< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Sep-16-05|| ||Boomie: OK. The server at http://mx2.lokasoft.com/uk/tbweb.htm only goes to 5. Where is one that goes to 6?|
|Sep-16-05|| ||aw1988: The actual nalimoves that you have to buy. Or you could download them. But it would be easier on a CD. They're even coming out with some 7-piece ones now.|
|Dec-31-05|| ||DanDman: Help me understand why, Why, WHY move 35 does not take the queen??? 35. fxe5????????????|
|Dec-31-05|| ||aw1988: Because of Ng3+.|
|Dec-31-05|| ||Pawn and Two: As already stated, this game was reviewed in detail by Edward Lasker in his book Chess Secrets. Edward provides even greater detail of this fascinating game in his book, Chess for Fun & Chess for Blood. He was of the opinion that his last chance to win the game was at move 72, by playing R-d7, keeping the Rook on the 7th rank. Alekhine's annotations in the New York 1924 tournament book also agree that 72. R-d7 was the last winning chance.|
However, during the game Edward and many other masters believed he was winning for many moves after move 72. In Chess for Fun & Chess for Blood, Edward states that when he played 90. R-g3, he had calculated this was the move that would win the game after all. He believed that he could now win as White would not be able to safely capture Black's Pawn.
He left the room at that moment to stretch a little and was congratulated upon for his victory by Bogoljubov, Reti and Alekhine who were in the Press room. However, as Edward relates, when he returned to the table a rude shock awaited him. In a few more moves, Emanuel Lasker demonstrated that he had found a way to draw by not capturing the Pawn!
|Jan-01-06|| ||DanDman: ok, so, I am still a rookie. missed that|
|Jun-08-06|| ||whatthefat: This game is quite a feast.|
|Apr-15-07|| ||plang: This is a great game. Dvoretsky did a 2 part column for Chess Cafe on this game with outstanding analysis. He pointed out several errors in Alekhines annotations. Alekhine did a great service providing commentary on all the games played in this great tournament but it is not surprising that he made some oversights. Kasparov included analysis of the endgame in volume I of MGP and Dvoretsky points out a number of flaws in his analysis. In fact, it is hard to believe that the analysis is actually by Kasparov. Alekhine's conclusion is that the pawn sacrifice 15..Nh5 is not correct. Dvoretsky does not agree with this and shows that black gets quite a bit of counterplay. 30..Ba3 was a time pressure error that wasted a few tempos. Alekhine concluded that the alternative 30..Ne4 31 fe..Re4 32 Rc8 was not sound for black but Dvoretsky showed that after 32..Re8! is close to winning for black. After black misses this the complications that follow net white 2 knights for a rook. Dvoretsky showed that 43 Qa6..Ra8 44 Qg6..Ra3 45 Ng4 would have given white a powerful attack. After he misses this opportunity he loses much of his advantage. White, pushing too hard for the win plays a faulty piece sacrifice 51 Nh6+ (though he still had a chance for a perpetual with 55 Qb6+)which leads to a better endgame for black. 67..Qd6 followed by 68..Rd1 would have kept the queens on and led to a winning attack for black. Alekhine, Averbakh and Dvoretsky agreed that 72..Rd7 would have led to a win for black though this was difficult to foresee at the time. Lasker's (Em) play in saving the endgame; particularly with 77 a6 and 78 a7 is close to impeccable.|
|Apr-02-08|| ||Banoboy: I have played this defence as Black, but most of my opponents have found that 15.Ne3 is better than Lasker's 15.Re2 or Alekhine's suggestion 15.Bd3.|
|Apr-02-08|| ||old coot: <boomie>http://www.k4it.de/index.php?topic=... goes to six pieces and is free|
|May-05-08|| ||CharlesSullivan: Two points about this ending.
(1)Perhaps interesting is that Dvoretsky and I corresponded about his article at ChessCafe. I pointed out that Ed Lasker still had a win later than previous analysts had supposed: 78...Ra8! One sample continuation is 79.Nd1 Rxa7 80.g5 Re7+ 81.Kf3 Kd4 82.g6 Rg7 83.f5 Ke5 84.Kg4 Rd7 85.Nb2 Kf6 86.Kf4 b3 87.Ke4 Rd2 88.Nc4 Rc2 89.Na3 b2 90.Nxc2 b1=Q and the rest is easy. Kasparov also suggested 78...Ra8 in his book, but he gave a flawed variation, as Dvoretsky found. If you have a moderately fast computer and good software (Zappa Mexico, for example), you can verify that 78...Ra8 forces mate in about 45 moves, if you have several hours! I sent Dvoretsky a very detailed analysis and he said he was going to have to revise the book he was just finishing which included this very game.
