< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
|Jun-23-10|| ||GrahamClayton: <nasmichael>I read in a Chess Life article that the game was adjourned twice, making for a 3 day game.|
You are correct. The game started on the 8th of February, and was adjourned after 15 moves to the 9th of February. The game was adjourned again after White's 58th move, and finished on the 10th of February.
|Jun-23-10|| ||mistreaver: <keypusher: Of the people he did play, Marshall (1907) and Janowski (1910)>
Didn't he play a match with Tarrasch as well in 1908 or so?|
|Jun-23-10|| ||keypusher: <mistreaver: <keypusher: Of the people he did play, Marshall (1907) and Janowski (1910)> Didn't he play a match with Tarrasch as well in 1908 or so?>|
Yes, and I translated every damn word of Tarrasch's notes from his match book on the game pages.
Lasker-Tarrasch World Championship Match (1908)
|Jun-30-10|| ||talisman: <visayanbraindoctor>...thanks.|
|Sep-20-10|| ||soothsayer8: Capablanca's comment on the 2...c6 is a little unusual, I notice that the Slav Defense wasn't played nearly as often in this time period, but I don't see why he felt like he needed to speak out against it, in fact, the Slav would benefit Schlechter, as it's a bit more drawish than e6.|
|Apr-07-11|| ||bronkenstein: Congratulations , visayanbraindoctor , for remarkable job of deep , exact and very informative comments on the games of this match :)|
|Jan-20-13|| ||Tigranny: I don't like Capa's saying that the Slav is worse than the QGD. I actually think the Slav is more popular and gives Black more chances.|
|Dec-15-13|| ||Fanacas: 2..e6 is a little more populair then c6 with around 10000 games so its not that big of a margain. But in the time of capablanca 2.e6 was seen as the best move against the queens gambit.|
|Feb-01-14|| ||parisattack: <bronkenstein: Congratulations , visayanbraindoctor , for remarkable job of deep , exact and very informative comments on the games of this match :)>|
Yes, indeed. Quite useful, thank you.
What a titanic struggle!
|Aug-16-15|| ||SamAtoms1980: This game was featured in today's weekly chess column by Bill Cornwall in the L.A. Times. Like many others, he wonders why Schlechter did not take the "easy draw". According to the book "Grandmasters of Chess" by Harold Schonberg, Schlechter needed to win this match by two points in order to claim the title. That would explain his play in this game. Can anybody else confirm if this was true? If so, it appears to be a surprisingly little-known fact.|
|Aug-17-15|| ||dusk: <visayanbraindoctor> thank you.|
|Sep-03-15|| ||mrbug: According to chessmaster's annotation: "This game has ignited intense controversies, both from its shrouded history and its play. For many years it was believed that Schlechter, ahead by a point in the final game, had only to draw to win the world championship. Why did he, the "drawing master," suddenly decide to play for a win? Later research has shown that the match terms forced the challenger to win by two points, and this fact entered into Fischer's controversy with FIDE over the defense of his title in 1973. At a critical stage, Schlechter misses the winning maneuver and becomes only a footnote in chess championship history."|
|Sep-03-15|| ||Howard: Apparently, it's never really been settled as to whether Schlechter needed to win by a one-point or by a two-pawn margin. But the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests the "two-point" argument.|
|Sep-03-15|| ||MissScarlett: The circumstantial evidence strongly suggests the "one-point" argument. And where was the "easy draw"?|
|Sep-13-15|| ||Howard: What "easy draw" are you referring to ?|
|Sep-13-15|| ||MissScarlett: What circumstantial evidence that strongly suggests the "two-point" argument are you referring to?|
|Sep-14-15|| ||keypusher: <MissScarlett: What circumstantial evidence that strongly suggests the "two-point" argument are you referring to?>|
Just to move the discussion along: Schlechter's aggressive and risky play in the 10th game.
|Sep-14-15|| ||MissScarlett: A discussion worth the name requires two sides that are both informed and committed to debate. What indication is there that <Howard> is either?|
|Jan-22-16|| ||WorstPlayerEver: I just want to point out it's obvious that '2... e6 is better than 2..c6' is a computer evaluation. Makes the whole reference to Capablanca useless and chess unworthy. In other words: this site doesn't give a damn about chess!
Let me state this as clear as possible.|
|Jan-22-16|| ||keypusher: <WorstPlayerEver: I just want to point out it's obvious that '2... e6 is better than 2..c6' is a computer evaluation.> |
Does <2...e6 is the usual move and I believe better than the text move> sound like an engine to you?
<Makes the whole reference to Capablanca useless and chess unworthy. In other words: this site doesn't give a damn about chess! Let me state this as clear as possible.>
As Lincoln probably didn't say, it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt.
|Jan-23-16|| ||WorstPlayerEver: @keypusher
Please do give your sources: position after move 6: Pillsbury vs Lasker 1895.
Ad homini are so passé.
|Jan-23-16|| ||keypusher: <WorstPlayerEver>
<Please do give your sources: position after move 6: Pillsbury vs Lasker 1895>
|Jan-26-16|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Lol, my bad. My apologizes.
I actually meant: Pillsbury-Gunsberg Hastings 1895.
Pillsbury vs Gunsberg, 1895
Sources? Ah, you want sources (although the sources of the annotations are as funny as the game naming: I bet they come from the same author).
Well, here you are!
An article by Capablanca entitled ‘Championship Chess: Incidents and Reminiscences’ from pages 86-89 of the Windsor Magazine, December 1922:
Capablanca (ed. about his interest in chess: key events) : 'The second event was Pillsbury’s visit to Havana when I was 11 years of age (ed. 1899/1900). I was then a very mediocre player, but the reader can well imagine the impression on a child full of imagination produced by a man who could play simultaneously 16 or more blindfold games of chess at the same time that he played a number of blindfold games of draughts and a hand of duplicate whist.'
Hastings 1895: The Centennial Edition
By Horace F. Cheshire
A must have (standard) chess book in those days. Cheshire also was involved with the production of Professor Louis Hoffmann's book on Greco's games in 1900.
It's most unlikely that Capablanca was not quite familiar with the Hastings 1895 edition.
It's most unlikely, as the Pillsbury-Gunsberg game was the decisive game of Hastings 1895, that Capablanca would not know about that famous game of his idol. As has been pointed out already in this thread: 'decisive advantage' is also a computer evaluation. For Capablanca annotations say things like 'has an advantage' or 'wins'. First known Capablanca game is from 1901 by the way.
PS I'd like to point out that chessgames has not given ANY SOURCES regarded to the annotaions of this game, although in this thread the annotations are in question since 2004. Which actually proves my point: chessgame dot com CANNOT give such recourses because there are NONE. Zero. I challenge and stand corrected: checkmate!
|Apr-12-16|| ||offramp: If Black ever had a win in this game then Capablanca would have found it and told us. The closest he gets to saying Black could win is <34...Nd5 looks a mighty strong move.> But he doesn't say it was a winning move.|
So I don't think there was a win for Black.
|Jan-03-17|| ||Albion 1959: What a game! This is akin to game 10 of the recent Carlsen -Karjakin match. Carlsen still had the safety net of two more games to save his title, whereas with Lasker, one slip and his title was gone. He had no more games left to save himself. Finally, without using a database, I don't just see how Lasker would have won this game. Yes sure I am missing something obvious, but don't see it!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·