< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
|Jul-30-09|| ||WhiteRook48: Lasker played the Alekhine variation!|
|Aug-05-09|| ||LIFE Master AJ: This page moved quite some time ago, my apologies to all those who clicked on the old link and got the 404. |
The new URL is:
|Sep-12-09|| ||technical draw: Double rooks on the h-file. Thematic in the RLE.|
|Sep-12-09|| ||maxi: Thank you for the annotation postings, <AnalyzeThis>.|
|Dec-21-09|| ||mack: So... how many of you British kibitzers played your part in securing Rage Against the Machine Christmas no.1?|
|Jan-13-10|| ||RandomVisitor: After 10...Re8
click for larger view
Znosko-Borovsky, in The Middle Game in Chess, p. 105, claims that in the above position White has the advantage in space.
"with two centre-pawns in the fourth rank and two well-developed knights. Black's forces occupy the first three ranks, with little hope of enlarging their scope."
Znosko-Borovsky claims that 11.Nb3 is best for white.
"The explanation is that, with an advantage in space, it is less important to threaten the enemy than to prevent him from extricating himself from his cramped position and to deny him the possibility of making any threats himself."
Znosko-Borovsky analyzes the sequence 11.Nb3 f6 12.f5 b6 13.Bf4 Bb7 14.BxB pxB 15.Nd4 etc. and shows how white can gradually build positional pressure.
However, a computer program evaluates the diagrammed position as follows:
Analysis by Rybka 3: (25-ply)
1. [-0.37] 11.Kf2 f6 12.Nf3 Ng6 13.g3 b5 14.Re1 Bb7 15.a3 Rad8 16.Bd2 c5 17.Rad1 Rd7 18.Nd5 Ne7 19.Nc3 Nc6
2. [-0.42] 11.Rd1 Ng6 12.f5 Ne5 13.Bf4 f6 14.h3 g6 15.fxg6 hxg6 16.Rf1 Be6 17.Nf3 Bc5+ 18.Kh2 Bc4 19.Rfe1 Nxf3+ 20.gxf3 Bf2 21.Red1 Re7
3. [-0.43] 11.Nf3 Bc5+ 12.Kh1 f6 13.Bd2 b5 14.Rfe1 Bb7 15.a4 Rad8 16.e5 fxe5 17.fxe5 Bb6 18.Bg5 h6 19.Bxe7 Rxe7 20.h3 b4 21.Ne4 Bc8 22.a5 Ba7
4. [-0.45] 11.Nb3 b6 12.Bd2 f6 13.Rfe1 Bb7 14.Rad1 Rad8 15.Bc1 Ng6 16.g3 Bb4 17.Rxd8 Rxd8 18.Bd2 a5
5. [-0.46] 11.e5 Bb4 12.Ne4 Ba5 13.c4 Nf5 14.Nf3 Nd6 15.Ned2 Bb6+ 16.Kh1 Nf5 17.Ne4 Ne7 18.Re1 Bf5 19.b4 h6 20.c5 Ba7 21.a3 Nd5 22.Ng3
|Jan-14-10|| ||RandomVisitor: After 13....Bxf4 14. Rxf4 c5 15. Rd1 Bb7 16. Rf2?! there is: |
click for larger view
Rybka 3: <23-ply>
<1. [-0.71] 16...Nc6> 17.Re2 a5 18.Rd7 Rac8 19.Rd1 Ne5 20.Nd2 Rcd8 21.Ree1 Rd7 22.Nf1 Rxd1 23.Rxd1 Nc4 24.Ng3 Nd6 25.b3 Kf8 26.Kf2
2. [-0.42] 16...Rac8 17.a4 a5 18.Nc1 Nc6 19.N1e2 Re5 20.Rf4 Rce8 21.Rd2 R5e7 22.b3 Ne5 23.Nb5 Ba6 24.Nbc3 Bxe2
|Apr-17-10|| ||PinnedPiece: Score 67 par 74|
|May-26-10|| ||sisyphus: IM Bill Hartston annotated this in his "Kings of Chess." After 7.Nxd4 he writes|
<Needing victory at all costs, Lasker was expected to build up a tense and complex position, to try to lead his opponent astray in middle-game complications. So what does he do? Why, he exchanges Queens at the first opportunity. Such a decision makes no objective sense, but Lasker was never primarily an objective player. The rationale behind his choice of the apparently harmless opening variation lay in his deep knowledge of his opponent: Capablanca expects a complex middle-game, and there is no player in the world better at defusing complications. Instead of giving him an opportunity to demonstrate his defensive capabilities, Lasker by-passes the middlegame altogether. The result is a Queen-less position in which Black should play aggressively in order to utilise his two Bishops. White's advantage lies in any simple endgame in which his pawn formation, without the weakness of doubled pawns, may be a clear plus.>
|May-26-10|| ||keypusher: <sisyphus> Judging from the excerpts you have posted here and elsewhere, Mr. Hartson seems to be an absolute gusher (with apologies to BP) of received wisdom. But if Lasker's advantage lies in his better pawn formation, why does (i) undouble Capablanca's pawns (ii) saddle himself with a backward pawn? Re another of Hartson's comments, does this look like a <simple endgame> to you? And why does Capablanca have to play aggressively to utilize his two bishops? I thought the way it is supposed to work is that the bishops get stronger as the game becomes simpler?|
|May-26-10|| ||chancho: <For the first time the young Cuban, usually so cool and unperturbable, showed signs of nervousness and when he eventually tried his counter attack on the Queen's wing his game was already going to pieces. It was Capablanca's first defeat for many a year, and when he laid down his King and silently rose from his chair he was deadly pale.
