|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Apr-16-05
 |
| LIFE Master AJ: <notyet> You are correct. <ksadler> It is a game of terrifying content ... and monstrous complexity. Before computers, we weren't even sure ... what the good and bad moves were. <aw1133> Who appointed you "GUARDIAN OF THE INTERNET," hmmm? Are YOU to decide what is in good taste and what is not? Do you know a possible joke when you see one? Why don't you get off my case? If I truly offend you that much ... I highly recommend that you place me on your ignore list! Then you would be content ... and I would be spared your constant, meaningless and petty tirades. |
 |
| Apr-16-05 |
| aw1988: If that was a joke made in good fun, I apologize, but I do not get it. As far as I can see it was mean-spirited, but by all means feel free to correct me. You seem to have the tendancy to lash out at people a bit too much. I will however drop the subject, I was merely pointing out I thought it was in bad taste. No I am not "guardian of the internet", nor is anyone else, but many people will try to step in another's way if he is harrasing or taking cheap shots or the like. I am not against you, I just do not wish to see these kinds of things. If you get tired of me, please, by all means put me on the ignore list. I am not picking sides. |
|
Apr-16-05
|
| LIFE Master AJ: <aw1000>
Just back off. Take deep breaths. And try caffiene-free Coke next time. |
|
| Jul-13-05 |
| fgh: What's so complicated about this game? White stands objectively better thrue the whole game. Relatively many long and deep lines but certainly nothing far beyond human understanding, I would say. |
|
| Jul-13-05 |
| aw1988: You're criticizing my entire collection! :)
This one stays. No game is beyond human comprehension, but I doubt you realize how vast this is. |
|
| Jul-13-05 |
| fgh: Vast? This game is not vast. The most complex game of all time is... Wait, give me some time, in a few days I will tell you. |
|
Nov-16-05
|
| LIFE Master AJ: <all>
Kasparov considred this to be a game "of nearly unlimited complications." Has anyone seen Garry's annotations of this game. ["My Great Predecessors."] |
|
| Nov-16-05 |
| aw1988: No. In the chapter of Lasker, this game is not included. |
|
| Mar-21-06 |
| LluviaSean: I cant even follow three moves in a row without getting a migrane. |
|
| Mar-21-06 |
| MrMojoRisin: <No. In the chapter of Lasker, this game is not included.>
Is this game really left out of OMGP? Strange |
|
| Apr-14-06 |
| IMDONE4: Recently, this game has begun to be considered obsolete by top level players. The moves in this game are at best sketchy, and both players make obvious mistakes. For example, 20. Bc4?, Ne4! and its all over. Instead, black blunders (exf4) and loses the game. However, it is an instructional classic and should be viewed as so. |
|
Apr-14-06
 |
| euripides: Do games become obsolete ? Max Euwe gave both players' 20th an !, sixty years after the game was played - so if 20 Bc4 was an error it took quite some time for people to find it. I have always found this game very hard to understand - e.g. after <IMDONE>'s suggested <20...Ne4> 21 Bxf7 I don't know what is going on. Lasker's strategy here is actually quite prophetic - I once looked at early games in the Dragon and I think this may be the first time anyone tried castlng queen's side and throwing the king's side pawns forward. I think his contemporaries often thought Lasker was playing psychologically because they didn'tunderstand his strategy. It took many more years before people realised this approach made sense against the Dragon. Napier's response is also pretty impressive. |
|
Apr-14-06
|
| euripides: ...on reflection I notice that Lasker never got around to castling either side. Even more prophetic .... |
|
| Apr-14-06 |
| IMDONE4: after 20. ...Ne4 and 21. Bxf7 then 21. ...Bg4! 22. Bxe8 Rxe8 23. Ba3 Ng3 24. Rh2 exf4, black has a huge compensation for the exchange. White's pieces are totally uncoordinated, and black should win. |
|
| Apr-29-06 |
| PolishPentium: Why does Black not move 24... Nd2+, next taking the R with 25...Nxb1?? |
|
Apr-29-06
|
| euripides: <polish> at move 24 Black is a rook down. 24...Nd2+ 25 Kf2 Nxb1 26 Rxb1 wins the exchange back but leaves White a piece ahead. The line played in the game euqalises material on move 27, although White's greater activity wins him the game. |
|
| Apr-08-07 |
