chessgames.com
 
Chessgames.com User Profile Chessforum
Bridgeburner
Member since Dec-07-06
I've suspended my Rubinstein project to engage in quantitative analysis of the Lasker-Schlechter World Championship Match (1910) and Anand-Kramnik World Championship Match (2008). For background to this, see the Luis Ramirez de Lucena page.

The first part of the project was to construct a method based on GM Nunn's engine blunder-check analysis of San Sebastian, but hopefully one that's more more sophisticated and rigorous. Basic idea is to rate the quality of a game and a match by its bad moves and blunders. I take it as axiomatic that a result cannot occur without bad moves and/or blunders.

<The elements of the method> are:

* each ply is subject to a minimum of 16 ply engine evaluation

* once the last move is inputted, the process is reversed, with each ply being subject to a minimum of 16 ply engine evaluation

* two separate weighting methods are used.

<Weighting method A>:

* a <blunder> is defined:

(a) as a losing move, ie: a move that shifts the position evaluation to greater than 1.40 or 1.40 , regardless of the proximate change in evaluation

(b) as a move that costs a win, ie: a move that shifts the position evaluation from greater than 1.40 or 1.40 , to below 1.40 or 1.40 , regardless of the proximate change in evaluation

(c) as a move that causes an engine evaluation shift of greater than 1.20, unless the game is a forced loss and the side with the superior position does not make a blunder that reduces the game position to below 1.40. Similarly, the loser in a position which is a forced loss will not be penalized for suicidal moves.

* default game weighting is 0. Each blunder adds 2.

* a <bad move> or an <error> is defined as a move that causes an engine evaluation shift of between 0.80 and 1.20 with the same caveat that applies to a <blunder>.

* each bad move adds 1 to a game's weighting.

* successive moves or short sequences of moves that accumulate an evaluation shift equivalent to a bad move may be deemed a <bad move> or an <error> if they are considered instrumental in causing a game loss, or could reasonably be expected to result in game loss.

* inflated evaluations that may occur in endgames will be dealt with on a case by case basis, depending on whether a result has occurred or would have in the normal course of events.

<Weighting method B>

* a <blunder> is defined as:

(a) as a losing move, ie: a move that shifts the position evaluation to greater than 1.40 or 1.40 , regardless of the proximate change in evaluation

(b) as a move that costs a win, ie: a move that shifts the position evaluation from greater than 1.40 or 1.40 , to below 1.40 or 1.40 , regardless of the proximate change in evaluation

(c) a move that causes an engine evaluation shift of greater than 1.20, with the same caveat that applies to a blunder in <weighting method A>.

* Default game rating is 0. Each blunder adds 2.

* a <bad move> or an <error> is defined as a move that causes an engine evaluation shift of between 0.80 and 1.20 with the same caveat that applies to a <blunder>.

* each <bad move>/<error> adds 1 to a game's weighting.

* a <dubious move> is defined as a move that causes an engine evaluation shift of between 0.60 and 0.79 with the same caveats that apply to a <blunder> and a <bad move>/<error>.

* each <dubious move> adds 0.5 to a game's weighting.

* successive moves or short sequences of moves that accumulate an evaluation shift equivalent to a dubious move <will not> be deemed a <dubious move>.

* inflated evaluations that may occur in endgames will be dealt with on a case by case basis, depending on whether a result has occurred or would have in the normal course of events.

<feedback welcome>:

As you can see some subjective judgments may need to be made. I welcome all critiques on this method so I can enhance it. The first World Championship match I'll analyze will be the Lasker-Schlechter match of 1910.

<The engine used for this analysis>:

is a Shredder 11 UCI installed on a Pentium 4 with a 3GHz processor and 512MB of RAM.

<TEST RESULT>: Using the method A, Zukertort vs Steinitz, 1886 is weighted at 8 (1 blunder by Steinitz, 1 blunder and four bad moves by Zukertort). Full analysis starts from the following link in this forum: Bridgeburner chessforum .

<visayanbraindoctor> kindly re-examined this game after Method B was devised and concluded that although the weighting under Method B was still 8, it was due to 1 <blunder> by Steinitz and 3 blunders by Zukertort. <visayanbraindoctor>'s amendments can be found at Bridgeburner chessforum.

<THE LASKER-SCHLECHTER WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP MATCH GAMES>:

<The first game of the match> - Schlechter vs Lasker, 1910 - is weighted at 0 (no blunders or bad moves by either Schlechter or Lasker). Full analysis starts from this link: Bridgeburner chessforum .

<The second game of the match> - Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910 - is weighted at 0 under both weighting methods (no blunders, or bad or dubious moves by either Schlechter or Lasker). Full analysis starts from this link: Bridgeburner chessforum .

<The third game of the match> - Schlechter vs Lasker, 1910 - is weighted at 0 under both weighting methods (no <dubious moves>, <errors> or <blunders> by either Schlechter or Lasker. Full analysis starts from this link: Bridgeburner chessforum

<The fourth game of the match> - Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910

Under weighting method A, weighting is 5.0 (no bad moves and 1 blunder by Lasker and 1 bad move and 1 blunder by Schlechter).

Under weighting method B, weighting is 5.0, (no bad moves and 1 blunder by Lasker and 1 bad move and 1 blunder by Schlechter; no dubious moves by either player).

