chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

(If you register a free account you won't see all these ads!)
Frank James Marshall vs Emanuel Lasker
"Can't Fool an Old Fooler" (game of the day Apr-01-2006)
Lasker - Marshall World Championship Match (1907), USA, rd 3, Jan-31
Queen's Gambit Declined: Lasker Defense (D53)  ·  0-1
ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

Click Here to play Guess-the-Move
Given 17 times; par: 57 [what's this?]

NOTE: You are using our new chess viewer, "Olga." For more info see the Olga Quickstart Guide. You can switch back to the old viewer (pgn4web) from the pulldown menu below. If you have questions or suggestions see our Olga chessforum.

explore this opening
find similar games 24 more Marshall/Lasker games
sac: 30...Rxf7 PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: As you play through the game, you can get the FEN code for any position by right-clicking on the board and choosing "Copy Position (EPD)". Copy and paste the FEN into a post to display a diagram.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jul-16-08  chocobonbon: <notyetagm> Maybe someone can access the book for a direct quote but as I recall, Fine said he never knew anyone to have as good an eye as Marshall for the purely tactical in Chess. To me, if your tactics are not savored with a large dose of positional understanding they are greatly weakened. Wasn't it also Fine who said "I saw in Lasker the supreme tactical genuis"?
Jul-16-08
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <<Chess is not just tactics!> If chess was 100% tactics, then Marshall definitely would have been the World Champion.>

Chess could be 99% tactics (or 99% calculation), as I think it is, and Marshall still might not have been world champion if Lasker and Capablanca were better at tactics than he was. I think they were. His scores against both of them were just awful. In most of the Lasker wins I am familiar with, Lasker outcalculates Marshall. I am not so familiar with the Marshall-Capablanca games, but the famous Marshall Gambit game is certainly close to 100% tactics.

Jul-17-08  Lutwidge: Lasker understood so well how to create difficulties for his opponents that even the most tactically gifted players (Marshall, Janowski) tended to blunder horribly against him. However, the more pragmatic players, (such as Pillsbury, Schlecter, Rubinstein and, obviously, Capablanca) fared rather better.
Jul-17-08  micartouse: There's also a difference between trying to force tactics and just calculating according to the position. A lot of Marshall games give the impression that he took great risks to mix it up, and that it worked against most players. Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine were all better tacticians who didn't try so hard - they just let it happen normally. They certainly didn't fear complications against Marshall either.
Jul-17-08
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <Lutwidge> <Lasker understood so well how to create difficulties for his opponents that even the most tactically gifted players (Marshall, Janowski) tended to blunder horribly against him. >

That they did, but his plus scores against both were huge -- blunders only explain a small part of it. E.g., look at Lasker's two wins over Marshall at St. Petersburg 1914. Marshall doesn't blunder, he just gets outplayed tactically.

<However, the more pragmatic players, (such as Pillsbury, Schlecter, Rubinstein and, obviously, Capablanca) fared rather better.> That's an interesting point. Might quarrel with you about Pillsbury being pragmatic, but he certainly had a better score against Lasker than most! It's hard to draw conclusions about Lasker and Rubinstein, since they played each other so little.

Jul-17-08
Premium Chessgames Member
  chancho: Marshall won the first game in 1900 and could not win another game from Emanuel until 1940, when he was 72 years old:

search "marshall vs lasker"

4 decades of frustration for Mr. Marshall.

Jul-18-08  Lutwidge: <keypusher> <That they did, but his plus scores against both were huge -- blunders only explain a small part of it. E.g., look at Lasker's two wins over Marshall at St. Petersburg 1914. Marshall doesn't blunder, he just gets outplayed tactically.>

Sure, most of the time Marshall and Janowski would just drift (or charge) into dodgy positions vs Lasker, but it's remarkable to me how often they would botch the few decent chances they managed to create (or stumble upon).

Anyhow, I suppose Marshall and Janowski probably weren't quite as good at chess as a whole as Rubinstein or Capablanca, but it's interesting to compare, say, Rubinstein's very close match with Marshall (I forget the final score) or Pillsbury's/Schlechter's close tournament records vs Tarrasch/Janowski/Marshall to Lasker's one-sided match scores against the same trio. Of course, tournaments aren't matches, but I suspect that a Lasker - Rubinstein (Or Lasker - Pillsbury) match would have been much closer to the drawn Schlechter match than the Tarrasch/Marshall/Janowski routs.

Alas, when all's said and done, there's really not nearly enough games between Lasker and his main rivals around that time to draw any profound conclusions, except that Lasker didn't play enough tournaments during his WC tenure. Oh well. :)

Mar-04-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  Honza Cervenka: 33...Nxc3 seems to give black sound extra Pawn with good winning chances, for example 34.Kh1 (34.Rxc3 Qxd4+ 35.Kh1 Qxc3) 34...Nxb1 35.Qxd5+ Qf7 36.Qxf7+ Kxf7 37.Rxb1 Ke6 38.Rc1 Rf7 39.g3 Kd5 and Pd4 falls.
Mar-04-09  Absentee: <notyetagm:
I am with you, <Calli>. Marshall was one of the all-time greatest tacticians. Reuben Fine said that Marshall was THE strongest tactical player that he knew of, including Alekhine and Spielmann!>

With all due respect for Fine, players like Rubinstein, Schlechter or Alekhine himself were far better at tactics than Marshall.

Mar-04-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jim Bartle: If Marshall was in fact the greatest tactician of his era, as Fine claimed, he must have been a really horrible positional player.

