|Nov-27-02|| ||Sylvester: One thing I will say for the FIDE era, during the entire time they controlled the World Championship, not a single patzer participated in a World Championship match. Of the 10 players, 8 were World Champions at one time or another and Bronstein got a draw in his match and Korchnoi came within one point of winning. |
|Nov-27-02|| ||Kulla Tierchen: Janowski a patzer! |
|Nov-28-02|| ||pawntificator: He did have a bad game this time though, but come on, this is Lasker. |
|Feb-06-15|| ||poorthylacine: I agree with both of you, as long Sylvester does not mean Janowski was a patzer; he was a creative genius but too nervous, and missed often to conclude a brilliant attack by a logical conclusion; see for instance his game vs Pillsbury, at Nüremberg 1996...|
|Feb-06-15|| ||poorthylacine: If it is possible to say that one of the 5 to 6 best players of the works between 1900 and 1910 was just a patzer, Sylester is right. But I think he is not.|
About he FIDE era, its another debate, about another time, in which I agree with Sylvester
|Feb-06-15|| ||Howard: Regarding Poorthylacine's recent comments, I didn't know that Pillsbury and Janowski were still active in 1996 !|
At any rate, Janowski was definitely one of the top 10 players in the world back in the very early part of the century. Too many people, rather unfairly remember him for his two disasterous world chess championship matches (Granted, one of those two matches might not have been an official W.C. match, but let's just assume for a moment that it was.) against one of the best players of all time. Janowski was just simply outclassed---pure and simple.
Not only that, Janowski came in dead last in the famous 1924 New York tournament, but c'mon ! He was over 50 by that point---well past his prime.
He's probably rather underrated by most accounts.
|Feb-06-15|| ||perfidious: <Howard: Regarding Poorthylacine's recent comments, I didn't know that Pillsbury and Janowski were still active in 1996 !>|
If, despite your evident knowledge of chess history, you were not so aware, you have obviously been keeping doubtful company.
|Feb-06-15|| ||zanzibar: According to <EDO chess>, Janowski peaked at about 2612 ELO in 1898, at the age of ~30. He was in the top-5:|
He was only three years away from dying in 1924, and so lived, unfortunately, not such a long life.
|Jun-23-15|| ||berbanz: The opening moves were replayed in Villamil vs Sol Cruz, One Meralco Foundation Christmas Cup 2014:
1 e4 c5
2 Nf3 g6
3 Nc3 Bg7
4 d4 cxd4
5 Nxd4 Nc6
6 Be3 Nf6
7 Be2 OO
White continued with 8 OO as in Pilnik-Petrosian 1952, Fuller-Miles 1975, Short-Christiansen 1993, Landau-Lalic 2013.
|Oct-11-15|| ||chessgamer2000: I was going to ask,why black didn't play b4?But I noticed 22...Rd8 threatened Rxd5|
|Apr-29-17|| ||DanQuigley: On move 13 for Black, my choice was 13...Qa5. It's really hard to immediately see why 13...Qa3 is so much better. On 13...Qa5, I figured if 14.Nxc6 Qxd2+ 15.Kxd2 bxc6 Black is okay. On 13...Qa3 instead though, if 14.Nxc6 Bxa1 Black's Queen protects the e7 pawn!|
18...Bf5! is typical Lasker. Black is willing to sacrafice a little positionally in order to smoothly finish Queenside development. 18...a6 creates a weakness at b6. A white Bishop might plant itself there and keep Black's Rook off the d8 square.
20...a6? is a disaster due to 21.b4. It's hard to believe 20...Bc2, provoking the same response, is so much better, but it is! After 21.b4 Rb2 22.Bc1 Rb1 23.Na3 Bxd1 24.Kxd1 Ra1 25.Nc2 Rd8 26.Nxa1 Rxd5+ 27.Kc2 Nc4 and Black keeps his pawn up advantage.
Janowski's 21.0-0, giving up the exchange, is tantamount to resignation.
|Apr-29-17|| ||andrewjsacks: Lasker was so far out of Janowski's league it is ridiculous.|