Full analysis starts from this link: Bridgeburner chessforum and amended at this link: Bridgeburner chessforum.

<The fifth game of the match> - Schlechter vs Lasker, 1910

Under weighting method A, weighting is 6 (1 <blunder> by Schlechter, 2 <blunders> by Lasker)

Under weighting method B, weighting is 6.5 (1 <dubious move> and 1 <blunder> by Schlechter, and 2 <blunders> by Lasker).

Full analysis starts from this link: Bridgeburner chessforum

<The sixth game of the match> - Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910

Under weighting method A, weighting is 0 (no blunders or bad moves by either Schlechter or Lasker)

Under weighting method B, weighting is 1.0 (1 <dubious move> each by Schlechter and Lasker).

Full analysis starts from this link: Bridgeburner chessforum

<The seventh game of the match> - Schlechter vs Lasker, 1910

Under weighting method A, weighting is 1.0 (0 blunders and 0 bad moves by Schlechter and 0 blunders and 1 bad move by Lasker).

Under weighting method B, weighting is 1.5, (0 blunders, 0 bad moves and 1 dubious move by Schlechter and 0 blunders, 1 bad move and no dubious moves by Lasker).

Full analysis starts from this link: Bridgeburner chessforum .

<The eighth game of the match> - Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910

Under both weighting methods A and B, there were no <blunders>, <bad moves> or <dubious moves> as defined in either method, and accordingly the error weighting under both methods is 0.0.

Full analysis starts from this link: Bridgeburner chessforum

<The ninth game of the match> - Schlechter vs Lasker, 1910

Under both weighting methods A and B, there were two <blunders> each by Lasker and Schlechter, and accordingly the error weighting under both methods is 8.0.

Full analysis starts from this link: Bridgeburner chessforum

The tenth and final game of the match is currently being mapped and analysed: Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910

<THE ANAND-KRAMNIK WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP MATCH GAMES>:

<The first game of the match> - Kramnik vs Anand, 2008

The weighting under both weighting methods A and B is 0 representing 0 blunders, and 0 bad moves and 0 dubious moves by both Kramnik and Anand.

Full analysis starts from this link: Bridgeburner chessforum

<The second game of the match> - Anand vs Kramnik, 2008

Under weighting method A, weighting is 2 (0 blunders, and 1 bad move by Anand, 0 blunders, 1 bad move by Kramnik).

Under weighting method B, weighting is 3.0 (0 blunders, 1 bad move and 1 dubious move by Anand, and 0 blunders 1 bad move and one dubious move by Kramnik).

Full analysis starts from this link: Bridgeburner chessforum, and an amendment to that analysis starts here: Bridgeburner chessforum and includes the first three posts.

<The third game of the match> - Kramnik vs Anand, 2008

Under weighting method A, weighting is 6 (1 <blunder> by Anand, and 2 <blunders> by Kramnik).

Under weighting method B, weighting is 6.5 (1 <blunder> by Anand, and 2 <blunders> and 1 <dubious move> by Kramnik).

Full analysis starts from this link: Bridgeburner chessforum and is amended at the three posts starting here: Bridgeburner chessforum

<The fifth game of the match> - Kramnik vs Anand, 2008

Under weighting method A, weighting is 2 (1 <blunder> by Kramnik)

Under weighting method B, weighting is 2.5 (1 <blunder> and 1 <dubious move> by Kramnik).

There were no blunders, or bad or dubious moves by Anand.

Full analysis starts from this link: Bridgeburner chessforum

***
Akiba Rubinstein is my subject of study.

For an excellent short biography, and a collection of games by this great master, including his matches against Schlechter, Bogolyubov and Marshall, click on <Archives> collection at Game Collection: Akiva Rubinstein. For other information about Rubinstein's life and times, the bio (including links) on his player page, and discussion under that bio provides considerable information. In addition, User: Anyi 's website at http://rubina.yfw24.de/ is dedicated to Rubinstein, and User: RubinsteinLife is some additional information by User: Karpova.

Some other useful and interesting links:

* http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... (Capablanca on Rubinstein)

* http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... (Alekhine on Rubinstein 1929 - mentioned below the photo of Capablanca)

* http://www.olimpbase.org/1930/1930p... (Polish team results in the 3rd Olympiad, Hamburg)

* http://www.olimpbase.org/1930/img/p... (photo from the Olympiad in Hamburg)

* http://www.olimpbase.org/players/n1... (article by Terry Crandall)

* Akiba Rubinstein and Akiba Rubinstein (excerpts from chesshistory.com articles by W.Winter, given by User: Karpova)

*Akiba Rubinstein (description of Rubinstein's play by Reti - given by User: Karpova)

* http://jewishchesshistory.blogspot.... (simul game against 9 year old Nussdorf)

* http://picasaweb.google.de/AnitaEva... (Rubinstein gallery of photos (on User: Anyi's website)

* http://www.evrado.com/chess/autogra... (autographed line drawing of Rubinstein)

* http://www.kramnik.com/eng/intervie... (Kramnik's comments on Rubinstein (in the section dealing with Lasker)

* http://www.time.com/time/magazine/a... (short article by Time magazine from 12 August 1929)

* http://www.eilatgordinlevitan.com/k... ("The Rubinstein Family")

* http://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/sta... and http://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/sta... (obituaries)

***

Rubinstein's record against the best players of his day is impressive. The only player to have proved to have had Rubinstein's full measure was that dark genius, Alexander Alekhine . Alekhine beat Rubinstein 8 to 5 (thanks <Karpova>), with 2 draws. (Rubinstein won their first four games). Even so, it's worth noting that Alekhine only gained his ascendancy during their last few games when Rubinstein was well and truly succumbing to his problems and Alekhine was at his peak, leading up to and subsequent to winning the world championship.

The only other player to have a plus score against Rubinstein (apart from the odd one-off game) was Emanuel Lasker with 2 wins against 1 loss, with 3 draws. Their final game gave Lasker the edge.

Against other players who had played World Championship matches during their careers, Rubinstein:

- tied Jose Raul Capablanca 1 to 1, with 7 draws.

- beat Carl Schlechter 6 to 2, with 13 draws.

- beat Frank James Marshall 11 to 9, with 15 draws

- beat David Janowski 5 to 3

- tied Efim Bogoljubov 14 to 14, with 10 draws

- beat Siegbert Tarrasch 8 to 0, with 12 draws

- beat Mikhail Chigorin 3 to 2

- tied Max Euwe 2 to 2, with 1 draw

Of the others, Rubinstein:

- beat Savielly Tartakower 8 to 6, with 11 draws.

- beat Aron Nimzowitsch 7 to 6, with 9 draws.

- beat Richard Reti 9 to 4, with 8 draws.

- beat Milan Vidmar 4 to 3, with 6 draws

- beat Geza Maroczy 5 to 1, with 8 draws

- beat Richard Teichmann 4 to 3, with 9 draws

- beat Rudolf Spielmann 15 to 12, with 8 draws

- beat Jacques Mieses 9 to 6, with 5 draws

- beat Georg Salwe 17 to 2, with 8 draws (see results of matches between these two below)

- beat Oldrich Duras 9 to 2, with 2 draws

- beat Erich Cohn 5 to 0, with 1 draw

- tied Ossip Bernstein 1 to 1, with 6 draws

- beat Fyodor Ivanovich Dus Chotimirsky 5 to 3, with 2 draws

- beat Eugene Aleksandrovich Znosko-Borovsky 2 to 1, with 4 draws

- beat Mir Sultan Khan 2 to 1, with 1 draw

- beat Frederick D Yates 8 to 2, with 7 draws

- beat Ernst Gruenfeld 4 to 0, with 10 draws

- tied Hans Kmoch 2 to 2

- beat Friedrich Samisch 6 to 0, with 6 draws

- beat George Alan Thomas 5 to 1, with 3 draws

- beat Edgar Colle 4 to 3, with 2 draws

- beat Karel Treybal 3 to 0, with 3 draws

- beat Vera Menchik 1 to 0, with 1 draw

- beat David Przepiorka 3 to 0, with 2 draws

- beat Gyula Breyer 2 to 0, with 1 draw

MATCHES

Rubinstein won every match he played except for:

<1.> the first of his three matches against Salwe, which he drew:

Rubinstein and Salwe played three matches in Lodz:

1903: 7-7 (+5 =4 -5)

1904: 5.5-4.5 (+4 =3 -3)

1907: 16-6 (+12 =8 -2)

Source: "The Uncrowned King" by Donaldson and Minev (courtesy of <User: archives;) and

<2.> the short playoff match for the master title against equal first-place getter Duras at Barmen in 1905: both games were drawn and both players were awarded the title. (Thanks you User: Gypsy)

Against Frank James Marshall in Warsaw:

1908: 4 - 3 (+ 4 - 3 = 0)

Against Richard Teichmann in Vienna:

1908: 3.5 - 2.5 (+ 3 - 2 = 1)

Against Jacques Mieses in Berlin:

1905: 3-0 (source <Karpova>)

1909: 6 - 4 (+ 5 - 3 = 2)

Against Alexander Flamberg in Warsaw:

1910: 4.5 - 0.5 (+ 4 - 0 = 1)

Against Moishe Leopoldowicz Lowtzky (match for the Warsaw City Championship)

1916: 2.5 - 0.5 (+2 -0 =1) (source: <Karpova>)

Against Carl Schlechter in Berlin:

1918: 3.5 - 2.5 (+ 2 - 1 = 3)

Against Efim Bogoljubov in Stockholm:

1920: 7.5 - 6.5 (+ 5 - 4 = 5)

Against Salo Landau in Amsterdam:

1930: 2.5 - 0.5 (+ 2 - 0 = 1)

Source: Bill Wall in http://maskeret.com/cgi-bin/wiwp.cg...

TOURNAMENTS

Complete results for Rubinstein's career can be found at http://www.phileo.demon.co.uk/uk_ar....

***************

Favorite scene in the Malazan Book of the Fallen series: Itkovian's gift to the T'lan Imass.

***************

>> Click here to see Bridgeburner's game collections.

Chessgames.com Full Member

   Bridgeburner has kibitzed 427 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Feb-25-10 Bridgeburner chessforum
 
Bridgeburner: PART 10: GAME MOVES 57-60: <57. Ne6+> ( 0.32) <57…Kc6> ( 0.32) <58. Nd8+> ( 0.32) ...
 
