|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Oct-30-05 |
| hintza: <juha> <Calling someone "aj trollsby" isn't that bad. It's actually quite clever.> Well, if you were under 6 years old it would be quite an achievement :) |
 |
| Oct-30-05 |
| psmith: <sharpnova> would you care to enlighten those of us who are too dim to see the "forced draw" after 28. f5? |
|
Oct-30-05
 |
| Calli: There is a controversy about the score of this game. Unbelievable for a WC, but several reliable sources give 25.Qf2 f6 26.Bh4 Bf7 27.g4 Qd5 28.Qc2 h5 29.g5 fxg5 30.Bxg5 h4 31.Rf1 Rg8 32.Qd2 a5 33.a4 Re8 34.f5 Rg8 0-1. For more on this see http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... |
|
Oct-30-05
 |
| patzer2: <sharpnova: <patzer2>
your first point is not a piece of the definition or requirements for zugzwang. only the 2nd point.>
Actually, both points logically follow from standard authoritative definitions of the term such as IM Silman's definition of <Zugzwang: “Compulsion to move.” A German term referring to a situation in which a player would like to do nothing (pass), since any move will damage his game.> Reinfeld in defining Zugzwang in his popular Book "1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations" went on to state that it <refers to a position in which a player is not menaced, but which results in loss for him as soon as he makes a move...This, then is the underlying idea of Zugzwang: having to move, which is supposed to be an asset and a blessing, becomes a liability and a curse.> So if one is in a position where they are "not menanced" except for having to make a forced move, and where the player would like to do nothing and pass" then point 1 logically follows that <the position would be secure (i.e. not menanced) for the player in zugzwang if they could break the rules and forego having to make their next move (i.e. do nothing and pass).> |
|
Oct-30-05
 |
| LIFE Master AJ: I already covered the fact that many different sources all give a different game score for this contest. (For more info, see my web page ... quoted above.) |
|
Oct-30-05
|
| patzer2: <LIFE Master AJ> Enjoyed your annotations of the game. It's obvious you put a great deal of thought, energy and effort into insuring the accuracy and completeness of your analysis. IMO your's is one of the very best Chess sites on the web. Keep up the good work. |
|
Oct-30-05
|
| LIFE Master AJ: <patzer2> thanks! (A Bunch!!) Did you find it amazing - as <Calli> (also) pointed out ... that many different sources ... gave a conflicting version of the game? Sort of weird, actually. (You would think that a World Championship game ... everyone would at least know the correct score!) |
|
Oct-30-05
|
| patzer2: <LIFE MASTER AJ> I believe is correct in his analysis at the link given that the decisive mistake was 33. a4? and not 34. f5 as I previously indicated. After 33. a4? the position was already on the verge of being hopelessly lost. White's only chance there, apparently, was to keep shifting the Queen along the second rank (i.e. d2 and f2) while waiting for Black to crack open the position. It takes patience to hold a position and wait for your opponent to commit before countering, and apparently Lasker realized that impatience (e.g. 33. a4? and 34. f5) was something he could take advantage of against Steinitz. As AJ asserts, Lasker was a great player, whose strength of play is not universally appreciated or understood. Sometimes I wonder if subsequent world Champions who criticized his play were jealous of two of Lasker greatest attributes -- an advanced education (Doctorial Degree) and a full time profession (Math Professor) and family life outside of Chess. Or in some cases were antisemites, who could not stomach the fact that a Jew was one of the longest standing and greatest Chess champions ever. |
|
Oct-30-05
|
| patzer2: <LIFE MASTER AJ> Seems that I read somewhere that it was not uncommon in those days to doctor up score sheets to make published games more entertaining? Lasker not being primarily interested in Chess as a Profession may not have kept all his score sheets. And Steinitz may have had much incentive to keep an accurate losing game score. Of course that's just pure speculation on my part, but it does make for a fascinating perspective on Chess history. |
|
Oct-31-05
|
| LIFE Master AJ: <patzer2>
You have, I believe, hit the nail on the head. <"Lasker not being primarily interested in Chess as a Profession may not have kept all his score sheets. And Steinitz may (not) have had much incentive to keep an accurate losing game score."> Of course the other BIG piece of this puzzle is that for so long the English-speaking world kept score in a different kind of notation. The conversion between these two systems is - in my own opinion - responsible for many of the errors (that still exist today) in the modern (games) database. |
|
| Nov-01-05 |
| Norman Glaides: <Happy Puppet> Isn't Happy Puppet Syndrome another name for Angelman's? |
|
Nov-01-05
|
| LIFE Master AJ: <patzer2>
<"Sometimes I wonder if subsequent world Champions who criticized his play were jealous of two of Lasker greatest attributes -- an advanced education (Doctorial Degree) and a full time profession (Math Professor) and family life outside of Chess. Or in some cases were antisemites, who could not stomach the fact that a Jew was one of the longest standing and greatest Chess champions ever."> I have often wondered why Lasker is not more appreciated today. In many ways - his willingness to fight, his accuracy, his ability to exploit the psyche of his opponent and give them exactly the kind of game that they weren't expecting or did not desire - Lasker can be seen as an early prototype of the players today. (Notably Garry Kasparov.) |
|
Apr-27-06
|
| LIFE Master AJ: http://www.angelfire.com/games4/lif... New data. This game is annotated by GM Andrew Soltis in his book. ("Why Lasker Matters," game # 25 page # 87.) Comparing our notes ...
