< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Apr-09-07|| ||khense: I wish it was always that easy to chop up the French.|
|Apr-09-07|| ||IMlday: 9..Bd7 looks like it prevents the plan of g3 and Bg2. Nevertheless Lasker obtains the diagonal with some strong tactics. Then his game is quite pleasant.|
|Apr-09-07|| ||Marmot PFL: Was a bad idea for Reti to start a tactical war so early with Lasker starting with Qh4.|
|Apr-09-07|| ||uuft: Lovely. Played a very similar game yesterday, including 0-0-0. Does not seem strange to me.
But Qh4 does seem a bit weird.|
|Apr-09-07|| ||Jack Kerouac: Richard might well have been more
|Apr-09-07|| ||ughaibu: I'll ask 'er reticulated python to lunch.|
|Apr-09-07|| ||seraphos1: somone please explain 7.... gxf6|
|Apr-09-07|| ||kevin86: "Let's get RETI to rumble!"
"Reti fumbled and is humbled-as Lasker rumbles"
A nice finish. Black finds that he cannot defend everything and his game is smashed to bits!
|Apr-09-07|| ||alshatranji: Weak performance by Reti.|
|Apr-09-07|| ||Brapp: Very nice ending! Would be a lovely Tuesday-Wednesday puzzle starting from 30.? White exchanges a pawn for a rook.|
|Apr-09-07|| ||Marmot PFL: <seraphos1:> Reti also played 7...Bxf6 in the same event and lost to Bogolubov. I like gxf6 better as it controls e5 and the KB doesn't lose time after Nxe4. 8...f5 seems a bit early though. Better seems b6, Bb7, Nd7 first. Example (with notes by Lasker) J W Te Kolste vs Carlos Torre, 1925|
|Apr-09-07|| ||fm avari viraf: I think Lasker outplayed Reti in this game. After the middle game skirmishes Lasker got all the advantage & won a full Rook in the end which was enough for Reti to surrender in despice.|
|Apr-09-07|| ||ughaibu: Fm Avari Viraf: You're wrong. This was psychological stuff and Lasker intentionally played crap.|
|Apr-09-07|| ||keypusher: <seraphos1> 7...gxf6 has some good points. It opens the g-file for the Black rook and sets up ...f5 to grab a share of the center. Here's an example that goes better for Black: |
Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971
You see the same idea in the Caro-Kann 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 de 4. Nxe4 Nf6 5. Nxf6+ gf.
J Peters vs Seirawan, 1984
|Apr-09-07|| ||pawn2king4: <keypusher>
That is a good point about that line of the Caro-Kann. I played that version for a while in tournament games with some success, although I had to be on my toes more often than not to be comfortable with it.
|Apr-09-07|| ||schnarre: Ouch! Lasker sliced & diced Black in this one...|
|Mar-24-08|| ||michael104: Soltis says that instead of 18.f4, a clearer winning line was 18.Nc4 Qxe1 19.Rhxe1 Ke7 20.Nd5+ Kd8 21.Nf6 Ke7 22.Ne4. In this line, what's the clearest continuation for White after 19...Be7?|
|Apr-09-09|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <seraphos1: [someone] please explain 7.... gxf6>|
I can share with you what Alekhine had to say regarding that move.
By way of background, in round 4 of the same tournament, Reti had lost after playing 7.
Bxf6 in the position in question: Bogoljubov vs Reti, 1924 .
In the tournament book ("New York 1924", by Alexander Alekhine, Russell Enterprises ©2008, at page 62), in annotating the game between Bogoljubow and Reti, Alekhine wrote the following regarding 7.
Bxf6: In two other games in this tournament 7.
gxf6 was essayed, this having the advantage of challenging the posting of the white knight on e4 through the THREAT [emphasis added] of driving him off with
f5 (and not so much through the act of driving itself, which in the earlier stage of the game would have considerably weakened Blacks center). The recapture with the bishop can only have the purpose of continuing as soon as possible either with
c5. Inasmuch as these moves, however, do not seem to lead [to] complete equalization, 7.
gxf6 must be regarded as the more promising.
|Apr-09-09|| ||Peligroso Patzer: BTW, in annotating this game, Alekhine said the following regarding 8. ... f5: "This move, which weakens the pawn formation, should only be made in case of dire necessity. Correct would have been 8. ... b6, whereby Black would have obtained a satisfacory game (compare Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1924 )."|
|Apr-09-09|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <alshatranji: Weak performance by Reti.> |
Although Lasker's play makes an impressive appearance, he did indeed receive some help from Reti in this game. From the tournamnet book (op. cit., at page 146): "A game played by Reti without energy." - Alekhine
Great minds ...
|Apr-09-09|| ||Calli: i think that 12...Qh4 was a good move. Lasker was setting up the tactics with Ng3 followed by Re1 and with Reti's Q and K on the e-file, Black's survival chances seem slim. 12...Qh4! threatens Bf4 and gets the Q off the e-file. Its the next move that is mistaken. 13...Nc6 allows Nxf5 and Black's Q ends up in a precarious position in the center and he is still behind in development. Instead, Reti had 13...0-0 which prevents Nxf5 and the game could continue with positional maneuvers.|
|Aug-29-10|| ||fetonzio: lasker is such a monster to win this tournament ahead of world champion capablanca|
|Jan-27-11|| ||Oceanlake: Black should aim for Bb7, Qc7, Nd7 and o-o-o. If Whie is O-O-O, propose a draw. (Why have a snowball fight if both forts are built of stone?) If White O-O, see if White is either too timid or overreaches.|
|Dec-12-11|| ||Llawdogg: Richard wasn't really Reti for Lasker.|
|Dec-12-11|| ||Llawdogg: 30 R1d4 would have been interesting. The game may have concluded: 30 R1d4 Rxd8. 31 Rg4 h6. 32 Qg7+ Qxg7. 33 fxg7+ Kg8. 34 Ne7+ Kh7. 35 g8=Q#.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·