|Jun-07-06|| ||paladin at large: Beautiful endgame by Lasker, particularly from move 32 on, when Rubinstein allowed the exchange of queens. As an endgame, it surpasses Rubinstein's win over Lasker, which Rubinstein essentially had won in the transition to the endgame. One attractive feature here is the centralization of the black minor pieces and how the white king cannot even approach the black passed pawn, as the black king walks up the board.|
|Jun-07-06|| ||keypusher: <paladin> Here's another great Lasker ending against Rubinstein.|
Lasker vs Rubinstein, 1914
|Apr-06-09|| ||Ulhumbrus: 12 Ne5 is a mistake because the N is no weapon but a target. Instead of this, 12 a4 discourages ...c5.|
13 Bf3 is a defensive move, for it does not threaten to attack the long diagonal but serves only to parry Black's attack on it. It is however a consequence of Ne5.
Instead of 14 Nxd7, 14 Nd3 aims at c5.
18 Bxd4 may lead to a draw and perhaps Rubinstein plays 18 exd4 in order to avoid it. After 18 exd4, with an isolated d5 pawn but greater space, it is White who is playing for the attack and Black who is playing to simplify. The result of the game suggests that Black is advised to offer exchanges of Rooks on the c file, and indeed an open file hinders a King side attack as the defence may try to occupy it with his Rooks. This suggests that exchanging the Rooks on the c file is a mistake on White's part. Instead of 21 Rxc8, 21 Rd1 avoids the first exchange of Rooks, while 22 Rd1 or 22 Re1 instead of 22 Rc1 avoids the second exchange of Rooks.
27 a3 makes a target of the pawn and following Qc3, the recapture Bxc3 displaces the bishop which defends the a3 pawn.
|Apr-06-09|| ||Archswindler: <Ulhumbrus: Instead of this, 12 a4 discourages ...c5.>|
I'm not sure it does:
12. a4 b4 13. Na2 c5
|Apr-08-09|| ||Ulhumbrus: <Archswindler> Black can still play the move ...c5, but at a price: The reply ...b4 has weakened permanently Black's entire Queen side, exposing it to attack.|
|Apr-08-09|| ||Archswindler: <The reply ...b4 has weakened permanently Black's entire Queen side, exposing it to attack.>|
No it hasn't.
|Jun-09-09|| ||Bridgeburner: <paladin at large>
The queen exchange was definitely the losing move, at least in the proximate sense (White was probably lost in any case), as it made the <Pa3> indefensible. Lasker played the rest of the game very nicely but it was essentially an easy, somewhat routine endgame win for him.
Rubinstein was very much off his game here...he played the opening very conservatively, never getting around to <e4>, which would have been much more competitive than allowing the lame isolani he ended up with, which in turn allowed <d5> to be occupied as a staging point for Black's pieces.
Rubinstein's middle game was even worse, with lackluster placement of pieces allowing Lasker free rein for his.
I thought Lasker's <26...Nd5>, apart from being an excellent move in its own right, was also a psychological move aimed at provoking the weakening <27.a3>, the fate of which decided the game.
<Ulhumbrus: This suggests that exchanging the Rooks on the c file is a mistake on White's part. Instead of 21 Rxc8, 21 Rd1 avoids the first exchange of Rooks, while 22 Rd1 or 22 Re1 instead of 22 Rc1 avoids the second exchange of Rooks.>
I'm not sure.If <21.Rcd1>, then <21...Nf6> and the White isolani is fully blockaded. Moreover, <22.Re1> wouldn't be a good move as it becomes a target for Black's DSB if it reaches <b4> (there's the echo of that fateful <a3> again), eg: <21.Rcd1 Nf6 22.Rfe1 Nxe4 23.Bxe4 Bb4 24.Bxb7 Qxb7 25.Qe4 Qxe4 26.Rxe4 Rc2>:
click for larger view
Such a position wouldn't be defensible against Lasker.
|Sep-29-13|| ||YoGoSuN: Can anyone care to explain why Lasker went 57. Kd3 instead of 57. Kb1? I'm sure that 57. Kd3 wins as well, but isn't it 57. Kb1 more direct and obvious?|
|Dec-14-14|| ||plang: 10 b3 was a new idea that has been repeated only rarely; the sharper 10 e4 is the main line. |
<Archswindler: <Ulhumbrus: Instead of this, 12 a4 discourages ...c5.>
I'm not sure it does:
12. a4 b4 13. Na2 c5>
I would think that 13 Nb1 with the idea of Nbd2 and Nc4 should be considered.
After 18 exd a poor version of the Isolated Queenpawn middlegame occurred with the bishop passive on b2.
18 Bxd4 may lead to a draw and perhaps Rubinstein plays 18 exd4 in order to avoid it.>
After 18 Bxd4..e5 it looks like White is forced to play 19 Bc5 as 19 Bb2..f5 will cost White a piece.
34 Ba5..axb 35 Bxb6..Bg5! would have been winning for Black.
<YoGoSuN: Can anyone care to explain why Lasker went 57. Kd3 instead of 57. Kb1? I'm sure that 57. Kd3 wins as well, but isn't it 57. Kb1 more direct and obvious?>
57 Kb1 allows White to play Kh6,Kh7,Kg8 with dangerous counterplay.
The idea behind Lasker's 57 Kd3! is to place the king on f5 when White plays Kxf7 at which point Black's knight can leisurely win the two rook pawns and then head to the queenside to force the win of the bishop.
|Jul-15-17|| ||iron john: why not 35 bb4|
|Jul-15-17|| ||beatgiant: <iron john>
<why not 35 bb4>
35. Bb4 Bxb4 36. axb4 Kf8. Black transfers his king to the queenside and eventually picks up White's b-pawn while White's pieces are tied down by Black's a-pawn. I believe that plan wins for Black.