|Jan-07-05|| ||iron maiden: This final-round game was a vital one for both players. Going into the final round Lasker was eager to avenge his defeat a year earlier at Hastings. On the other hand, Tarrasch was trailing Lasker by only a half-point, and a victory would have given him clear first place.|
Incidentally, this is the last time these two met over the board until their championship match twelve years later.
|Jan-07-05|| ||Calli: <IM> My DB puts this game in the next to last round. It did clinch the tournament for Lasker. He went on to lose in the last round to Charousek.|
After 20.fxe5! , then of course if 20...gxh5?? 21.Rxf6+ Ke7 22.Rg7 is mate
|Jan-07-05|| ||iron maiden: <Calli> I stand corrected. My annotations read, "18th and final round," but apparently they overlooked the fact that, with an odd number of competitors, everyone would have to have a bye. |
|Jan-07-05|| ||fred lennox: This game shows that knight on the rim is dim, at least dimmer than one on the 4th, 5th and 6th rank. |
|May-25-05|| ||like a GM: I can't believe Fischer thought Lasker was a coffee house player and regarding Tarrasch he said: "Razor-sharp, he always followed his own rules. In spite of devotion to his own supposedly scientific method, his play was often witty and bright." Is it because Lasker was a Jew?|
|May-25-05|| ||paladin at large: <like a GM> That's astounding - I was not aware Fischer was down on Lasker. An attractive game, which could have been played by Capablanca, it shows as much as anything Lasker's faith in centralization. <fred lennox> is right.|
|May-25-05|| ||keypusher: Tarrasch was Jewish too. "Razor-sharp, he always followed his own rules. In spite of devotion to his own supposedly scientific method, his play was often witty and bright." That is a perfectly accurate description of Tarrasch's play (except for the part about always following his own rules). As for his description of Lasker, never underestimate Fischer's desire to create a sensation.|
|Oct-13-07|| ||keypusher: <On the other hand, Tarrasch was trailing Lasker by only a half-point, and a victory would have given him clear first place.>|
After 17 rounds, Lasker had 12 1/2 points. Tarrasch and Pillsbury both had 11, and Maroczy had 10 1/2. So, even if Lasker had lost, he still would have been in first place. As it was, in the eighteenth round Pillsbury lost and Maroczy won, so Lasker was two points ahead of the field going into the final round.
|Apr-11-09|| ||M.D. Wilson: Fischer's comments regarding Lasker shouldn't be taken seriously. He thought Lasker often played second best moves to obtain some sort of psychological advantage. I think it's true that Lasker sometimes allowed his opponents opportunities, but he had almost complete faith in his ability to grind out wins, or swindle wins from lost positions, mainly due to his endgame mastery and iron nerves. It sure worked for him, though.|
|Apr-17-09|| ||Chachaman: Tarrasch and Lasker were Jewish? All the good chess players are Jewish!|
The list goes on...
|Apr-17-09|| ||Marmot PFL: This is a very bad game by Tarrasch. He is outplayed positionally, then overlooks the loss of a pawn by a 2 move mate threat.
As for Fischer, he revived Lasker's weapon, the exchange Spanish, and used a quote from Lasker to introduce his 60 Memorable Games. Fischer also changed his mind about the King's Gambit, playing it several times after saying it was busted.|
|Aug-28-09|| ||whiteshark: Tarrasch's comment on 12...Qxe3 <Not good because it strengthens
White's center. But after 12...Qe7 Black could not have
castled Q side on account of Qa7, whereas castling K-side
would have been dangerous on account of the open g-file. Black
is paying the penalty of his mistake on the 9th move.> is a misjudgement.|
|Dec-12-11|| ||Llawdogg: I like that Tarrasch analyzed his loss and found his critical mistake (9 ... Bxf3) and suggested an improvement (f6).|