(2) Therefore, Emanuel Lasker must have committed an error somewhere between moves 73 and 78, since everyone agrees that after 72...Rh8 Black had thrown away the victory. Here Alekhine was on the verge of getting it right: he couldn't see a win for Black after 75.Kc3, but he wasn't sure, so he decided that White's actual move, 75.Ke4, "which leads to a clear drawing position ... is more convincing." But 75.Ke4 is a blunder (since 78...Ra8 wins), so 75.Kc3! is the correct move: 75...Kd6 76.Kd4 Ke6+ 77.Ke4 Kf7 78.Nd5 Rc8 79.Ke5 Rc4 80.Kd6 Kg7 81.g5 Kg6 82.Ne7+ Kf7 83.Nd5 Kg6 84.Ne7+ is one of the drawing variations.
|Jan-25-09|| ||WhiteRook48: nice 103-move long game|
|Feb-16-09|| ||WhiteRook48: Black cannot win despite being up the exchange and a pawn?? (well temporarily)|
|Jun-11-09|| ||WhiteRook48: ?? what of 40...g6?|
|Sep-12-09|| ||WhiteRook48: 65 Nd5! should do it|
|Sep-17-09|| ||DrGridlock: Much attention has been given to the ending in this 103 move game where Emanuel Lasker hangs on for a draw with a knight and two pawns against a rook and a pawn. However, there is also interest in the opening and middle game.|
The game appears to turn on black's (Edward Lasker) move 30. After White's (Emanuel Lasker)move 30 Ne3 Alekhine writes,
"Now the threat is Rd1, followed by driving the bishop off the e1-a5 diagonal, with the gain of a piece, while the counter-combination of 30 ... Nxe4 31 fxe4 Rxe4 would be neutralized by means of 32 Rc8. Being of the opinion that he has discovered a hidden defense, Black surprises the adversary by forcing him to execute his threat at once. In the end, however, he is doomed to disappointment."
In a later note (in 1961), Edward Lasker adds,
"Alekhine overlooked that Rc8 fails against Re8. The flag on Ed. Lasker's clock was about to fall and, forced to move immediately, he did not risk the sacrifice. It would have won the game."
Rybka agrees with Lasker, that Nxe4 was better, though perhaps not by enough to have won the game.
Analysis by Rybka gives:
Analysis by Rybka 2.2n2 mp 32-bit : (20 moves)
1. = (-0.20): 1...Nxe4 2.Nf1 Ba3 3.Re1 Ng3+ 4.Nxg3 Qxg3 5.Qe6+ Kh8 6.Kg1 Bb4 7.Qe8+ Bf8 8.Qe5
2. ± (0.79): 1...Ba3 2.Rd1 Bb4 3.Nf2 Ba5 4.Nf5 R4d7 5.Rc6 Re8 6.Ne3 h5 7.a3 Red8 8.b4
Rybka's best response for white to Black's Nxe4 is Nf1.
Had Lasker proceeded with Alekhine's suggested fxe4 Rxe4, Rc8, Black may reply with either Rc8 (as Lasker mentions) or Rf8.
Analysis by Rybka 2.2n2 mp 32-bit : (24 moves)
1. µ (-0.92): 1...Rf8 2.Rxf8+ Bxf8 3.Rc8 Rxe3 4.Qf1 Qe7 5.Ng5 h6 6.Nf3 Qf6 7.Qd1 Qf5 8.Qc2
2. µ (-0.77): 1...Re8 2.Rxe8+ Qxe8 3.Qf3 Rxe3 4.Qd5+ Kh8 5.Rc6 Bc3 6.g3 Re1+ 7.Kg2 Re2+ 8.Kh1
3. (2.25): 1...Be7 2.Rxd8+ Bxd8 3.Rc8 Rd4 4.Qf3 h6 5.Ra8 a5 6.Nf5 Rd7 7.Qf4 Qe1+
4. (2.28): 1...Red4 2.Qf3 Bf8 3.Rf1 Qe8 4.Rxd8 Rxd8 5.Nf4 a5 6.a4 bxa4 7.bxa4 Qf7 8.Qg4
5. (2.31): 1...Ba5 2.Rxd8+ Bxd8 3.Rc8 Rd4 4.Qf3 h6 5.Ra8 a5 6.Nf5 Rd7 7.Qf4 Qe2
Edward Lasker really had "discovered a hidden defense," but apparently did not play it for fear of complications in time trouble. Additionally, it appears that White's best response to Black's 30 ... Ne4 is not Alekhine's suggestion of taking fxe4 followed by Rc8, but to play 31 Nf1. In White's best response, the game is approximately equal, with a small edge to black. In Alekhine's suggested line, Edward Lasker really does have an opportunity to win the game. The game continuation 30 ... Ba3 established an edge for White.
