|Jun-13-07|| ||Eggman: I guess now we know why it's called the Lasker Trap!|
|Mar-06-08|| ||hamham: This was a very important game. It's fun to see how people play when they don't have the opening theory|
|Nov-17-08|| ||playground player: I see there's more than one way to spring the Lasker Trap.|
|Jun-24-09|| ||GrahamClayton: I wonder if the Blumenfeld in this game is the same Benjamin Blumenfeld who created the Blumenfeld Counter-Gambit?|
Getting back to the game, did Lasker have a forced variation after 11.♔c2.
|Jan-14-13|| ||kevin86: One more thing-is one of the losers related to Columbo?|
|Oct-06-14|| ||Amarande: After 11 Kc2 (not Kc1? Qe1+ 12 Kc2 Rd2+ and White is finished) there is 11 ... Nd4+ 12 Kc1 and now the following variations:|
a) 12 ... Qe1+ (inferior, but still advantageous) 13 Nd1 Bxe2 14 Bxe2 Qxe2 (Qxh1? 15 Bxg4+ and White appears to have equality) and the soon to be end-game is to Black's advantage, but not so much as in other lines.
b) 12 ... Ne7!! (mass production in sacrifices!) 13 Nd1 (he must drive the Queen. If 13 Bxe7 Nb3+!! is the third strike and White's out!) Nxe2+ 14 Bxe2 Qxe2, with a winning endgame for Black (more advantageous than the previous line due to the fact that it appears Black can hold the e3 pawn) as, owing to the many threats (the Knight still may not be taken: 15 Bxe7 Qd2+ 16 Kb1 Bf5+ and mate next) White can hardly avoid accession to the exchange of Queens by 15 Qc2 etc.
No ultimate fireworks, but a long, dreary disintegration in White's future ...
|Nov-20-14|| ||TheFocus: From a consultation simul in Moscow, Russia on February 12, 1899.|
Lasker scored +10=2-1.
|Dec-22-16|| ||GrahamClayton: 18. ♘d1+ - unusual to see a backward moving discovered check which gives up the piece doing the check.|
|Oct-06-18|| ||MissScarlett: <From a consultation simul in Moscow, Russia on February 12, 1899.|
Lasker scored +10=2-1.>
As per <Whyld (1998)>, whose source is <Wiener Schachzeitung 1899 p.19>, but William Shelley Branch in the <Cheltenham Exminer> of February 22nd, p.6, has it being played on February 9th, as a singular consultation game, describing the opposition as three of Moscow's best players. Since the notes to the given score are by Gunsberg, I suspect Branch's own source may have been Gunsberg's column in the weekly <St. James's Budget> of February 17th (which I haven't seen), as his other regular column in the (London) <Daily News> makes no reference to Lasker in Moscow.