   Feb-24-10 Tarrasch vs Mieses, 1888
 
Bridgeburner: This seems to be the first recorded use of the move <5...e5>. Mieses misplayed the game completely, but this move has turned out to be the most common fifth move in this variation of the Sicilian behind <5...d6> and ahead of <5...e6>: Opening Explorer
 
   Dec-01-09 Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910 (replies)
 
Bridgeburner: <<Knight13> <21...Ne6: A mistake (?)> Why?> Deep engine analysis reveals the move was perfectly sound:
 
   Oct-16-09 Akiba Rubinstein (replies)
 
Bridgeburner: I'd say she's dead right. :)
 
   Oct-01-09 Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910
 
Bridgeburner: <Corrigendum to my analysis of this game posted by <<visayanbraindoctor>>>: Position A in post <Part 5> has a misplaced white queen. It should be at d2 instead of d3. My apologies for this inaccuracy.
 
   Sep-27-09 Wesley So (replies)
 
Bridgeburner: My condolences to everyone who has lost friends or relatives, or property in the recent floods in Manila. Does anyone know of <visayanbraindoctor>'s situation? Uncharacteristically, he has been absent from CG.com for a week.
 
   Aug-11-09 Kramnik vs Morozevich, 2007
 
Bridgeburner: <Everett: <bridgeburner> Kramnik would not have won if white played 17.Bf4 as in this game!> You mean <21.Bf4> I think? Agreed.
 
   Aug-03-09 Arpad Elo (replies)
 
Bridgeburner: The issue about risk free, mistake-free GM draws is a valid one of course, undeniably so, but fortunately for all of us including the likes of us game mappers, most games are not like that. It's the struggle that enables the quantitative method to work, but the quantitative ...
 
   Aug-03-09 Rubinstein vs Capablanca, 1911 (replies)
 
Bridgeburner: It is obvious that <38...Rxa2> substantially diminishes White's winning chances, but it's a shock to see how close it could have come to setting up a win for Black...theoretically. No one will ever figure out a game continuation that occupies powerful computers for weeks ...
 
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

Game mapping project

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·  Later Kibitzing >
Nov-30-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  Bridgeburner: <visayanbraindoctor>

Apart from your other attributes as a medical whiz, you're also a master of metaphor!

I agree with your sentiments. The game was marvelously subtle and complex, with Anand being absolutely astonishing. It's one of those games that deserves close study as there are so many amazing nuances.

<12...gxf6> opens up a world of possibility. I think it wore my engine out. I had it running for six weeks on this game.

My prediction is that Anand will surprise Topalov and trounce him.

Dec-02-09   visayanbraindoctor: <Pillsbury and Chigorin appear to have been the only top players to have scored significant success with this move. But probably as a result of its use in this match, this move has permanently fallen from favor. Of the 73 games in the CG.com database with this position, only 11 have been played since WWI, and only once by a “name” player, namely Leonid Stein in Stein vs Suetin, 1962, which ended in a 19 move draw. Capablanca’s notes of the match indicated that he loathed this move, and for good reason as it concedes the initiative for no good reason. It was played by Lasker 4 times in this match, in games 2, 4, 6 and 8, with each game being drawn. His use of the opening was quite puzzling. The only game in the match in which Lasker didn’t play this variation was the fateful 10th and last game which he won, opening with the queen pawn, Schlechter defending with a Slav Defence, Quiet Variation (D11).

Lasker appears never to have played this move in any other serious game either before or after this match, and one can only speculate why he employed it against Schlechter in his title defence.>

This is a fascinating tale. It probably means that Lasker prepared it for this match. It failed him, and thus he junked it.

Any move that Capablanca thoroughly detests probably has something unsound to it.

Dec-02-09   visayanbraindoctor: <of the 73 games in which White played <8. a4>, Black’s most successful response was the tame <8…Rb8> (+17 =8 -7), while <8…Nxd4> scored +6 =11 -8).>

I am not sure if I understand this correctly. <8…Nxd4> would have a better record than <8…Rb8> for Black

Dec-02-09   visayanbraindoctor: <The engine prefers the odd looking <10. Nc3> (Black’s forward d-pawn is pinned against the rear d-pawn) ( 0.29) and this is indeed the most successful response by White in the database with a +3 =4 -2 record (2 of which were won by Schlechter later that year(!) in Vienna against Wolf and Perlis), as against +3 =6 -6 for the move played.>

Schlechter certainly learned from the match!

I am not sure if all the comments, especially 'a good move!' or 'a bad move!' are from Capablanca.

Dec-02-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  Bridgeburner: <visayanbraindoctor>

Difficult to believe I know but here it is: Opening Explorer

Dec-03-09   visayanbraindoctor: It seems pretty amazing but except for games 9 and 10, you already have thoroughly analyzed most of Lasker-Schlechter World Championship Match (1910)

I am looking forward to the eventual completion of the analysis of this match, and that of Anand-Kramnik World Championship Match (2008) as well. A comparison of their rates of errors and blunders IMO should place to rest the nagging question if the topmost masters of the early 20th century had already attained super-GM status.

Dec-19-09   visayanbraindoctor: I see you have made a new game collection Game Collection: Lasker-Schlechter World Championship Match 1910 (",)
Jan-04-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  Bridgeburner: Indeed. I've been on extended vacation for a while, hence my AFK. The championship game analysis has been quite expensive as the engine has to run 24/7 to maximise the hash tables. Electricity costs are up, as engaging the engine also engages the fan on the PC.

