|Apr-12-05|| ||aw1988: Lasker tears Schlechter to shreds. |
|Apr-12-05|| ||AgentRgent: Schlechter later returned the favor: Schlechter vs Lasker, 1904 |
|Apr-12-05|| ||TheAlchemist: <aw1988> Yes, it was great defence by Lasker, but it is mostly Schlechter's terrible 12.Bg5? that decides the match. After 12.Qc4 it would have been a fairly even game.|
I would like to point out an interesting variation:
11...Ncd6 12.Qxg7 Qf6 13.Qxf6 Nxf6 14.Re1+ Kf8 15.Bh6+ Kg8 16.Re5 Nfe4 17.Re1 and white is winning! It is better to give back the piece with 14...Nfe4 15.Nd2 f5 16.f3 etc.
|Apr-12-05|| ||Shams: what about simply 9.bxc3 0-0 10.d5 and white has the bishop pair plus a lead in development for his pawn? looks plenty good enough to me. |
|Apr-12-05|| ||TheAlchemist: <shams> 9.d5 is very tricky and I think is considered to be white's best chance to fight for the advantage. After 9.bxc3 d5 10.Bd3 O-O black equalizes without much problem and is up a pawn. |
|Apr-12-05|| ||Calli: Schlechter eventually learn to play the Piano Schlechter vs Meitner, 1899 |
|Jun-02-08|| ||keypusher: <Shams> Lasker, scourge of gambits, had driven 9. bxc3 permanently out of circulation three years before: Steinitz vs Lasker, 1896.|
|Aug-25-08|| ||dwavechess: 18/21, 86% coincidence with rybka 2.3.2 at 14 ply forwards 1 cpu w32 for lasker! Very high agreement.|
|Aug-25-08|| ||dwavechess: Seems much better opening for lasker
|Sep-11-08|| ||dwavechess: 68%, much less using Rybka 3 w32 at 3 minutes per move for Lasker|
|Oct-24-08|| ||keypusher: <TheAlchemist: <aw1988> Yes, it was great defence by Lasker, but it is mostly Schlechter's terrible 12.Bg5? that decides the match. After 12.Qc4 it would have been a fairly even game.>|
Apparently 12. Bg5 was Moeller's recommended continuation. They didn't have engines for blunder-checking in those days!
|May-30-17|| ||KEG: There is not much to say about this game. 12. Bg5? loses a piece and the game, even if it was a recommended continuation before Lasker's refutation of the move in this game.|
As TheAlchemist correctly notes, 12. QxN(c4) would have led to an approximately equal game.
I do not care for 9. bxB as recommended by Shams, since 9...d5 gives Black a firm stake in the center--in addition to his pawn plus--and thus much the better game.
As dwavechess has demonstrated, Lasker's play here was nearly flawless. The closest thing I have to an "improvement" on Lasker's play is that 11...0-0 was probably better than Lasker's 11...f5.
With this loss, Schlechter wound up in 5th place. Had he managed to defeat Lasker in this game, he would have tied for second with Pillsbury, Janowski, and Maroczy.
Lasker didn't need the win. He had clinched first place three rounds earlier.