|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-21-04 | | ughaibu: This is very odd. Calli, of course you're right. |
|
| Jan-22-04 | | Calli: Right now, it sounds like a case of everybody copying Marco's original annotations and not checking them at all. Those lazy bums! |
|
| Jan-23-04 | | CambridgeSprings1904: <ughaibu and Calli> There is no further explanation in the book about Lasker's incorrect assumption. <everybody> Unfortunately, I mistakenly transcribed the last part of the quote... it should be "for 18.Qh6 is defeated by ...Bg5!". Sorry for the confusion. (My wife and daughter were trying to converse with me while I was typing, but that's another story.) <ughaibu> Yes, you have the correct link to my site in your comment above. Thanks -- I hope you liked it. <Calli> This is not the only instance of people blindly copying Marco's analysis of CS1904 games. The complicated Lasker-Napier game is the example that comes to mind. |
|
| Jan-23-04 | | ughaibu: I enjoyed your site very much, thank you. In the post above should it be 18.Qg6? |
|
| Jan-23-04 | | CambridgeSprings1904: <ughaibu> Thanks. The direct quote from the tournament books is "Dr. Lasker considered only the variation 16 PxP, PxP; 17 BxPch K-R; 18 Q-Kt6, B-B! rightly judging it to be in his favor, for 18 Q-R6 is defeated by ...B-Kt4!". I finally ran this through Fritz, and I conclude that the book has a typo, Marco was simply wrong, or Lasker's calculation was awful. In this variation, White has an advantage after 18.Qg6 and 18...Bc8? makes Black's situation much worse after 19.Qh6. Interestingly, another CS1904 tournament book (J. Schroeder, Chess Digest, 1992) made the same "correction" to the annotation that I made in my 21-Jan post above, i.e., "19.Q-R6 B-Kt4". But, as Calli correctly points out, Black just loses a Rook in this line. If I find other sources with this game, I'll post the relevant info here. |
|
| Jan-23-04 | | Calli: I would judge it to be a typo also. At that point, Marco is discussing the position after the 18th move and therefore must have meant 19.Qh6 or 19.Q-R6 in English descriptive notation. The thought occurs to me that the confusion over the apparent typo might have kept the error in the analysis obscured. |
|
| Jan-24-04 | | ughaibu: Cant he play 18.....Bg5 followed by Qe7? |
|
| Jan-25-04 | | Calli: <ughaibu> Great idea! 16.exf4 gxf4 17.Bxh7+ Kh8 18.Qg6 Bg5! 19.Bh4! (19.h4 is equal) Bxh4 20.Qh6 20...Qe7 21.Be4+ Kg8 22.Nxd5 wins;
But 20...Qg5! 21.Qxf8+ Kxh7 22.Qf7+ Qg7 23.Qxf4 Be7 and I don't know. Hard position to evaluate. Interesting. |
|
| Mar-09-04 | | IngoBingo: Can't white (in the variation 16.exf4 gxf4 17.Bxh7+ Kh8 18.Qg6 Bg5) continue with 19.Qh5!? and after 19. - Ng7 play 20.Qh3 here too? |
|
| Mar-09-04 | | Calli: <IngoBingo> You are right! I forgot all about the h3 square. It transposes into a line given previously. <ughaibu> back to the drawing board! |
|
| Mar-09-04 | | ughaibu: How about 19....Qe7? For example: 20.Be4 Kg8 21.Nd5 Qg7 22.Ne7 Be7 23.Bb7 g3 24.Ba8 Ra8 etc.... |
|
| Mar-10-04 | | IngoBingo: Hm, nice try, but I think 22.Nxf4! cleans up everything in White's favour: 22. - Bxf4 (22. - Bxe4 23.Ne6!)23.Bxb7 Qxb7 24.Bxf4 and Black can't take the bishop with his rook because of Qg5+. |
|
| Mar-10-04 | | ughaibu: If black does 19....Kg7 has white more than a draw? |
|
| Mar-10-04 | | DWINS: I think he does, ughaibu.
20.Qxg5+ Kxh7 21.Bxf4 and White is two pawns up. Black might be able to scare up an attack on the g-file in conjunction with a d4 push but I think White can defend. If Black's attack fizzles than he is simply lost in the endgame. |
|
| Mar-10-04 | | ughaibu: DWINS: Why cant black take the queen (20....Qg5)? |
|
| Mar-10-04 | | DWINS: ughaibu, Re-check your position. There is no way for Black to take White's queen. |
|
| Mar-10-04 | | DWINS: ughaibu, I think I understand the confusion. Are you playing out a variation? I thought you meant 19...Kg7 in the actual game. I think we're talking about two different positions. |
|
| Mar-10-04 | | ughaibu: My fault, I should have addressed my post to IngoBingo as I was making a suggestion in his/her variation. |
|
Mar-10-04
 | | Honza Cervenka: <ughaibu> If 16.exf4 gxf4 17.Bxh7+ Kh8 18.Qg6 Bg5 19.Qh5 Kg7, then 20.Bd3 Rh8 (any other idea?) 21.Qg6+ Kf8 22.Qf5+ Kg7 23.Bxf4 with a decisive advantage of white. |
|
| Mar-10-04 | | ughaibu: Yes, that looks convincing. Can you see anything for black even if white exchanges on f4? |
|
| Feb-06-16 | | TheFocus: Cambridge Springs Brilliancy Prizes:
First Prize ($40) - Carl Schlechter, for his game against Dr. E. Lasker in the 11th round. Second Prize ($25) - William E. Napier, for his game against John Barry in the first round. Third and fourth Prize ($35) - divided equally between David Janowski, for his game against M. Tschigorin in the sixth round, and to Eugene Delmar, for his game against A.B. Hodges in the fifth round. See <American a Chess Bulletin>, November 1904, pg. 127. |
|
| Nov-03-16 | | bengalcat47: It's ironic that the Bishop Black tried to trap is still on the board at the end. |
|
| Apr-18-20 | | CambridgeSprings1904: If you're reading these comments, please note that my website referenced above has moved to a 'permanent' location: http://cs1904.com |
|
| Jul-12-23 | | generror: Wow, <15...f4??> is one rare blunder by Emanuel Lasker -- the Stockfish evaluation jumps from +0.5 to about +6. Not sure this game deserved to win the brilliancy prize (that one should go to Pillsbury vs Lasker, 1904), although it totally deserves the Merciless Blunder Punishment prize. Maybe Lasker just had a bad day. From the very opening, I felt he played really strangely, and while Stockfish thinks the position after <12...Ne8?!> is pretty equal (<12...Ne4!> would have completely equalized), I frankly thinks it sucks for Black. (It also sucks for White, but a bit less.) And then all those misguided kingside pawn pushes... Maybe he thought it would disconcert Schlechter, but as their later match showed, Schlechter was much less easily disconcerted than the other guys he played. |
|
| Jul-12-23 | | generror: Just realized that the aforementioned game against Pillsbury has a similar line in the QGD and also had Lasker blunder by putting a pawn on f4. He seems to have problems with that variation, and maybe it's Schlechter who actually used this to disconcert Lasker, beating him with his own weapons. All this is just speculation of course, but I find it's *interesting* speculation :) |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
icon.