I'll be back to finish off the L-S games soon.

Jan-05-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: I will make a mental note to nominate your profile for a Caissar next year. Great stuff.
Jan-05-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  technical draw: I agree with <OCF>. Great study and analysis. I must visit more often.
Jan-07-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  Bridgeburner: <OhioChessFan> and <technical draw>: Thank you.
Jan-14-10   visayanbraindoctor: <OhioChessFan, technical draw> Nice for you to have visited <Bridgeburner>'s analysis.

I believe this is the most objective study on the chess strength of pre-WW2 masters so far.

It's not finished yet, and I am looking forward to the completion of the 1910 match analysis. To recap,<Bridgeburner> started with a baseline, Zukertort vs Steinitz, 1886, as the first World Championship game in the first World Championship Match in chess history.

The result is <Hence, weighing should still be 8, although not because of 1 blunder by Steinitz, and 1 blunder and four bad moves by Zukertort. Instead Steinitz played perfectly except for 1 blunder which let go of a winning position, and there were 3 blunders by Zukertort. (1 blunder = score weight of 2; 4 blunders = score weight of 8)>

Jan-14-10   visayanbraindoctor: Here is a summary of the first 8 games of the Lasker-Schlechter World Championship Match (1910)

Game 1 Schlechter vs Lasker, 1910: is weighted at <0> (no blunders or bad moves by either Schlechter or Lasker).

Game 2 Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910: is weighted at <0>, representing 0 bad move and 0 blunders by Lasker, and 0 bad moves and 0 blunders by Schlechter.

Game 3 Schlechter vs Lasker, 1910: is weighted at <0>, representing no errors, blunders, or dubious moves by either Schlechter or Lasker.

Game 4 Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910: weighting is <5.0>, (no bad moves and 1 blunder by Lasker and 1 bad move and 1 blunder by Schlechter; no dubious moves by either player.

Game 5 Schlechter vs Lasker, 1910: is weighted at <6.5> representing <<1 blunder (2.0) plus 1 dubious move (0.5)>> by Schlechter plus <<2 blunders (2 x 2.0 = 4.0)>> by Lasker.

Game 6 Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910: is weighted at <1.0> representing <<1 dubious move>> (0.5) by Schlechter plus <<1 dubious move>> (0.5) by Lasker.

Game 7 Schlechter vs Lasker, 1910: is weighted at <1>, representing 1 bad move and 0 blunders by Lasker, and 0 bad moves and 0 blunders by Schlechter.

Game 8 Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910: the error weighting for this game is <0>.

Jan-14-10   visayanbraindoctor: Here is a summary of the analysis of four games from the Kramnik vs Anand, 2008

Game 1 Kramnik vs Anand, 2008: is weighted 0 at representing 0 blunders, 0 bad moves, and 0 dubious moves by both Anand or Kramnik.

Game 2 Anand vs Kramnik, 2008: is weighted at 3.0, representing 0 blunders, 1 bad move, and 1 dubious move by Anand, and 0 blunders, 1 bad move and 1 dubious move by Kramnik.

Game 3 Kramnik vs Anand, 2008: weighting is <6.5>, representing <<1 blunder>> by Anand and <<2 blunders>> and <<1 dubious move>> by Kramnik.

Game 5 Kramnik vs Anand, 2008: is weighted at <2.5> representing a <<1 dubious move>> (0.5) plus <<1 blunder>> (2.0) by Kramnik>. Anand made no blunders, or bad or dubious moves as defined in the project method.

Jan-14-10   visayanbraindoctor: Although still the study is still incomplete, the trend of the games shows that Lasker-Schlechter World Championship Match (1910) compares favorable with Anand-Kramnik World Championship Match (2008) which indicates that Lasker and Schlechter were playing at the same high quality level as Anand and Kramnik, in the 'judgment' of a computer (which can be assumed to have the capacity of beating all of them).

Notice that all the analyzed games so far in the above two World Championship matches are of a higher quality than the lone analyzed game Zukertort vs Steinitz, 1886 from Steinitz-Zukertort World Championship Match (1886), which happens to be the first World Championship game in the first World Championship Match in chess history.

Apparently there has been an improvement in chess playing ability among the top chess masters in the 24 years from 1886 to 1910. In addition, the trend above indicates that by 1910, the top chess masters of the world had already started playing chess near or at the limits of human chess ability. This is still a temporary proposal as the study is still incomplete.

Feb-25-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  Bridgeburner: PART 1

<INTRODUCTION>

Schlechter vs Lasker, 1910 is the <9th game of the 1910 title match>.

Quantitative mapping of this game between these players is below. All the moves of the game were inserted into the engine before evaluation was commenced. Once the moves were inputted, each move was subject to a minimum of 16 ply (usually more) scrutiny by the engine all the way back to move 1. A forward slide was then conducted move by move to the final move of the game. As the evaluations were still erratic a second move-by-move reverse slide was conducted back to the move one.

Accordingly, the numerical evaluations for each move are added to the game score in this analysis after each ply and are the net result of three move-by-move game length slides which have been conducted without stopping the engine, thereby allowing accumulated hash tables to add information to - and therefore enhance the accuracy of - the engine’s analyses.

General methods used are described in the bio. It is important to note that the methodology (sic) used in these analyses is <not> represented by the figures used to weight the game errors (viz: 2 for a <blunder>, 1 for a <bad move> and 0.5 for a <dubious move>, <<but the use of <a minimum of 16 ply> engine analysis on each and every move on at least one forward and one reverse slide.>> In this game, each move is subject to a minimum of 16 ply engine evaluation <three times>. Most moves in the game are actually analyzed to significantly greater depths than 16 ply, as I believe that Grandamaster play is generally at least at that level if not greater.

Engine preferences are included throughout the game where they differ from players preferences.

Some analysis is included to provide some idea of the reason for the engine preferences where they didn’t coincide with the moves played, except in situations where the evaluation differences were very minor.

SUMMARY

This game is unusual from the point of view of engine analysis, as the ratio of moves made by the players that correspond to the engine’s first preferences are significantly lower than in the other games. However, many of the evaluation differences between the players’ and engine’s preferred moves are no more than a few centis, and not as significant as it might otherwise be.

Lasker surprised Schlechter with <5…e5>, who responded with the dubious <6. Nb3>, a move to which theory has never warmed, not even slightly. Rattled, Schlechter complicates the game, saccing a pawn with <14. f4>, but then stumbled by following up with <16. Bf5>, a technical blunder which should have lost the game, rather than with <16. Bh4> which would have provided more chances of complicating the game without actually risking a forced loss. However, the ploy works as Lasker misses both winning moves: one starting with <16…Qb6+> and the other with <16…g6>, leaving Schlechter to neatly extricate himself from a lost position to achieve near equality.

A long endgame ensures with Schlechter more or less holding the line, but at a disadvantage because of his weak queen side pawn structure (neutralizing his queen side majority) he inherited as a result of his poor opening play, and Black’s King side pawn majority. He cracks under the strain, playing a series of substandard moves at moves 50, 51, 53, and 54 before making a technical blunder on move 55 when he crossed the 1.40 boundary. Uncharacteristically, Lasker misses the win for the second time in the game, allowing Schlechter to salvage the draw.

The night before the next, last and deciding game of the match, Lasker seemed resigned to the possibility of relinquishing his title to Schlechter…

Feb-25-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  Bridgeburner: <PART 2>

GAME MOVES 1-5:

<1. e4> ( 0.30) <1…c5> ( 0.37)

<2. Nf3> ( 0.34) <2…Nc6> ( 0.37)

<3. d4> ( 0.29) <3…cxd4> ( 0.29)

<4. Nxd4> ( 0.29) <4…Nf6> ( 0.30)

<5. Nc3> ( 0.30) <5…e5> ( 0.30)

<Capablanca: “Altogether unusual and I believe not very good as the d pawn remains weak. It is not easy, however, to discover how to get at it, and for a surprise the move proved first-class, as Black got the better game.”>

Subsequently, theory has found this move to be quite sound for Black and is the second most common Black move after <5…d6>. The only game in the database with this move and which predated this game was Tarrasch vs Mieses, 1888, which White won in 30 moves.

GAME MOVE 6:

<6. Nb3> ( 0.24)

<Capablanca: “6. Nbd5, I believe was the right answer. Black would then have to play 6…d6, not 6…Qa5 because of 7. Bc4 and if the 7…Nxe4 8. Bxf7+ Kxf7 9. Qd5+ with the better game.”

Schlechter was apparently the first to play this move, which appears only another 53 times in the database, although its most recent usage was in Jobava vs A Bykhovsky, 2009 which White also won in 30 moves. The engine – and the overwhelming number of players using this variations - endorses Capablanca preference of <6. Ndb5> , rating it ( 0.30): Opening Explorer

<Main engine preference>: <6.Ndb5> ( 0.30)

GAME MOVES 6-7:

<6…Bb4> (=-0.24) The only move with which Black gains advantage.

<7. Bd3> ( 0.37)

<Engine preference>: <7.Bd2> ( 0.27): <7…Bxc3 8.Bxc3 0-0 (if <8…Nxe4 9. Qg4> =0.00) 9.Bd3 a5>

GAME MOVE 7:

<7…d5> (=-0.17) with strong threats centered around the pin on c3. However, White can easily counter them by capturing at d5 or by castling.

<Main engine preference>: <7...Bxc3+> ( 0.37): <8.bxc3 0-0 9.0-0 d6 followed by <…Be6>>.

Feb-25-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  Bridgeburner: <PART 3>

GAME MOVE 8:

<8. exd5> ( 0.45)

<Engine preference>: <8.0-0> (=-0.17): <8…Bxc3 9.exd5 Qxd5 (if <9…Nxd5 10. bxc3 Nxc3> then <11. Qe1> with advantage, eg: <11…Nd5 (forced) 12. Ba3> and White is fully developed while Black will have difficulty castling) 10.bxc3 0-0 11.c4 Qd8 12.Bb2 a5 13.a4>

GAME MOVES 8-10:

<8…Nxd5> ( 0.45)

<9. Bd2> ( 0.45) <9…Nxc3> ( 0.45)

<10. bxc3> ( 0.55)

<Engine preference>: <10.Bxc3> ( 0.45) <10…Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 0-0 12.0-0 Qf6 13.Qh5 g6 14.Qh6 Ne7 15.f4 exf4 16.Rae1 Be6 17.c4 Rac8 18.Qxf4 Qxf4>

GAME MOVE 10:

<10…Bd6> ( 0.44):

<Capablanca: “Black has now a beautiful game, which shows that White’s treatment of the opening was not the best.”>

<Engine preference>: <10…Be7> ( 0.55): <11.0-0 0-0 12.Be3 Qc7 13.f4 Bd6 14.Qf3 Re8 15.Rad1 Be6 16.Bb5 exf4 17.Bxc6 Qxc6 18.Qxc6 bxc6 19.Bxf4>

GAME MOVE 11:

<11. Qh5> ( 0.44)

<11. Qf3> was played in J Czerwinska vs K Mleko, 2001 in the 2001 U18 Polish Girls Championship. This game was also drawn.

