Siegbert Tarrasch vs Emanuel Lasker (1908) The Lask Act

Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players ·

Kibitzing

Siegbert Tarrasch vs Emanuel Lasker
"The Lask Act" (game of the day May-31-2021)
Lasker - Tarrasch World Championship Match (1908), Duesseldorf GER, rd 2, Aug-19
Spanish Game: Berlin Defense. Hedgehog Variation (C66) · 0-1

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

Given 25 times; par: 54 [what's this?]

explore this opening	find similar games	29 more Tarrasch/Lasker games
	PGN: download \| view \| print	Help: general \| java-troubleshooting

TIP: Olga is our default viewer, but we offer other choices as well. You can use a different viewer by selecting it from the pulldown menu below and pressing the "Set" button.

For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.

PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE OF THIS GAME IS AVAILABLE. [CLICK HERE]

< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 7 · Later Kibitzing>
Dec-06-02		ughaibu: This is one of my favourite Lasker games. I've never heard Lasker denied that 14. Ng4 was a blunder, as he anotated games from this match I think he probably claimed it was a blunder, but in Hannak's book the anotator presents it as a sacrifice disguised as a blunder. The way Lasker takes control in the subsequent play is extraordinary.

Mar-31-03		ughaibu: It turns out that Lasker described Ng4 as "unsatisfactory". I dont understand Tarrasch's 21.Rd1, instead, pushing the a-pawn looks sensible to me.

Mar-31-03		Calli: A great game and a fantastic psychological ploy by Lasker. He knew Tarrasch could not resist snatching the pawn immediately. White should play 16. Qd4! Ng4 17.Nf5 Preserves the bishop and the attack.

Feb-08-04		ughaibu: Lasker's 14th move is claimed as an example of his psychological approach. Apart from that he has a difficult position and I dont see any sensible active alternative. The move may be "unsatisfactory" but what satisfactory move is there? I dont remember seeing any alternative proposed in discussions of this move.

Feb-08-04		WhoKeres: This game features a similar strategical question to Nimzowitsch-Capablanca, St. Petersburg 1914. Nimzo snatched the a-pawn as well, and was similarly crushed by pressure on the e-file. I believe this game is the one that Tarrasch said he was "thoroughly ashamed of!"

Feb-08-04		ughaibu: WhoKeres: I'd say the Nimzowitsch-Capablanca, St. Petersburg 1914 game is much more conventional as initially the rooks press down the resultant open files on the queenside (as in a Benko gambit).

Feb-08-04		Calli: <ughaibu> Black has defensive moves like Qe6, followed by Bf8 and maybe d5. Lasker instead puts Tarrasch in a messy position where he has a chance to go wrong. Of course, Black risks a loss as well.

Feb-09-04		ughaibu: Calli: What would you choose?

Feb-09-04		Calli: Qe6 because I would not see Black's compensation in the other line. The other theory about Lasker's questionable moves is that they are not really psychological but actually a weakness. That he had problems in certain transitional phases of the game.

Feb-09-04		ughaibu: Calli: Can you post examples of these. It's difficult to understand how Lasker could have been so successfull if he was constantly saddling himself with inferior positions.

Feb-09-04		Calli: See my collection of "Lasker's Great Escapes"

Feb-09-04		ughaibu: Eight games in a 45 year career doesn't really illustrate a tendency, though they do demonstrate his strength and resourcefullness. This one might qualify for inclusion: Lasker vs Dus Chotimirsky, 1925

Feb-09-04		Calli: LOL You want more than eight examples? I don't have that much time! I don't really "get" the Dus-Chotmirsky game. Was Lasker actually lost in that one? Maybe I should post in that game. Anyway, it doesn't actually fit the profile I thinking of.

Mar-30-05		bernieno: I am getting pretty tired of all the talk about Lasker's "psycological" play. Of course that is an aspect of his play, and I guess it was not in Lasker's own interest to play down that aspect. He probably benefited from the rumours about his "psycological warfare". But if we look closely at his games we will see that he very often comes up on top when the games get complicated. That made it possible for him to turn around inferior positions. Regarding this game, I have let Tiger analyze the position after 16. Qd4 for several minutes. It gives a clear advantage for white, but so does the continuation in the actal game! The point is that Lasker's superb concentration and fighting spirit made it possible to turn the game.

Mar-30-05		Aron Landau: "Calli: LOL" My God,! What does "LOL" mean? Aron Landau

Mar-30-05		ughaibu: "LOL" mean 'Lasker's obscure lapse'.

Mar-30-05		iron maiden: LOL ughaibu. <Aron Landau> It actually means "Laughed Out Loud."

Jun-02-05		Aron Landau: Aron Landau: "Calli: LOL" My God,! What does "LOL" mean? Aron Landau iron maiden: LOL ughaibu. <Aron Landau> It actually means "Laughed Out Loud." Iron Maiden: Sorry for my (very)late response, but thank you for your explanation! I am not so familiar with this kind of "New Speak" Aron.

Jun-02-05		aw1988: ughaibu, that was hilarious.

Jun-17-05		ksadler: What a horrible collapse by Tarrasch. First to go from a strong advantage and allow an obviously great Lasker to storm back and then finally to build up the position that finally led up to the crushing 40. .. f3!. Great fight by Lasker!

Jul-31-05		lentil: ir there a collection of dus chotmirsky's games? i've done a searc by come up empty.

Jul-31-05		lentil: Tarrasch made a couple of obvious strategic errors... for example 23.Ng3, freeing Black's bishop. I think he should have sent the passed apawn down immediately.

Jul-31-05		The beginner: Acording to fritz 8 Tarrach's 27 Rd3, and 28 Re2 are both really horibel moves. Better would have been 27 Nf5, with the idea to trade on e3 after 27 Nf5 ..d4 28 Nxe3 ..dxe3 29 Kg1

Jul-31-05		OhioChessFan: White's failure to take the black square bishop is a horrible mistake. The knight does nothing the rest of the game while the Bishop is a thorn in the King side defense.

Aug-19-06		whatthefat: To my eyes at least, 19.Qxa7 looks like insanity. It's of course said with the benefit of hindsight though.

Jump to page # (enter # from 1 to 7)
search thread:
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 7 · Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
No trolling.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.