|Dec-02-13|| ||The17thPawn: Understandable that Reti is happy with a draw from the great Lasker but I would have had to press my luck with the two minor pieces versus the rook in the final position.|
|Dec-02-13|| ||skytzo985: No reason for a draw here. There's a ton of play left. White's d-pawn is about to become a real problem for Black unless he trades rooks immediately, and then both sides still have something to play for. Perhaps a draw by mutual fear? :)|
|Dec-02-13|| ||skytzo985: On second look, like you said, Black seems to have an advantage. Maybe Lasker was the one happy with the draw|
|Dec-03-13|| ||SChesshevsky: I'm guessing that Lasker offered the draw implying if after 30.d5 or Kb2 and Black plays 30...Rc8, Lasker would exchange.|
That probably means Black's advanced f-pawn's probably lost so it's a R+P vs B+N and White's weak pawns aren't as big a problem and Black has to always keep an eye on his a-pawn. Black probably has to figure if he does have an advantage, it's not much, so why not accept.
|Dec-03-13|| ||The17thPawn: <SChesshevsky> - I think if white can carry of the plan you suggest its probably level. However, Black can attempt a blockade of the d-pawn push and avoid the exchange at least initially. An example being 30. d5 Rxb3 31. d6 Nd7 32. Ra8 Rb7 33. Ka2 Kg7. Or white can gofor exchange first 30.d5 rxb3 31.Rb8 31. ... Ra3+ 32. Kb1 Na4 33. Rd4 Nc3+ 34. Kb2 Ne2 35. d6 Nxd4 36. Kxa3 then 36. ... Kg7 37. Rxf8 Kxf8 38. Kb4 Nf3 39. h4 f6 40. Kc5 fxg5 is one possible continuation. I do not claim this is best play and of course there are other possibilities but black's resources in this position seem quite resilient.|
|Dec-04-13|| ||SChesshevsky: <The17thPawn: 30. d5 Rxb3 31. d6 Nd7> Indeed, Black may end up getting an advantage but its tricky. After 31...Nd7 32. Rd8 looks tough. The general rule of thumb is that a protected passed pawn that reaches the 6th rank generally queens unless a piece is sac'd. Here with White controlling the 8th offsetting Black's rook and under that assumption, it doesn't seem unreasonable for Black to take the draw.|
|Dec-04-13|| ||The17thPawn: <SChesshevsky> - Yes your 32. Rd8 seems to be the critical move. black has to defend very precisely from that point and even the most favorable lines I have found only lead to B+5 pawns vs R+3 pawns. Looks drawn at that point and shows these guys really did know what they were doing:)|
|Mar-28-14|| ||perfidious: A source lists the consultation partners in this game as Haalebos (for Lasker) and Gerard Oskam with Reti. Will not submit a correction until more information is forthcoming.|
|Mar-28-14|| ||TheFocus: <perfidious> I have Whyld's <The Collected Games of Emanuel Lasker>, and he confirms this (game 1142). He gives <British Chess Magazine>, 1923, pg. 139 as a source.|
|Mar-28-14|| ||TheFocus: Played on February 19, which i entered.|
|Mar-28-14|| ||thomastonk: <perfidious,TheFocus> The "Rotterdamsch nieuwsblad" of February 24, 1923 reports that last monday (=February 19) this consultation game has been played with Lasker and F.C. Haalebos as White and Reti and Oskam as Black. Please, see http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=d.... |
The game score there ends already after 28... ♖xc3, where it is noted that the game was adjourned. I have another, but <unconfirmed> source that points to the "Tijdschrift" and mentions both 29th moves as well as an analysis of Reti, proving that Black has a won position based on 30.d5 ♖c8 31.♖xc8 ♘xc8 32.♖c1 ♘d6 33.♖c7 ♘e4 34.♖xa7 ♘xe4.
Well, the date seems to be certain, the players are known, but maybe the result is a mystery.
|Mar-28-14|| ||TheFocus: Whyld mentions that the game ended as above and was adjudicated as a draw by A. Rueb.|
|Mar-29-14|| ||thomastonk: <TheFocus> Thanks! Does Whyld mention his source(s)?|
Among my collected Reti links I have also this one: http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=d... (you will have to zoom out and scroll down to see the relevant part of the article). Since it is in Dutch, I describe its content here.
This report confirms the <four> players once again, and also all moves including <29.Re8+ Bf8>. Moreover, it provides Reti's analysis of the game, and mentions that the game was adjourned and will be adjudicated by the president of the Dutch Chess Federation, a position that Rueb held from 1923 to 1928. The result of the game is hence not mentioned, of course, and the final position is not analysed, because of the forthcoming adjudication. But it is noted that Black claimed a win, whereas Lasker was in doubt, whether a win for Black could be proved.
|Mar-29-14|| ||perfidious: <thomastonk> et <TheFocus> Thanks to both of you!|
Will now send on a slip for this.
|Mar-29-14|| ||TheFocus: <thomastonk> In my above post, Whyld cites the <British Chess Magazine>.|
|Mar-29-14|| ||thomastonk: <TheFocus> Okay, I could have seen that. Sorry! Yesterday evening it was much too late, this morning much too early, and now I'm already too tired to translate another source.|
<perfidious> This source cities "Kagan's Neueste Schachnachrichten" of 1923 and "Weltgeschichte des Schachs", and since there is a "0-1" at the end of that text, I think it deals with the result. I'll give it tomorrow.
|Mar-30-14|| ||thomastonk: <TheFocus, perfidious> I've problems with the translation and verification of the content of that source, and - as usual - I've found a lot of fascinating related stuff. I'll spend a few days with research, and then we'll see.|
Spot an error? Please
submit a correction slip
and help us eliminate database mistakes!
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
- No personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No posting personal information of members.
See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.
NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.|
<This page contains Editor Notes. Click here to read them.>
This game is type: EXHIBITION (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)
your profile |
Premium Membership |
Kibitzer's Café |
Biographer's Bistro |
new kibitzing |
Tournament Index |
Player Directory |
World Chess Championships |
Opening Explorer |
Guess the Move |
Game Collections |
ChessBookie Game |
Chessgames Challenge |
privacy notice |
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC