|Jun-14-04|| ||Gypsy: A grand attack by the old man! Steinitz 21-st and 27-th moves are the tactical centerpieces of his play. |
|Aug-31-04|| ||lao tzu: u know when u hate to see a certain master lose?
i hate to play over laskers losses...except when theyre administered by steinitz
|Apr-09-05|| ||ksadler: A beautiful well-articulated attack by Steinitz! |
|Mar-17-06|| ||tamar: Black will not be too bad off if he could get his bishop to e5 before f6 comes in and then play Nc5-e6 when f6 and mate threats against g7 start.|
But Steinitz had a plan against that too.
if 22...e4 23 dxe4 Be5
(the idea, making a place for the bishop)
24 Be3! forcing the knight to make a decision while the pawn is still on f5.
click for larger view
24...Nd7 25 Qxh5 and the attack wins.
|Nov-20-06|| ||Honza Cervenka: 16...hxg5 is bad for 17.hxg5 Nh7 18.Nf5! (covering Pg5 by Bishop c1) 18...gxf5 19.Qh3 Nxg5 (19...Rfe8 20.Qxh7+ Kf8 21.g6 ) 20.Bxg5 Rfe8 21.Qh7+ Kf8 22.Bf6! (see diagram) with mate in next move.|
click for larger view
Also 17...hxg5? 18.hxg5 Nh7 19.Ng2 with threat 20.Qh3 would have been bad for black.
Impressive game of Steinitz.
|Jan-08-08|| ||keypusher: Now here is a mystery: never again in this match or the 1896 rematch did Steinitz play the Ruy Lopez as White.|
|Feb-29-08|| ||Knight13: <keypusher: Now here is a mystery: never again in this match or the 1896 rematch did Steinitz play the Ruy Lopez as White.> Now that's something we'll never understand.|
|May-12-09|| ||ToTheDeath: Impressive concept of Steinitz- holding the e4 strong point and attacking on the wing but Lasker's play was uninspired- 13...Nh5 heading to f4 was better, as was 22...Bh8! 23.f6 Ng6 and White cannot penetrate with g6 while Black prepares counterplay with ...e4. The bold 25...Bxd3! 26. Bxd3 Rxd3! 27.Nxd3 e4 may even hold.|
|Nov-24-09|| ||oao2102: <ToTheDeath> I agree. 25...e4? appears to lose the game. 25...Bxd3!|
|Nov-24-09|| ||WhiteRook48: steinitz was a bulldog here|
|Mar-13-10|| ||kibitzwc: (1751) Steinitz,William - Lasker,Emanuel [C65]
World Championship 5th USA/CAN (2), 19.03.1894
[Fritz 12 (5m)]
C65: Ruy Lopez: Berlin Defence (3...Nf6), unusual lines and 4 0–0 Bc5 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 d6 5.c3 Bd7 6.Ba4 g6 7.Nbd2 Bg7 8.Nc4 0–0 9.Ne3 Ne7 10.Bb3 c6 11.h4 Qc7 12.Ng5 d5 13.f3 Rad8 14.g4 dxe4 15.fxe4 last book move 15...h6 16.Qf3 Be8 [16...Qd6 17.Nxf7 Rxf7 18.Bxf7+ Kxf7 19.Nc4 ] 17.Bc2 Nd7 [17...hxg5 18.hxg5 Nh7 19.Ng2 ] 18.Nh3 Nc5 19.Nf2 b5 [19...Qd7 20.Qg3 f6 21.h5²] 20.g5 [20.Bd2!? Bd7 21.h5=] 20...h5µ 21.Nf5 gxf5 22.exf5 f6?? [¹22...e4 23.Nxe4 Nxe4 24.dxe4 Ng6µ] 23.g6² Nxg6 24.fxg6 Bxg6 d3 draws