|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-02-08 | | Bodia: Amazing blunders of Steinitz! |
 |
| Feb-29-08 | | Knight13: <14. g4!> Very good move. |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | apexin: outstanding game by lasker. |
|
Oct-15-08
 | | brankat: A vintage Lasker. The game is a masterpiece. |
|
Oct-15-08
 | | JG27Pyth: Lasker looks to me to be playing about 200 rating points higher than Steinitz... WS looks completely out-classed. But reading Bishop's post (first post in thread) makes me think there's more going on here than I see -- if Kasparov thinks "neither Chigorin nor Tarrasch could understand the game" surely I haven't either! |
|
| Oct-15-08 | | Samagonka: I would love to see the very end of this game. |
|
Oct-15-08
 | | Honza Cervenka: I don't believe that 16.Qxd5 and 18.f4 were not Lasker's mistake. It is true that black Knight is placed badly in the corner but after 23...hxg6 black is three Pawns up and black position looks defendable, for example 24.h5 gxh5 25.Rxh5 Re5 26.Rxe5 (in case of retreat of Rook black can play Qg5) 26...Qxe5 27.Re1 Qg3 28.Bd3 Rf8 etc. |
|
| Oct-15-08 | | Superbull: Can someone tell me what is wrong with 15...Be7 16.Nxe7 Rxe7 17.h4 Qd7. It looks like Bxd5 was the first blunder that led to all sorts of complication for black. |
|
| Oct-15-08 | | newzild: I've never seen this game before, and I must say I'm impressed. A brilliant effort by Lasker - and bold, too, sacrificing a piece for a mix of positional and tactical compensations. |
|
| Oct-15-08 | | nimzo knight: This game really turned the tables around in the World Championship. Kasparov mentions about this game in his book. After loosing from being two pawns up it really shook Steinitz's belief in positional chess. Also at the time people believed Lasker's attack was nothing but desperation, analysis in subsequent areas has shown it to be way better than that. Kasparov brings the point that often players themselves look down upon the moves they played in an important game, b'cos they can rarely attain the level of concentration outside a WC game scenario |
|
Oct-15-08
 | | kevin86: Sad was the career of black's knight. On the 21st move,it retreated into a corner where it stood as a useless ornament until its coming capture in the postmortum. |
|
Oct-15-08
 | | maxi: The impression I get from the game is that Lasker valued piece activity above all. He clearly believes in positional chess, but positional chess based on dynamic assessments, not on blindly following recipes like "occupy open columns" or "fix weak Pawns". I guess the idea is to give the pieces the chance they deserve to do their best (or should I say worst?). On the other hand Steinitz, no doubt the father of modern chess, can be seen applying positional precepts a bit dogmatically. Perhaps he already was too sick by the time this game took place, I don't know. |
|
| Oct-15-08 | | ThePawnOTron2: Superbull, I don't know if 16.Nxe7 may be the best move, I think White could "maintain the tension" so to speak with f4 or h4 instead. --ThePawnOTron2 |
|
| Oct-15-08 | | medstu56: Pwned |
|
Oct-15-08
| | mjmorri: Steinitz manages to setup Alekhine's Gun, but it strikes at nothing, whereas Lasker's little pawn on h7 proves to be most irksome. |
|
| Jan-01-09 | | WhiteRook48: and ye shall receive Steinitz |
|
| Jan-01-09 | | WhiteRook48: and Steinitz will give you the game. He will surely throw it. Offer him Beer. |
|
| Mar-16-10 | | kibitzwc: (1756) Lasker,Emanuel - Steinitz,William [C62]
World Championship 5th USA/CAN (7), 03.04.1894
[Fritz 12 (5m)]
