|Jul-04-02|| ||mprchess: Capablancas surprising trades (knight for 2 pawns etc.) make for a lively game. |
|Jul-04-02|| ||bishop: "White obtains three pawns in return for the Knight, and a permanent offensive against the exposed hostile king. The correctness of the sacrifice for that reason is unquestionable."-Alexander Alekhine |
|Mar-12-03|| ||Rookpawn: Capablanca recieved third Brilliancy Prize for this game in the 1924 New York Tournament. |
|Mar-12-03|| ||ughaibu: As far as I recall Alekhine reckons that Lasker isn't definitely losing until move 36 or thereabouts, when he mishandles the exchange of queens. Looking at the position now I cant see how Lasker could improve. |
|Mar-13-03|| ||kostich in time: Capablanca said there were three kinds of brilliancy..the mating attack with a LOT of sacrifices, the "sporting occasion"that is an all-out fight ,with some errors but still plenty of entertainment value,and the "purely artistic treatment".At New York 1924,all three types received brilliancy prizes.The all out attack(Marshall-Bogolubov),got the second brilliancy prize,this game-clearly a "sporting occasion"- got the third,and the purely artistic game,(Reti-Bogolubov)received the First. |
|Jun-21-03|| ||paulalbert: Alekhine in the 1924 Tournament Book says that 37 Qe6 is final error, saying Lasker overlooked that g4 pawn could be taken with K. Alekhine says either Bd5 or Bf7 were sufficient to draw. This was Lasker's only loss in winning the tournament. He had 13 wins. Of course it was important for Capa to win against Lasker whom he had beaten for World Championship in 1921, but it was moral victory for Emanuel to win tournament ahead of Capablanca. |
|Jun-22-03|| ||drukenknight: I think it is too late by move 37. By moves 29/30 capa. has material advantage due to his two passed pawns; and connected pawns vs a N. What does he do? Of course, he starts looking to exchange w/ moves 31, 32, 34. |
Off the top of my head I think Lasker needs to start attacking the K sooner either w/ the R by move 30 or getting the Q to b6 before the N guards that spot.
|Jan-14-04|| ||kevin86: Capa beats EM L at his own game,the endgame |
|Feb-09-04|| ||Lawrence: All of our friends of the silicon persuasion agree that Alekhine's suggested 37...Bd5 is the strongest move but Crafty 19.01 still gives Capa an advantage of almost a pawn whereas Junior 8 thinks the position is slightly advantageous for Black. Fritz 8 on the contrary says it's White who has the small advantage. |
|Dec-01-04|| ||Minor Piece Activity: 9...Nh5 seems a bit feeble. I was surprised that Capablanca didn't play 14. Qh5 and now the queen's out of the game with a tempo from the fork threat. 14. Qh5 Rg8 15. f4 with the ideas of Rf3, Rh3, and maybe sacs on f5 looks good, but if Lasker wanted to draw instead 14. Qh5 Qe8 15. Qh6 Qf7 would be enough so I guess that's why Capa took another route. |
|Apr-23-05|| ||notyetagm: I love the <zwischenschachs> (in-between checks) in the variation 22 d1? xb2! 23 xc8 xd3+! 24 e2 xf4+! 25 gxf4 xc8, winning two pawns. |
|Feb-01-06|| ||Tariqov: <Minor Piece Activity> one reason i think he didn't play was because of Bc8-d7-e8 and after Qh6 Be7-f8.thats my thought.|
|Feb-01-06|| ||RookFile: <minor piece activity>: Actually,
Alekhine gave an exclam to ....Nh5
and f5 by Lasker. At the point, Lasker was fully equal. The game resembles the aggressive Dutch defense. His subsequent problems largely happenned because he was clearly playing this game trying to win, instead of just to get his half point.
|Jul-22-06|| ||notyetagm: What a battle.