| sanyas: It's been 634 days, <fgh>, I'm dying to hear it. Better get it in before 21st December, 2012. Oh, and it is a stunning game, hideously difficult to analyse. A nice story: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/danhe... |
|
May-26-08
 |
| brankat: <IMDONE4> <...Recently, this game has begun to be considered obsolete by top level players. The moves in this game are at best sketchy, and both players make obvious mistakes> You mean it took top level players a hundred years to declare this game obsolete? And that only after their engines told them so? I'd like to see any of these "top level players" (without their programs) face Dr.Lasker OTB. |
|
May-28-08
 |
| JG27Pyth: <Brankat: You mean it took top level players a hundred years to declare this game obsolete? And that only after their engines told them so? I'd like to see any of these "top level players" (without their programs) face Dr.Lasker OTB.> *WILD APPLAUSE* |
|
May-28-08
 |
| whiteshark: Amid of the crowd, gradually getting louder, a hurricane of applause, wiping away these sceptics and kvetches from the face of the earth... |
|
| Nov-18-08 |
| Andrijadj: This may be a game of unlimited complications,but this is also a game of huge mistakes by both sides...To be honest,this looks like some Topalov-Shirov blitz,not like a classical serious game... |
|
Apr-18-09
 |
| ToTheDeath: <This may be a game of unlimited complications,but this is also a game of huge mistakes by both sides...To be honest,this looks like some Topalov-Shirov blitz,not like a classical serious game...> This only speaks to your shallow judgement. You should consult Kasparov's MGP to appreciate this great game. |
|
Aug-16-09
 |
| Richard Taylor: I played this game over in my local library the other day and it is fascinating. I worked out the variations in my head so to speak. Clearly Napier was a great player as he saw a lot before he played d5...I believe Lasker congratulated him after the game for his brilliancy. But it was a joint effort. I saw <Bensol> by chance last night and I mentioned it and he recommended I come here for pearls of wisdom. Lol. <Benzol> was at our local shopping place looking for parsley (or that was his story!)...a very mysterious circumstance. |
|
Aug-16-09
|
| Richard Taylor: I think a lot on here have forgotten that most of us play our actual games without a computer beside us!! As played - as an OTB game - it was great game. Stet. Errors are a part of chess always. Or it wouldn't be a game. |
|
Sep-15-09
 |
| DrGridlock: This is a great game to play through and analyze. Even though it is over 100 years old, there are still not definitive solutions to many of its problems. One place to start is the position after move 17. White plays 18 h5, and most commentators give the move a "!" John Nunn writes, "Just when the complications are at a maximum, Lasker suddenly revives his kingside attack, even in the absence of queens. The alternative Nxc8 would have given black a clear advantage." While Nunn is correct that Nxc8 is not a good alternative for White, he doesn't evaluate f5. On his website analysis of the game, AJ Goldsby writes, "This [h5] is good/best ... and I think it deserves an exclam, although Soltis does not give it one." Goldsby at least mentions f5, "White could play: = or >/= 18.f5!?, ('!') "  " with a small advantage. This possibility is not even mentioned by most annotators. And I was one of the first people to point this possibility out. ---> See my old web page that was posted in 1995.)" Though Goldsby may have been one of the first to point out the move, he doesn't acknowledge its possible superiority to h5. (How can an annotator give an "!" to a move when there is a better alternative?) Very deep (24 move) analysis by Rybka 2.2 yields:
1. ² (0.33): 1.f5 Nd5 2.Nxd5 Rxd5 3.Bc4 Rd7 4.f6 Bf8 5.Rd1 Kg8 6.Kf2 Rc7 7.Bb3 Bg4 2. ² (0.27): 1.h5 Re8 2.hxg6 Rxe7 3.Bc5 Nd5 4.Rxh7+ Kg8 5.0-0-0 Be6 6.Rxd5 Bxd5 7.Bxe7 fxg6 3. = (-0.14): 1.fxe5 Bxe5 2.Bg2 Re8 3.Nxc8 Raxc8 4.Kf2 Na4 5.Bxb7 Rxc2+ 6.Kf3 Bxb2 7.Rae1 Rc3 4. ³ (-0.32): 1.bxc3 exf4 2.Bd4 Bxd4 3.cxd4 Re8
5. ³ (-0.47): 1.Bg2 exf4 2.Bxf4 Re8 3.Kf2 Bd4+ 4.Kf1 Rxe7 5.bxc3 Bxc3 6.Rb1 Be6 7.Rxb7 Bc4+ For the first time in over 100 years, I think we need to consider that White had a better alternative at move 18 for continuing his attack, and that while h5 was a good move, f5 was a better way for White to pursue the initiative. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
