Nimzowitsch comments.
Decisive Lasker mistake 47.Rd2?? (lose).
After inacurate Chigorin 53. ... Nd3+?, Lasker could play 55.Bc7! which lead to draw.
55.Rxd3? "poisoned pawn" lead to forced Mate in 39
|Oct-16-17|| ||cunctatorg: This game -from 1895- is the first chronologically, striking "blockade game" (in the best Nimzowitschian tradition!!...) I have ever seen!! |
Do you know even older great "blockade games"?!?
By the way, I now realize that Aron Nimzowitsch failed to present any Chigorin game (or -for different reasons- any Pillsbury game) in his "Opus Magnus", namely the great (and famous) "My System"; in fact there is not any reference to their games (or even names) at this book...
Did he make any reference to any of their games in "The Blockade" or somewhere?!?
|Oct-16-17|| ||keypusher: <cuncatorg> I've never been entirely sure what defines a <blockade> game, or if Lasker-Chigorin qualifies, since Lasker seemed to have quite a few ways out. But this is probably one:|
Staunton vs E Williams, 1851
A predecessor to the predecessor:
Staunton vs Bristol, 1841
|Oct-16-17|| ||keypusher: Looking at the kibitzes and the collections, I suspect this game is one for the <Overrated> file.|
|Oct-16-17|| ||ughaibu: Has anyone made a collection of overrated games?|
|Oct-16-17|| ||keypusher: <ughaibu>
Indeed, there are a few!
Game Collection Search
Regulars on these lists: Botvinnik-Capa (1938), Fischer-Donald Byrne, Carlsen-Ernst, Bogo-Alekhine (the 1922 game), Saemisch-Nimzowitsch...
|Oct-16-17|| ||ughaibu: Keypusher: Thanks, I'll give them a look.|
|Nov-12-17|| ||botvinnik64: All hail the father of Russian chess and a true pioneer, CHIGORIN!|
|Mar-01-18|| ||tgyuid: rooks vs bishops; advanced pawns though; super-nice|
|Mar-01-18|| ||tgyuid: so, what they did was split the board into three dimensions; to visually confuse their opponent|
|Mar-01-18|| ||tgyuid: ships log states captain won every game|
|Mar-01-18|| ||tgyuid: what the actual moves were is known only to the coms-office|
|Mar-01-18|| ||tgyuid: now; would i like a nice game of all out annihilation|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·