heavy fire 25.Rg1 e4?? [¹25...Bxd3 26.Bxd3 Rxd3 27.Nxd3 e4 28.Qxh5 Nxd3+ 29.Kf1 Rf7²] 26.dxe4± Kh7?? [¹26...Qf7±] 27.Rxg6! Kxg6 28.Qf5+ Kf7 29.Qxh5+ Kg8 30.Qxc5 Qe5 [30...f5 31.Bd2 b4 32.0–0–0 bxc3 33.bxc3 ] 31.Be3 a6 32.a4 Rfe8 33.axb5 axb5 34.Qxe5 [34.Qxc6 b4 35.Qc4+ Kh8 36.Qxb4 Qh5 ] 34...Rxe5 [34...fxe5 35.Ra6 Rd6 36.Bb3+ Kh8 37.Nh3 ] 35.Ra6 Rc8 [35...Rh5 36.Rxc6 Rxh4 37.e5 ] 36.Ng4 Re7 37.Bc5 Ree8 38.Ne3 Bf8 39.Bd4 Kf7 [39...Bd6 40.Bxf6 Be7 41.Bxe7 Rxe7 42.Nf5 ] 40.h5 Be7 [40...Rc7 ] 41.Bb3+ Kf8 42.Nf5 [42.Nf5 Ra8 43.Rxc6 Ra1+ 44.Ke2 ] 1–0
|May-21-10|| ||MagnusKandinsky: 7.Nbd2...White has a solid centre which allowed Stenintiz to storm on the kingside. This would not have happened if this foundation wasn't laid. Good reason for why to focus and control the Centre|
|May-21-10|| ||MagnusKandinsky: 12.Ng5 played solely to defend e4 by freeing up f3. f7 and h7 are secondary points|
|Jan-18-11|| ||Llawdogg: 27 Rxg6! is a fantastic move. Steinitz is amazing. Even in his later years he still had brilliant moves left in him.|
|Jul-26-13|| ||ughaibu: How about 19...Ne6?|
|Jul-26-13|| ||beatgiant: <ughaibu>
At first glance, 19...Ne6 20. Nf5 looks strong.
|Jul-26-13|| ||ughaibu: Right, but less so than in the game. I was thinking of something like 20.Nf5 gf5, 21.gf5 Nf4, 22.f6 Bf6, 23.d4 Ng6, etc.|
|Jul-26-13|| ||beatgiant: <ughaibu> You're right. But, what if instead White plays similarly to the game, 19...Ne6 20. h5.|
|Jul-26-13|| ||ughaibu: In that case, how about 20...Ng5, 21.Qg3 f5?|
|Jul-27-13|| ||beatgiant: <ughaibu>
Sorry for the typo, I meant <20. g5> but <20. h5> is interesting too.
On 19...Ne6 20. g5, Black could try to grab the g-pawn with 20...hxg5 21. hxg5 Nxg5 22. Qg3, but White's attack looks too strong. Otherwise 20...h5 21. Nf5 is similar to the actual game.
As for 19...Ne6 <20. h5> Ng5 <21. Qg2> f5 22. hxg6 fxe4 23. Bb3+ Kh8 24. Nxe4 Nf3+ 25. Ke2. I don't see where Black goes from there.
|Jul-27-13|| ||ughaibu: Okay, but my aim is nothing more ambitious than to improve on Lasker's play(!), I'm not insisting on winning. In reply to g5, I think black should try an immediate f5. And in your second line, instead of Nf3, black can exchange knights followed by Bg6.|
|Apr-30-14|| ||zanzibar: Black's 30th move (30...Qe5) was sealed, and the game adjourned. |
White: 1hr 42m, Black: 1hr 35min
At game end,
White: 2hr 10m, Black: 2hr 5min
Source: New York Daily Tribune, 1894.03.20 (O'Keefe)
|Mar-02-15|| ||Smite: This game was worth the study and quite instructive.|
|Mar-02-15|| ||Smite: Pun: Will I AM|
|Aug-27-18|| ||EmanuelLasker: 21.Neg4!! would have been a brilliant continuation of the attack.|