|Apr-16-06|| ||jamesmaskell: I would have instinctively played 18. Kxf2. Of course I can see why not (18. Kxf2 Ne4+ winning material). That is why I am writing this message and not playing OTB! Nice sac by Lasker, job well done.|
|Apr-16-06|| ||goldenbear: I bet Lasker played Na4 on general grounds, without the aid of calculation. Anyway, beautiful combination.|
|Apr-16-06|| ||blingice: My notes:
1. The final position is indeed mate (it isn't marked in the notation), and a five piece mate deserves notice!
2. Black played a crummy developmental game. By move 7, Lasker is castled, has two active pieces, and has set himself up to have better central control during the rest of the game, although he didn't have it at the time.
3. NN continued throwing worthless piece after worthless piece at Lasker (all of which he thought Lasker would fall into his two ply combo trap). Examples: move 17 and 18, NN draws Lasker's bishop into a position where it can be forked after NN's 18th. Lasker could have traded here, as it's a pawn and bishop for pawn and bishop, although Lasker was down material, so he needed the bishop to continue attacking. Second example, 18..Bd4 (I don't understand this move at all, probably NN's second failed plan). Third example, 19..Bd7, trying to dislodge the knight, but he missed the discovered check, dooming himself to an unpreventable mate in two. What an attack.
|Apr-16-06|| ||jamesmaskell: It was a good example of teamwork in attacking.|
|Apr-16-06|| ||blingice: Yes, especially the bishop/rook combo. I wonder which is more instructive: a GM vs. GM game, or a GM game where the GM just smashes the other guy.|
|Apr-16-06|| ||jamesmaskell: Even in a demolition job its nice to see when the attacker works it out. We all like to see a bloodbath every so often...just to warn you what can happen if it all goes wrong!|
|Apr-16-06|| ||Jim Bartle: I agree it can be great to watch a superior player crush weaker opposition. Otherwise why would anyone want to watch Roger Federer play tennis? (apologies to Nadal) Or McEnroe, Steffi Graf or Martina Navratilova when they were at the top of their games?|
|Nov-19-14|| ||TheFocus: Played in a simul in Hamburg, Germany on October 22 (or 25), 1898.|
Lasker scored +27=0-1.
|Aug-19-15|| ||saturn2: <goldenbear: I bet Lasker played Na4 on general grounds, without the aid of calculation. Anyway, beautiful combination.>
I assume you mean Nb5 and not Na4. 10Na4 was rather obvious. Not so obvious was 11Nb5 sinced it sacrificed a piece. But 10 moves later black was mate.|
|Aug-29-15|| ||thomastonk: <TheFocus: Played in a simul in Hamburg, Germany on October 22 (or 25), 1898.> I don't know whether this game was played in Hamburg, so a source would be nice.|
But, I know what Lasker did on the 22 and 25 October in Hamburg: on the 22th he gave a lecture on a recent game between Pillsbury and Showalter; I don't know which game, but it was a Ruy Lopez. The simul took place on the 25th. ('Neue Hamburger Zeitung' of 25 Oct 1898 and 'Hamburger Nachrichten' of 26 Oct 1898).
|Feb-19-18|| ||MissScarlett: Whyld's source is the <Westminster Budget> of November 18th 1898, p.26. Black is identified as <Herr P.>. No date is given there, but Lasker dates it to October 22nd, even though his index correctly records the Hamburg simul as being on the 25th.|
|Feb-19-18|| ||morfishine: When Capablanca played games like this against small fish, he's hailed as some kind of prophet; When Lasker authors these types of games, its written off due to the weak opposition|
|Feb-19-18|| ||MissScarlett: <No date is given there, but Lasker [sic] dates it to October 22nd> Whyld, of course.|
|Feb-19-18|| ||TheFocus: I see that Whyld has a note that <Bristol Mercury says played in Bristol.>|
If that is available to you, will you please check it out, and see what Bristol Mercury actually claims?
Whyld lists two simuls at Bristol in November on the 25th and 26th.
|Feb-20-18|| ||MissScarlett: <I see that Whyld has a note that <Bristol Mercury says played in Bristol.>>|
Yes, I neglected to address this because a game published in the <Westminster Budget> on November 18th was unlikely to have been played in Bristol on the 25th or 26th of the same month.
<If that is available to you, will you please check it out, and see what Bristol Mercury actually claims?>
Problem is that most of the games Whyld published from the Bristol simuls appeared in that paper's Saturday <Weekly Supplement>, which isn't online.
|Feb-20-18|| ||TheFocus: <MissScarlett> <Yes, I neglected to address this because a game published in the <Westminster Budget> on November 18th was unlikely to have been played in Bristol on the 25th or 26th of the same month.>|
Thank you. I know you leave no stone overturned.
|Feb-20-18|| ||MissScarlett: A place for everyone, and everyone in their place.|