Otherwise how could his record against the quartet of Alekhine, Rubinstein, Capablanca and Lasker be 15 wins and 51 losses?

Mar-04-09  sleepyirv: Hmm... So basically Lasker didn't fall into Monday's puzzle. Not too shocking, I suppose.
Mar-04-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <Jim Bartle: If Marshall was in fact the greatest tactician of his era, as Fine claimed, he must have been a really horrible positional player. Otherwise how could his record against the quartet of Alekhine, Rubinstein, Capablanca and Lasker be 15 wins and 51 losses?>

Well, exactly. And if you look at his games you quickly see that he was a quite good positional player. Here is an example of which he was rightly proud:

Teichmann vs Marshall, 1911

Since he was positionally strong, I think the necessary inference is that he wasn't quite as good at tactics as the best players of his own time.

Fine, who said such nice things about Marshall's tactics, also supposedly said that Lasker was the "supreme tactical genius." Capablanca's speed and sureness in calculating was legendary. And Alekhine -- well, think of all his great combinations.

Mar-04-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: Hmm, since Teichmann apparently missed a late draw (damn you, analytically proficient cg.com posters!) better add these.

Alapin vs Marshall, 1912

Marshall vs Spielmann, 1906

The point is, you can come up with quite a few nice positional wins for Marshall. I just strolled through his best games collection for these.

Mar-04-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  Calli: Game Collection: My Favorite Marshalls
Dec-30-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  GrahamClayton: <notyetagm>What game of the match was this? It must have been an odd-numbered game because Marshall had White in those games.

<notyetagm>,
This is Game 3, if the order of the index to the games of the match is correct.

Jan-10-10  Adriano Saldanha: With all due respect, the annotation on white´s move 29 looks somewhat dubious. In fact it was Lasker who took the pawn on 28 ...cxd4, perfectly conscious that cxd4 couldn´t be done as white looses a rook. So white could ONLY capture with the e-pawn. No trap for me, sorry if im wrong.
Jan-26-11  Oceanlake: I think Nimzovich studied this opening.
Jan-26-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  TheFocus: <Oceanlake> Why do you think that? I don't believe Nimzowitsch ever played this variation.
Jan-26-11  Oceanlake: The pawn formation; doubled c pawns.
May-08-13  oao2102: Why not 25...cxd4 26. exd4 f6 and 27...Rxc3 ?
Nov-07-13  Ulhumbrus: It may be that the move 13 Rab1 develops the rook to the wrong file, although this file seems half opened for White. Black is able to obstruct the rook by ...b6, and the rook does little on the file.

If we assume that the way for White to make use of his central pawn superiority is to play the pawn advances f3 and e4 this suggests that he may need this rook on d1. This suggests 13 Rad1

Nov-24-13  backrank: Chernev ('The golden Dozen') gives Black's 33rd move as Qe3+ (instead of Qg5 as given here). The chesslab.com database has also Qe3+, while db.mychess.com has Qg5. Certainly Qe3+ is more forcing, while Qg5 simply defends the d5-pawn, threatening Rf2, but letting White escape by 34 Rf1. I can't believe Emanuel would have played Qg5. But where do the different scores come from, and can we find out which one is correct? For such a beautiful and distinguished game, the answer is very important, I think.
Nov-24-13  backrank: Now I have looked up the game in 'Kings of Chess' by William Winter, and he gives 33 ... Qe3+, too. It seems to become more and more likely that the cg.com score is incorrect and Qe3+ is the move that has been actually played.
Aug-06-15  Volcach: Even at move 41 Marshall had a chance to trade his Queen for the Rook with Qh5. Computer thinks the position is dead drawn
Apr-12-16  Sally Simpson: Yeah here.


click for larger view

As mentioned above Black did not play 33.Qg5 it was 33.Qe6+

correction slip sent - they are probably fed up with me sending in corrections.

search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please submit a correction slip and help us eliminate database mistakes!
<This page contains Editor Notes. Click here to read them.>
This game is type: CLASSICAL (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)

Featured in the Following Game Collections [what is this?]
All Hail Emanuel
by iron maiden
"Can't Fool and Old Fooler"
from Games of the day 3 by Herkus
7th World Championship Match, Game 3
from Highlights from World Championship Matches by Bubo bubo
Challenger: Lasker as Black - unviewed...
from Greatest Games of the Greatest Players by trumvirvel
My favorite games from WCC matches
by skytzo985
86
from chernev's games by chessBeaGL
yatutahtetam's favorite games
by yatutahtetam
Marshall-Lasker 1907 World Championship game 3 0-1
from Checkmate Patterns # Fredthebear Mating Patterns by fredthebear
memorable moments from the world chess champs.
by kibitzwc
Game 3, Lasker leads 3-0 (3-0)
from 1907 World Chess Championship by Penguincw
Exchange pieces, reduce cramp, what could be easier?
from Fire Baptisms by Nasruddin Hodja
lasker best games
by brager
third straight win for the Doctor
from World Champions A-Z part 2 Lasker by kevin86
Can't Fool an Old Fooler
from Fresh EndGames! by Tridel
Lask as Blak
from Game of the Days by hidude
Marshall-Lasker 1907 World Championship game 3 0-1
from Game collection: -ER by fredthebear
Game 32
from World Champion - Lasker (I.Linder/V.Linder) by Qindarka
Tough Guess-the-Move Challenges!
by Whitehat1963
1907 New-York
from chess championship by IsmaelHalil
April 1: Can't Fool an Old Fooler
from Game of the Day 2006 by Phony Benoni
plus 19 more collections (not shown)


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC