|Feb-13-04|| ||ughaibu: Another refutation of the Lopez. |
|Feb-13-04|| ||Catfriend: What's the refutation of this "refutation"? <refutor>, can you say something?|
|Feb-24-04|| ||refutor: maybe capablanca's 15.Be3 was better? Capablanca vs Edward Lasker, 1915 |
|Dec-09-04|| ||JohnBoy: Why did white resign? Is the ensuing pawn down endgame so badly lost that it merits immediate resignation? |
|Dec-09-04|| ||Gregor Samsa Mendel: I think that black's strategy would be to play 30...a4 and make white give up knight for the a-pawn. I'm too tired to bother looking into this further. |
|Dec-09-04|| ||drukenknight: does he have to sack the R on that, can soemthing like: 11 Bg5? |
|Dec-11-04|| ||JohnBoy: <drunken> - Your suggestion certainly looks playable, but 11...Qg5 12.Kh2 0-0 looks decent for black. What I'm thinking of is stuff like 13.Na5 Qh4+ 14.Kg1 Nf2, and there is much to which white must pay attention. |
|Dec-12-04|| ||drukenknight: that B move is very common whenever I get my Q to h4 in like Budapest gambit, been burned by that too many times. |
please use "x" to denote capture, you are going to drive me up a wall..
|Mar-15-05|| ||Caissanist: Well, white didn't resign exactly. Here is how it ended, according to Edward Lasker ("Mr Rosenwald" is Julius Rosenwald, then president of Sears Roebuck, in whose house the game was played): |
Only now did Sammy realize that he was lost, because he could not stop the forward march of my Pawn. He studied the position for a long time, giving me an occasional angry glance. As he showed no intention of making another move, I suggested that we abandon the game, and I rose from my chair. Sammy let Mr. Rosenwald take him on his lap, where he remained without saying a word. He was really furious at me and would not give me his little hand to say good-bye.
|Apr-28-05|| ||cuendillar: <drukenknight> 11.Bg5 is refuted at M Vallet vs J Lebon, 2001|
|Apr-28-05|| ||drukenknight: well I dont see your analysis at the website you linked to in that game. Can you just post the line?|
|Apr-28-05|| ||hintza: <drukenknight> Think I've managed to track it down. Have a look here: http://www.chess.ac/modules.php?nam...|
|Apr-28-05|| ||drukenknight: gawd; it is giving me a headache already. To come to think of it; if I had to go sacking in the SPanish I'd rather do something Tal invented....|
DId you ever try to do that Bishop sack on e6 in the CaroKann? ANd you think you are like Tal because the game looks like Tal v Botvinnik 1960...?
Then black counters with a massive counterattack down the g file. Have you ever been on the end of that one?
usually you've got pawns on g2/h3; your K is on g1; He's got like ten rooks lined up on the g file...Its horrible.
|Aug-07-05|| ||who: This game really is a bummer. It sort of does run a dent in the whole Ruy Lopez. By the way 29.Kf4 and Reshevsky would have drawn, but I guess he got his revenge on the other lasker Lasker vs Reshevsky, 1936.|
|Aug-25-05|| ||who: <hintza> I can't figure out how to view the analysis, but at the highest level of correspondance chess V Palciauskas vs Berliner, 2003 it seems there is no draw with 8.Bg5|
|Dec-03-06|| ||who: I don't have Fritz here, but wouldn't 16...Kf8 allow black to trap the bishop. I actually played exactly that line this morning - and won.|
|Dec-03-06|| ||Pawn and Two: <who> I assume you mean 16...Kc8. It looks like you can win a Knight, not the Bishop. After 16...Kc8, Fritz 9 gives the following continuation: 17.a3 c5 18.Nxe4 b5 19.Nd6+ Kc7 20.Nxb5+ axb5 21.Bxb5. Fritz now shows just a very small advantage for Black, (-.13) (17 ply), and suggests the continuation: 21...h6 22.Be3.|
|Dec-03-06|| ||Pawn and Two: At move 20, White should retain his Bishop and play 20.Rxd8 Rxd8 21.Nxe4. Fritz evaluates this position to be in favor of White (.83) (16 ply).|
|Dec-03-06|| ||Pawn and Two: Instead of 22.Nxe4?, White should play 22.b4. After 22.b4 b5 23.Bxb5 axb5 24.Nxb5, Fritz shows White with some advantage, (.50) (19 ply).|
|Dec-04-06|| ||Pawn and Two: <who: By the way 29.Kf4 and Reshevsky would have drawn> Can you show a drawing line for White? With the combined weakness of White's queenside pawns and the potential of Black obtaining a passed pawn on the kingside, Fritz 9 shows this position to be lost for White.|
After 29.Kf4 Kb5 30.Ke3 Be6 31.c4+ Kb4 32.Kd4, Fritz now shows an evaluation of (-2.18) (25 ply) and provides the following continuation: 32...h5 33.Nc5 Bc8 34.Kd5 h4 35.f3 g5 36.Kc6 f5 37.Kb6 g4 38.fxg4 fxg4 39.Nd3+ and White's position is lost.
|Dec-04-06|| ||who: you are correct about 29.Kf4|
|Mar-01-07|| ||jtd200: 15.Nc3 has to be the error, as white should be able to save his bishop pair, but not after the text move.|
|Apr-25-10|| ||YoungEd: If White plays 10. ♔xh2, then Black has an easy perpetual check with 10. ...♕h4+, 11. ♔g1 ♕xf2+ 12. ♔h2 ♕h4+, etc. But does Black have anything more than that?|
|Apr-27-10|| ||tonsillolith: Why not 14...f5 15. Bg5#?|
|Jan-08-13|| ||Caissanist: Lasker, in <Chess Secrets I Learned from the Masters>, concurs that 15.Nc3 was a crucial mistake. Although he played it in this game, he didn't really consider the Riga to be sound, saying that the line of played Capablanca followed in Capablanca vs Ed Lasker, 1915 "probably refutes Black's opening altogether."|