C62: Ruy Lopez: Steinitz Defence 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 Nge7 6.Be3 Ng6 7.Qd2 Be7 8.0–0–0 a6 9.Be2 exd4 10.Nxd4 Nxd4 11.Qxd4 Bf6 12.Qd2 Bc6 13.Nd5 0–0 14.g4 Re8 15.g5 Bxd5 last book move 16.Qxd5 [16.exd5 Rxe3 17.fxe3 Bxg5²] 16...Re5= 17.Qd2 [¹17.Qxb7 Rb8 18.Qxa6 Bxg5 19.Qc4=] 17...Bxg5µ 18.f4 Rxe4 19.fxg5 Qe7 20.Rdf1 [¹20.Bf3!? Rxe3 21.Rhe1µ] 20...Rxe3–+ 21.Bc4 Nh8 [21...Rf8!? 22.h4 Re4 23.h5 Rxc4 24.hxg6 hxg6 25.Rh3–+] 22.h4 c6 23.g6 [¹23.h5 d5 24.Bd3–+] 23...d5?? [¹23...hxg6 24.h5 gxh5 25.Rxh5 Re8–+] 24.gxh7  Kxh7 25.Bd3+ Kg8 26.h5 Re8 27.h6 g6 [27...gxh6 28.Rfg1+ Ng6 29.Bxg6 fxg6 30.Rxg6+ Kf7 31.Rgg1³] 28.h7+ Kg7 29.Kb1 [29.Qc3+ Qe5 30.Qb4 Qg5=] 29...Qe5 30.a3 [30.b3!?=] 30...c5µ 31.Qf2 c4 32.Qh4 f6 [32...Kf8 33.Bf5µ] 33.Bf5µ Kf7 [¹33...c3!?µ] 34.Rhg1 gxf5 35.Qh5+ Ke7 36.Rg8 [36.Rxf5 Qe6 37.Rg7+ Kd6 38.Qh2+ Kc5 39.Qc7+ Qc6 40.Qa5+ Qb5  ] 36...Kd6µ 37.Rxf5 Qe6 38.Rxe8 Qxe8 39.Rxf6+ Kc5 40.Qh6 Re7 [40...Re1+ 41.Ka2 Qe7 42.Rf8=] 41.Qh2 [41.Qd2 Re6 42.Rf8 Re1+ 43.Ka2 ] 41...Qd7?? [41...Re1+ 42.Ka2 Re6 43.Qg1+ Re3±] 42.Qg1+ d4 43.Qg5+ Qd5 44.Rf5 Qxf5 45.Qxf5+ Kd6 46.Qf6+ [46.Qf6+ Kd7 47.Qxh8 ] 1–0 |
|
Dec-25-10
 | | keypusher: Pollock: <6...P-B4 is perhaps too venturesome at fifteen moves an hour time limit, but, if followed at once by K-Kt3, somewhat takes our fancy.> How can you resist a note like that?
New Orleans Times Democrat: <Of course, it is easy to judge after the game is finished, but those who have witnessed the fight itself, will hardly forget the surprise which was provoked by some of the moves in this particular game, and how unforseen a victory was scored by Lasker, when almost all present believed in his inevitable defeat.> |
|
| Jan-18-11 | | Llawdogg: Oh man! Steinitz had Lasker by two pawns and could have won this game. Steinitz WAS winning this game and all the spectators at the time saw that he was winning by two pawns. I have to respectfully disagree with the criticism of Steinitz putting his knight in the corner. That was a good defensive move. After Lasker's 32 Qh4 this game was all over and Steinitz was going to win. But 32 ... f6?? was the crucial blunder. |
|
| Jan-18-11 | | Llawdogg: Here is what might have happened: Steinitz answers 32 Qh4 with Kf8! rather than f6??. Then: 33 Bxg6 Nxg6.
34 h8=Q+ Nxh8.
35 Qxh8+ Qxh8.
36 Rxh8+ Kg7!
And it is simply a matter of technique as Steinitz wins a routine endgame with a two pawn advantage. And since this was the pivotal game, the old lion holds off the young upstart and wins the match and chess history is rewritten. Long live Steinitz! (It could have happened this way). |
|
| Nov-20-11 | | bronkenstein: Kasparov : "In this game, balancing on the brink of defeat, the young
Lasker demonstrated those qualities which would allow him
to maintain himself as World Champion for so long . In a
difficult position, he succeeded in setting his opponent the
sort of complex problems, of a sort that chess would not see
again until the latter half of the 20th century (much like those
that Tal or, say, Shirov, would set before the strongest
opposition).
Lasker was far ahead of his time, and it is hard
to blame Steinitz for his mistake: he fought with all his
strength while under relentless, powerful assault. It is
precisely because this exceptionally tense game was so far
ahead of its time that it went under a cloud, remaining
unappreciated: its contemporaries were simply unable to
fathom what was going on here" (Kasparov).http://www.chesscafe.com/text/dvore... PS I can see some ppl beat me for 7-8 years for linking Dvoretsky`s article o,O GJ folks. |
|
| Mar-24-12 | | LoveThatJoker: Guess-the-Move Final Score:
Lasker vs Steinitz, 1894.
YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF LASKER.
Your score: 115 (par = 79)
LTJ |
|
Mar-25-13
 | | Conrad93: I don't get how this game is great. The entire combination is a fallacy. |
|
Jun-17-13
 | | MindCtrol9: Those who don't have any knowledge of chess or concept of their own lives,have to say stupidities about this game.Lasker was the best and all of his time were super grandmasters in my eyes. Lasker was a player of knowledge,intelligent and intuition.People say this and that based on computers analysis.I don't see anyone of the actual players that I can compare to Lasker.There is saying which says: "Don't speak before you think" If you can not think,you better say nothing. |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
sac: 34.Rhg1
