| Dec-19-02 |
| ughaibu: To illustrate the point (Judokausa1 in the Cafe) here's a famous Lasker endgame. |
 |
| Feb-10-05 |
| e4Newman: Every move by Lasker is a treat to observe and study. |
|
| Apr-05-05 |
| Abaduba: Why must White part with the Bishop with 16.  xd4 ? What's wrong with, say, 14. d2 ? After 14. ...  f2+ 15.  h1 g4 16. c1 I don't see how Black stops White from untangling and consolidating with 17.  c3, 18.  f1, etc. |
|
| Apr-05-05 |
| psmith: Abaduba -- do you mean 16. Bd2, 15. Bd2, or 14. Bd2?
Analysis from "From Steinitz to Fischer" (Max Euwe, put out by Chess Informant in 1976): 16. Bd2 Qf2 17. Kh1 Bh3 18. Rg1 h5! 19. Qh5 Qg1!  Reti. I take it the threat after 18... h5! is 19 ... Bg4 and Bf3. Also: 15. Bd2 Bg4 16. Qc1 Rf2! 17. Bg5 Rg2 18. Kg2 Bh3 19. Kh1 Qf2  , and 15. Bc1 Qf2 16. Kh1 Bg4 according to Reti. Reti gave as White's best chance 15. Qe2 de3 16. Qe3 with slight advantage to Black. |
|
| Jul-23-05 |
| davewv: page 70 "Chess Fundamentals" by Jose Capablanca |
|
| Apr-13-06 |
| jackmandoo: Nice smooth endgame by lasker. I throughly enjoyed that endgame. |
|
Apr-14-06
 |
| Pawn and Two: As shown by <psmith>: 16.Bd2 Qf2+ 17.Kh1 Bh3 18.Rg1 h5 19.Qh5 Qg1+ will be checkmate. <Reti> 19.Qh5 is certainly not a logical choice.
The following variations were all rated by <Fine> to be superior to Marshall's choice beginning at move 16.Bxd4. <Tarrasch> provided the following analysis: 16.Bd2 Qf2+ 17.Kh1 Bh3 18.Rg1 h5 19.Na3! Bg4 20.Rf1 Bxd1 21.Rxf2 Rxf2 22.Rxd1 Re2 23.Ba5 and indicated that a draw would be the probable result. White's position looks difficult, but it would be hard to prove a win for Black. <Tarrasch> also provided the following line: 16.Rf1 Qxf1+ 17.Qxf1 Rxf1+ 18.Kxf1 Ba3+ 19.Kf2 Rf8+ 20. Bf4 exf4 21.Nd2 and indicated that White has excellent drawing chances in view of Black's ragged Pawns. I think White has less drawing chances in this variation that in the first variation. <Fine> provided the following variation: 16.Qe2 dxe3 17.Qxe3 Bh3 18.Nc3 and stated that White's game was still tenable. Fritz 9 prefered 18.Nd2 in this variation. All of these variations look difficult for White. But each of these lines provide an interesting position for additional analysis. |
|
Apr-14-06
|
| Pawn and Two: At move 24, Marshall may have been able to hold the game. After move 24.Rf1+?:
<Fine stated: "Never miss a check. But here the check is worse than useless: it is directly harmful because it weakens the Q side. 24.a3 was White's best chance."> <Capablanca stated: "This check accomplishes nothing. It merely drives Black's King where it wants to go. Consequently it is a very bad move. 24.a3 at once was the best move."> <Shereshevsky stated: "Possibly the decisive mistake. At this point in developing his initiative, Black was forced to allow his opponent a respite. Lasker would have course have been happy to play 23...Rh6, had he not been left with his King cut off after 24.Rf1. Marshall should have exploited the situation to create immediate counter-play. 24.a3! was correct. Now on 24...a5, White plays 25.Rb1 followed by b3-b4. In reply to 24.a3, Black can try to transfer his King to the center by 24...Ke6, e.g. 25.b4 Ke5 26.bxc5 d3, or 25.Nf3 Kd6 26.b4 Bg4 with advantage to Black. But on 24...Ke6 quite in order is 25.Rf1!, with a stubborn battle in prospect."> Again we have an interesting position where additional anaylsis is needed to determine if 24.a3 is adequate to draw. |
|
| Sep-20-06 |
| slomarko: berlin 100 years before kramnik |
|
| Oct-21-06 |
| RookFile: A magnificent endgame by Lasker. Funny how whenever talk of the great endgame players came up, nobody mentions Lasker - even though Capablanca said he was the best. |
|
| Dec-17-07 |
| xombie: What a wonderful endgame. The sequence of moves starting at 21... Rb5 were like some sort of dance. The Rook swings to h, harrases, moves up to the other file to attack the a pawn (not to mention the pawn move to open the rank), ... Then there is the pawn move to d3 opening lines for the K. The Knight was beautifully tied up in the end. |
|
Mar-01-08
 |
| Knight13: 19...Rb8!! takes the b3 square away from the knight. |
|
| Aug-10-08 |
| visayanbraindoctor: What a marvelously original game! Lasker develops his Queen Bishop by staying it on its original square. (I would guess that many GMs today would immediately 'develop' it right out of the opening, but not Lasker whose terrific intuition told him it was OK where it was.) It's already developed in its c8 square, from where it could go to Bb7 or Bg4, depending on the situation. He later moves it to g4 to limit the movements of the White Knight. He develops his Queen Rook via the half open b-file, inducing b3 on the way, bypasses his Bishop, and swings it around the Kingside and Queenside on the 6th rank in order to probe for weaknesses. He settles it for a while on a6 to tie down White's Rook while his King embarks on a King march up the center to attack the isolated White e4 pawn and get to the commanding d4 square, from where could attack White's Queenside or Kingside pawns, again depending on the situation. Later Lasker decides to go for the White Kingside pawns and he zugzwangs White to gain more ground for his King. Technically, this was mostly endgame, yet Lasker was moving his pieces around as though it were still a middlegame. He also used the whole board, showing excellent sight of the whole board. This game could have had dealt a fatal psychological blow to Marshall right in the beginning of the match. He never got anything going and was completely outplayed. He probably got the depressing notion right then and there that Lasker was a better player than he was, and he was never going to win the match. If this game were completely unknown, and were presented in today's internet as a recently-played game of the day, chessplayers would probably be wondering who the heck is this genius of an endgame player. |
|
| Aug-10-08 |
| andrewjsacks: Right, v.braindoctor. It's fashionable to start one's list of greatest endgame players with Capa and Rubinstein, but no one was superior to Lasker in this phase of the game. |
|
Sep-17-08
 |
| Ulhumbrus: Instead of 6 e5 at once, 6 Qe2 prepares e5, by preventing ...Ne4 in reply to it eg 6...0-0 7 e5 Ne8 8 c3 dc 9 Nxc3. Or 6 Qe2 0-0 7 c3 dc 8 Nxc3 The main point of the sacrifice 13...fxe5! 14 fxe4 d4 appears to be that White's QB lacks squares other than e3 to defend the square f2. Lasker's comment on 19...Rb8 is that in every position the first move to consider is that which improves the position of the piece placed worst. |
|
| Dec-10-08 |
| brimarern: 19...Rb8 IMHO is one of, if not THE, greatest move ever played. This move trumps every queen sac or mega combination that I've ever seen. It's like Capa's bishop retreat as black against Janowski, Fischer's NXB+ versus Petrosian. None of these moves are the start of a winning combination. The greatness behind these moves, and especially Lasker's Rb8 is that very VERY few people (99.9% of chess players) would have even considered them. |
|
Feb-17-09
|
| Ulhumbrus: <andrewjsacks> Capablanca says of Lasker (in the book "Capablanca's last chess lectures" ) "That he was a great endgame player is unquestionable. In fact he was the greatest I have ever known. But he was also the most profound and the most imaginative player I have ever known."
Capablanca gives this ending in two of his chess books. |
|
Jun-16-09
 |
| ketchuplover: Not too shabby :) |
|