Since the two Masters were not on speaking terms they did not shake hands, and Capablanca silently left the board; but now the pent-up excitement in the overcrowded hall relieved itself in a burst of cheering and applause that went on for minutes on end: a truly unheard of spectacle at a Chess tournament where usually even a whisper is frowned on.>|
Emanuel Lasker The Life of a Chess Master. pg 176.
|May-26-10|| ||sisyphus: <keypusher> Bill Hartston is a good writer! I don't expect original analysis from him; at least not in "Kings of Chess," which is a popular history.
My education on this famous game stems from March 2009, when one of my own games was selected by GM Lev Alburt for his column in "Chess Life." As he puts it, the 5.d4 variation of the Ruy Exchange is "not a bad choice for those who love endgames and hate theory!" |
One of the things I learned from his comments was Black should be prepared to give up the bishop pair if the pawns can be undoubled; Black can hardly push for more than a draw. For me at least, holding on to both bishops while forcing some pawn exchanges is easier said than done.
But the backward pawn ploy is a mystery to me. When I figure it out, I'm sure I'll be a better player. As a start, I'll quote Hartston quoting Capablanca after 12.f5.
<"It has been wrongly claimed that this wins the game, but I would like nothing better than to have such a position again. It required several mistakes on my part finally to obtain a lost position.">
Anyway, I was amused by your comments on Tarrasch vs Lasker, 1908, well documented. Trying to get into other people's heads is risky business, but the chance of doing so is why I won't bother playing computers.
|Jul-13-10|| ||Everett: Remarkable. Capablanca admits to multiple blunders in this game when he is rarely pushed to commit even one in a game over decades of chess. |
Lasker was a wizard indeed.
|Oct-15-10|| ||igiene: 35.e5
According to one account in a Russian newspaper, Capa literally sagged in
his chair. It was obvious that he had overlooked this move.
(And without this breakthrough, a win may NOT be possible.)
A question to LifemasterAj: is really useless to reply 35..c5?
|Oct-16-10|| ||redorc19: shouldn't black sac his rook for a knight and pawn???|
|Oct-18-10|| ||sevenseaman: I think 35. e5 is a pawn sac with a specific purpose i.e. to post his N on e4 in order to attack f6.|
Later on however, Capa lazily or over-confidently permits his R in exchange for the N, and the goalposts shift from f6 to e6.
A good hiding for Capa from the old master.
I hear Capa has penned some alibis for this loss but to me, it looks he was beaten fair and square.
|Sep-09-11|| ||lottoking: black pieces are forced to be blocked inside of his own little space due to white pawn aggressive pushing,and later rook move also wasted the time to open the lines.|
|Dec-08-11|| ||IoftheHungarianTiger: Due to the high tension of the tournament circumstances, the importance of the game, the unusually poor play by Capa - I find this game more impressive than many others which are far superior to it in terms of simple technical precision. |
In my opinion, this game represents chess at it's best - a struggle between two human minds - brilliant but also flawed - and the player who understands the human element of the game taking the victory.
|Mar-10-12|| ||mcgee: >>In my opinion, this game represents chess at it's best - a struggle between two human minds - brilliant but also flawed - and the player who understands the human element of the game taking the victory.<<|
I agree. Like the 3rd game of Fischer-Spassky 1972 and the 16th game of Karpov-Kasparov 1985, a huge high-profile game in the most tense of circumstances. Like both of those games it seems to be the defining moment in the victor's career when they can make a case for themselves as pre-eminent in the history of the game, not just one of the greatest.
And like both of the other games, it contains a move that is both a bold practical decision and the key to the whole game. In this case for Lasker, 10 f2-f4. For Fischer, 11...Nf6-h5. For Kasparov, 8....d7-d5. A holy (chess) trinity indeed.
|Mar-11-12|| ||JoergWalter: A worthy companion to this game is
Fischer vs Unzicker, 1970
<the sincerest form of flattery> for a <coffeehouse player>?
|Mar-11-12|| ||maxi: <JoergWalter> Yes. But Fischer's list is from 1964, when Fischer was not yet the seventies Fischer. I am sure by then he must had realized Lasker's greatness, although I have no evidence except perhaps this game. It may be worth it to look for Lasker's influence in the later-day Fischer. I am pretty sure it must be there.|
|Jun-12-12|| ||Anderssen99: No one can criticize Dr. Lasker for overlooking the following brilliant variation since the line he chose led to a forced win: 37.Rh6!!,Bc8. 38.Ra1,Rf7 (Black is tied up completely). 39.Nd6+,Ke7. 40.Nxc8+!!,Rxc8. 41.Ra7+,Ke8. 42.Rh8+,Rf8. 43.Rxf8 mate.|
|Jan-25-13|| ||Ulhumbrus: After 42 Nc5 White threatens 43 Rd7+ Ke8 44 Rxc8 mate as well as 43 Ne6+. 42...Nb6 only delays defeat as 43 Rb8 drives the knight away.|
|Jan-25-13|| ||JimNorCal: Along with all the great book recommendations included in this chain, let me add Edward Lasker's "Chess Secrets". It has a riveting account of this game. As I recall, EdLasker was not there in StP, but talked with the world champ when he returned to Berlin.|
|Jan-25-13|| ||andrewjsacks: This game stands, along with Sultan Khan's victory over Capa in 1930, as the most positionally impressive against the great Cuban genius.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·