GAME MOVE 11:

<11…Qc7> ( 0.31)

<Main engine preferences>: <11...g6> ( 0.44): <12.Qh6 Bf8 13.Qe3 Bg7>

GAME MOVE 12:

<12. 0-0> ( 0.31) <12…Be6> ( 0.28)

<Engine preference>: <12...g6> ( 0.31): <13.Qh6 Bf8 14.Qe3 Bg7>>

GAME MOVE 13:

<13. Bg5> ( 0.43)

<Main engine preference>: <13.Rfe1> ( 0.28): <13…0-0-0 14.c4 Be7 15.Bf5 Qd7 16.Bxe6 Qxe6 17.Bc3 f6 18.Qe2 Qf5 19.Rab1 Kb8 20.c5 Ka8>

GAME MOVES 13-14:

<13…h6> ( 0.43)

<14. f4> ( 0.54)

<Main engine preference>: <14.Nd2> ( 0.43): <14…Ne7 15.Rfd1 0-0-0 16.Bxe7 Qxe7 17.Nc4 f6 18.Bf5 Kb8 19.Qg4 h5 20.Qe4 Bxf5 21.Qxf5 Qc7 22.Qe4 f5 23.Qd5 Bb4 24.Qxe5>

Schlechter’s brilliant <14. f4> is the key move that defines the game, more so than his 16th, which should have lost, as it provides more practical OTB opportunities than the engine’s preferred move <14. Nd2>.

Feb-25-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  Bridgeburner: PART 4:

GAME MOVES 14 – 16:

<14…exf4> ( 0.54)

<15. Rae1> ( 0.54) <15…Kd7> ( 0.54)

<16. Bf5> ( 2.40):


click for larger view

Having been outplayed in the opening, Schlechter has complicated the game with the brilliant <14. f4> as he clearly didn’t fancy defending a position that has very little worthwhile counter play. However, this move should have been a loser although it would have been very difficult to calculate over the board; <16. Bh4> allows a defense that maintains complications.

<Main engine preference>: <16.Bh4> ( 0.54): <16…Rae8 17.Nc5+ Bxc5+ 18.Qxc5 Kc8 19. Bf2 Bd7 20. Rxe8+ Rxe8 21. Qa3>, and both sides have chances.

<2. <16.Rxe6> ( 1.90) is also technically better than the move actually played.

<<Schlechter’s 16th move constitutes a blunder as defined in the project and adds <2.0> to the games error weighting.>>

GAME MOVE 16:

<16…Raf8> ( 0.56)

<Capablanca: “Here is what Lasker himself had to say about the situation, and I agree with him. “Here Black could have played 16…Qb6+ 17. Kh1 g6. White could not now sacrifice his queen, for after 18. Rxe6 gxh5 19. Re7+ Kd8 20. Rd7+ Ke8 21. Bf6 Be5 and White has no satisfactory continuation. On the other hand after 18. Bxe6+ fxe6 19. Qxg6 hxg5 20. Qxe6+ Kc7 21. Qf7+ Kb8 22. Nd4 Black would be confronted by great difficulties, as White would threaten 23. Rb1 followed by the sacrifice of the rook. But it has been proved by analysis that I could have escaped all danger. The move actually made appeared also very strong, but by a fine combination Schlechter nearly equalized the game.”>

<Engine preferences:>

<1: <16...Qb6+> ( 2.32) <17.Kh1 g6 18.Bxe6+ fxe6 19.Qxg6 hxg5 20.Qxe6+ Kc7 21.Qf7+ Kb8 22.Nd4> (as per Lasker’s comments):


click for larger view

There are several winning continuations for Black here, the main ones being <22…Nxd4> and <22…a6>:

<<1. A. <22…Nxd4 23. Re8+ Rxe8 24. Qxe8+ Kc7 25. Qxa8 Qb5 (or <25…Nf5 26. Qg8 Ne3 27. Qf7+ Kd8 28. Re1 Be7>) 26. c4 Qxc4 27. Rb1 Qd5>>>.

<<1. B. <22…a6 23.Qf6 (<23. Rb1 Qc7>) 23…Qd8 (forced, but still wins) 24.Nxc6+ bxc6 25.Qd4 (<25. Rb1+ Ka7 26. Qd4+ c5>) 25…Bc7 26.Rb1+ Kc8 and wins>>>.

<2. <16...g6> ( 2.40): <17.Bxe6+ fxe6 18.Qxg6 Qb6+ 19.Nd4 Nxd4 20.Qg7+ Kc6 21.cxd4 hxg5 (or <21…Rag8 followed by 22…hxg5>)> and Black has won a piece.