|Feb-28-10|| ||JohnBoy: That this fabulous game has never been GoTD is a sin. We just need a good title... "Drawing Conclusions"?|
|Jul-27-10|| ||GrahamClayton: "The game was in its 14th hour. I had to concede a draw...I don't think that in my whole chess career, I have played another game on which I worked with comparable intensity. Although I did not win it, I have always treasured it as one of those games which make one glad to know chess."|
Edward Lasker - "Chess Secrets I Learned from the Masters".
|Nov-15-12|| ||FSR: The spectators (including Bogolyubow, who prematurely congratulated Edward Lasker on winning) thought that Emanuel Lasker was lost in this ending. Writing about the game, Dvoretsky on the last page of <Dvoretsky's Analytical Manual> offers the highest praise of him:|
<What inspires me the most is Lasker's fantastic defense in the endgame. After his opponent's missed win (72...Rh8? instead of 72...Rd7+!), the former world champion spent 30 moves holding on to a most difficult position. Many hours of analysis, aided by computers, have established that in this endgame, Lasker made only one subtle mistake (75.Ke4?, instead of 75.Kc3!) in contrast to the annotators (among them, two world champions) who, working at their leisure, and able to move the pieces on the board, erred repeatedly. Meanwhile, Lasker's best years were already long past (55 years old is a more than respectable age for serious work at the chessboard). He was also exhausted and undoubtedly disappointed at the unfortunate turn this game had taken for him. But his iron will and superb chess mastery overcame all obstacles. I doubt that any modern grandmaster would be capable of such exploits!>
The mis-analyzing grandmasters to whom Dvoretsky refers include Kasparov (Dvoretsky is extremely critical of his analysis of the ending), Alekhine, and Averbakh, who erroneously analyzed the ending in one of his series of books on the endgame. Dvoretsky also refers to Charles Sullivan's analysis (see Sullivan's May 5, 2008 comment here) and seems to be a good deal more impressed with his analysis than Kasparov's.
|Mar-02-13|| ||vinidivici: <JohnBoy:That this fabulous game has never been GoTD is a sin. We just need a good title... "Drawing Conclusions"?>|
AGREED. Its a pity this game never been a GOTD.
For the chessgames.com
THIS GAME VERY DESERVES A GoTD title.
Maybe for some peers this game looks just a usual game. But look how this game becomes classic by INVENTING A NEW ENDGAME POSITION, look how Lasker defended this game in a high difficulty more than 35 moves and finally got the draw with highly unusual position. Even with the rook and a pawn, Ed.Lasker cant win agains a lone knight.
Also, augmenting to that opinion, Em.Lasker at that time was (50+ years old;my opinion) too old to play at highest level but he managed to obliterated all the hindrances and managed to draw.
Look at the endgame: at least from the move 70, Em.Lasker just made one delicate error (move 75.Ke4, it should 75.Kc3!), and really this is one of the best endgame i have ever seen. If theres one classic game has to be the GoTD, well, this is the first one on the list.
|Mar-02-13|| ||Phony Benoni: Unfortunately, the game is so long that it might need to be Game of the Week.|
<Lonely Knight> is a thought, but that's been used--along with just about every other conceivable Knight pun.Maybe <A Long Day's Journey Into Knight>?
For those familiar with Edward Lasker's story of the game, wherein he actually had to rush to the press room and warn reporters not to release a story saying he had won the game, <Stop the Presses!> might be appropriate. But that's probably too obscure.
|Mar-04-13|| ||vinidivici: the problem is when this game will become GoTD. This game could be the excellent adding.|
|Mar-16-13|| ||Abdel Irada: A *very* strange game.
With White enjoying the advantage of two knights for a rook, Black offers to exchange queens five times, and in each case White refuses.
I'd be interested to know if he could not have accepted the offer on at least one of those occasions.
It is of course true that the remote pawns would be difficult, perhaps impossible, for the knights to defend against the rook, but one would think there'd be opportunities for the knights to find some play of their own.
In any case, <vinidivici>'s nomination for GOTD seems merited. Even if flawed, and in spite of the length riffed upon by <Phony Benoni>, so many tactical motifs appear in it in conjunction with so many themes of endgame strategy, that it could hardly fail to be instructive.
|Mar-16-13|| ||Phony Benoni: <Abdel Irada> Edward Lasker devotes thirty pages to this game in his book <Chess For Fun and Chess For Blood>. Fortunately, it's not all hard analysis; there is plenty of narrative included. Of White's chances to trade queens, he writes: |
<"After winning knight and bishop for his rook, White has by no means an easy ending. In fact, it is doubtful whether this ending can be won at all. In view of the weak a-pawn White must even be careful not to exchange queens because the rooi can shift his attack quickly from one wing to the other while the knights cannot follow as rapidly.">
I do love this game, in large part because of its length. In games going over 100 moves, I'd put it near the top along with Bronstein vs Panno, 1973.
|Mar-21-13|| ||FSR: Surprise Ending.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·