|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!