several sources give no comment after White's 33rd move, Maroczy's comment can be interpreted that he thought the move was forced. I think I was the first to question this move, Soltis (also) gives it a question mark. By the way, I found this game in several different sources, I now even have a reprint of the original book on this match. |
|
| Apr-27-06 |
| blingice: <LIFE Master AJ: I have often wondered why Lasker is not more appreciated today.> Not to be controversial, but what do you want by way of people noticing him? I think that 27 kibitzing pages and several books written about a person who lived in the 1800s is pretty well noticed. |
|
| Jun-15-07 |
| New Kasparov: 8.. d5! should be played |
|
| Jul-04-07 |
| sanyas: <New Kasparov> erm, may I ask what is supposed to happen after 9. xd5? |
|
| Aug-21-07 |
| sanyas: Unless you mean 9.d5, the Moller Attack, which has been pretty much analyzed out to a draw. Which is why nobody plays 7.Nc3 anymore. |
|
Dec-22-07
 |
| whiteshark: <19.Qh5> is the only move that keeps the position in balance.
click for larger view |
|
Jan-05-08
 |
| Chessical: <Whiteshark> 19.Qh5 seems an interesting alternative to the pawn capture played, 19...Bd5 (19...Rg7 20.Bxg5 Rdg8 21.g3 Qd7) 20.Qxh7 Bxg2 21.Rxg5 Rxg5 22.Bxg5 Rd7 with an unclear position. Soltis, however, gives Steinitz's 19th move a "!" in "Why Lasker Matters" p.88, but also states that "<19.f3> was a serious alternative". He gives no analysis, but <19.f3> 20.fxg4 Rxg4 21.g3 Rd5 seems safe enough for Black. Soltis believes that <28.Qf2> made Steinitz's game be more difficult that it should. He instead recommends <28.f5> Rg8 29.Bxf6 Qf3 30.Be5 h5 31.Qe2 hxg4 (31...Qxc3? 32.d5) 32.hxg4 Rh8+ (or 32...Qd5!? 33.Rg1) 33.Bxh8 Qf4+ 34.Kh3 Bf3 35.Qf2 Qxg4+ 36.Kh2 Qh5+ = |
|
Mar-01-08
 |
| Knight13: That queen on d5 and bishop on c6 created a dead aim. |
|
Jan-22-09
 |
| FSR: This is the REAL "Immortal Zugzwang Game." Unlike in Saemisch-Nimzowitsch, after Black's "Zugzwanging" move, here 34...Rg8!!, White has absolutely no moves that don't immediately lose. |
|
| Apr-27-09 |
| fref: 7.Bd2 should be better than 7.Nc3. |
|
| May-03-09 |
| ScorpionInstinct: 28. f5 is the continuation in witch Black will have to find the right plan witch is far from easy in order to hold a draw as White can make queens.
But 28. f5 and later it allows Black to open the h-file so Steinitz thought it would be not wise to grab f6 pawn and open another file so he believed he had better chances of survival with the text move.
Anyway the all opening is hard for White without preparation. |
|
May-24-09
 |
| Boomie: <Marco65: <jahhaj> I examined Chekhover vs I Pogrebissky, 1940 where after 11...f5 12.Nd2 Be6 13.Nxe4 fxe4 14.Rxe4 Qd5 15.Qg4 Black could have played 15...Kf7, but thinking it over I think White wins with 16.Qf3+ Kg8 (or Bf5) 17.Rae1> In fact, 11...f5 appears stronger than 11...Be6. In <Marco65>'s post, 14...Qd7 refutes white's attack. The queen is needed on d7 to defend e8. After 11...f5 12.Nd2 Be6 13.Nxe4 fxe4 14.Rxe4 Qd7 15. d5 0-0-0 16. Rxe6 Qxd5, black has the edge.
click for larger viewAll this seems to mean that 10. Ba3 is not good. Lasker's 11...Be6 also leads to a black advantage, albeit smaller than 11...f5. |
|
Jul-30-09
|
| LIFE Master AJ: < <FSR> Your comments ...
<"This is the REAL "Immortal Zugzwang Game." Unlike in Saemisch-Nimzowitsch, after Black's "Zugzwanging" move, here 34...Rg8!!, White has absolutely no moves that don't immediately lose.">
.. ... ....
are right on!> |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