|Nov-15-06|| ||chancho: In the book: A Picture History Of Chess, by Fred Wilson, it shows the scoresheets of Capablanca and Lasker from this very game. Capa used descriptive notation in keeping score.(very neat) And I think Lasker used algebraic notation. (have not seen the book in quite a while, so I could be wrong) There was also a Nimzowitsch scoresheet from a game he played with Reti and that was algebraic. Although he used german for the name of the pieces.|
|Nov-24-07|| ||sambo: At move 37, Alekhine writes "Hereupon Black gets a hopelessly lost ending. The move is the more astonishing as in this position Black was not being menaced (at the worst, 38 P-Kt4); after 38 QxKtP, the powerful rejoinder of 38...P-B4! was always at his disposal. There were different ways, therfore, in which to wind up with a draw...." with analysis.|
Then for the next move, he says "It may almost be assumed that Dr. Lasker for the moment had forgetten the possibility of this capture. Now the exchange of Queens, under circumstances very unfavorable to him, can no longer be avoided, inasmuch as his Queen dared not abandon the protection of the square, KB3, on account of mate in two moves."
|Nov-24-07|| ||CapablancaFan: <kevin86: Capa beats EM L at his own game,the endgame> That seems to be the area Capa beat alot of people in, LOL.|
|Nov-24-07|| ||Calli: Lasker later claimed a bad clock cost him the draw. I read all the stuff on Chess Cafe once and while there was a malfunction, I never understood Lasker's claim.|
If you care to plow through it:
|May-25-08|| ||plang: Lasker's enterprising play with 10..f5 and 11..gxf led to a double-edged middle game. Alekhine gave the interesting sacrificial response if Lasker had played 16..Qf8: 17 Nxd5..exd 18 Nxf5..Bxf5 19 Bxf5..Rg7
20 Qb3 with 3 pawns for the piece and a strong attack on the white squares. 21 Qf3 lost a tempo; 21 Qe2 was more accurate. 23..Ne4+? gave Capablanca the opportunity to sacrifice a piece for the initiative. Either 23..Bf7,
23..Rc7 or 23..Qd7 would have been better. Lasker could have drawn with
32..Rc2+ 33 Kg3..Re2 34 g6..h4+
35 Rxh4..Rxe3+ 36 Kg2..Re2+ 37 Kf1..Re1+ with a perpetual check but he was apparently trying to keep the position complicated. Capablanca and Alekhine both recommended 37..Bf7 with the idea of 38 Kxg4?..Bh5+ as the best defense. 37..Qe6? led to a hopeless endgame with whites king becoming too active.
|Jul-19-10|| ||sevenseaman: Farsighted as well as daring. First Capa settle for two pawns for a a dim looking Knight here
click for larger view
.. and then 3pawns up is perspicacious enough to exchange queens here. such attitude is bound to demoralise even a great like EML here.
click for larger view
Its little wonder he came up with the goods against the best oftener than the other way around.
P.S. chessgames.com 'Tips' are priceless as a kibitzing help. Thanks.
|Oct-16-11|| ||BobCrisp: <Lasker later claimed a bad clock cost him the draw. I read all the stuff on Chess Cafe once and while there was a malfunction, I never understood Lasker's claim.>|
Yes, it's a bit involved, but, essentially, <Lasker> claims that he lost about 15 minutes during the game and a further 20 minutes during the adjournment break (there were two playing sessions per day) dealing with the issue. This, he avers, contributed to his mistaken 37th move and subsequent defeat.
<Lederer>, the game arbiter, says it was only about 8, not 15 minutes of game time, and that it was <Lasker>'s fault for not pressing the clock properly (and for not noticing that his clock was still running); he doesn't concede that the clock itself was defective for running time on both sides at once. And, oh yeah, <Lasker> wasn't in time trouble at any stage.
Unfortunately, the <Chesscafe> articles don't give us the full story on <Lasker>'s problem with <Maroczy>, one of the most blameless figures in chess history.
|Dec-18-11|| ||Richard Taylor: As Alekhine showed Lasker missed ways to draw on few occasions here. This was complex struggle and a great game by both players.|