<< Lasker’s 16th move blunders the forced win, thereby earning an extra 2.0 points of error weighting for the game. Accumulated error weighting is <4.0>.>>

Feb-25-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  Bridgeburner: PART 5:

GAME MOVES 17-20:

<17. Bxf4> ( 0.56) <17…Bxf4> ( 0.56)

<18. Nc5+> ( 0.56) <18. Kc8> ( 0.56)

<19. Bxe6+> ( 0.56) <19…fxe6> ( 0.56)

<20. Nxe6> ( 0.56) <20…Bxh2+> ( 0.26)

<Engine preference>: <20…g6> ( 0.56): <21. Qh3 Bxh2+ 22. Qxh2 Rxf1+ 23. Rxf1 Qe5 24.Qxe5 Nxe5 25.Rf6>

GAME MOVES 21-22:

<21. Qxh2> ( 0.26) <21…Rxf1+> ( 0.26)

<22. Rxf1> ( 0.26) <22…Qd7> (=0.23)

Lasker hangs on to the queen to try and preserve his much reduced chances, but to no avail. Schlechter eventually forces the exchange of queens.

<Engine preference:> <22...Qxh2+> (-0.26): <23.Kxh2 Re8 24.Nxg7 Re2 25.Rc1 Re3 26.Nf5 Rxc3 27.Nxh6 Kd7 28.Rd1+ Ke6 29.Rd2 Ra3 30.c4 Nb4 31.Re2+ Kd6 32.Nf5+>>

GAME MOVES 23-26:

<23. Nc5> ( 0.23) <23…Qe7> ( 0.23)

<24. Qh3+> ( 0.23) <24…Kb8> ( 0.23)

<25. Ne6> (=-0.23) (threatening 26. Qg3+ followed by the capture of the g7 pawn)

<25…Ka8> ( 0.23)

<26. Nd4> ( 0.34)

<Engine preference>: <26.Qf5> (=-0.23) forces the exchange of queens, and equality.

GAME MOVE 26:

<26…Qc7> (=0.20)

<Main engine preference>: <26...Qc5> pinning the Knight; ( 0.34): <27.Rf5 Qb6 28.Rb5 Qc7 29.Qe6 a6 30.Rc5 Qb6> with slight pressure.

GAME MOVE 27:

<27. Qf5> ( 0.29)

<Engine preference>: <27.Qf3> (=-0.20) threatening <27. Qf4>, <27. Qf7> and <27. Nxc6> and an easy draw. <27…Nd8 (intending <28…Re8>) 28.Qe3= >>

Feb-25-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  Bridgeburner: PART 6:

GAME MOVES 27-28:

<27…Rc8> ( 0.29)

<28. Qc5> ( 0.36)

<Main engine preference>: <28.Ne6> ( 0.29): <28…Qb6+ 29.Qf2>

GAME MOVE 28:

<28…Nb8> ( 0.31)

<Engine preference>: <28...Qb8> (-0.36): <29.Qf5 (defending <c2> if Black exchanges the Knights) 29…a6 30.Qg4 Nxd4 31.cxd4 Qc7 (<31…Qxc2 32. Qxg7>) 32.Rf2 Rd8 33.Rd2 Qc3> and Black has the initiative, eg: <34. Qf4 g5 25. Qf2 g4>.

GAME MOVE 29:

<29. Qxc7> ( 0.31) <29…Rxc7> ( 0.31)

<Capablanca: “The attack is over and Black has the better game.”>

But only very marginally, and based on White’s relatively weak queen side pawns, and the difficult-to-convert King side pawn majority.

GAME MOVES 30-31:

<30. Rf3> ( 0.31) <30…a6> ( 0.31)

<31. Kf2> ( 0.45)

<Main engine preference>: <31. Rg3> ( 0.31): <31…g5 32.Rh3 Ka7 33.Kf2 (if <33…Rxh6 Rxc3 34. Rh3 Rc4> is slightly better for Black) 33…Nc6 34.Nf5> probably draws, eg: <34…Rf7 35.Rf3 Rf6 36.Nd4 Ne5 37.Rxf6 Ng4+ 38.Ke2 Nxf6 39.Kd3 Kb6 40.Nf5>

GAME MOVES 31 – 32:

<31…Nc6> ( 0.45)

<32. Ne6> ( 0.52)

<Main engine preferences>: <32.Ke3> 0.45) <33…Ne5 33.Rf8+ Ka7> is not much better for White.

GAME MOVES 32-33:

<32…Re7> ( 0.52

<33. Re3> ( 0.54)

<Engine preference>: <33.Nd4> ( 0.52): <33…Ne5 34.Rf8+>

GAME MOVE 33:

<33…Kb8> ( 0.45)

<Engine preference>: <33...Ka7> ( 0.54): <34.Ke2 Kb6 35.Kd3>

GAME MOVE 34:

<34. Nd4> ( 0.49)

<Engine preference>: <34.Ke2> ( 0.45) <34…Ka7 35.Kd3 Kb6 36.Re2 Kb5 37.Re4>

Feb-25-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  Bridgeburner: PART 7:

GAME MOVES 34-35:

<34…Rf7+> ( 0.49)

<35. Rf3> ( 0.51)

<Engine preference>: <5.Ke2> ( 0.49)

GAME MOVES 35-37:

<35…Rc7> ( 0.51)

<36. Ne6> ( 0.51) <36…Re7> ( 0.51)

<37. Re3> ( 0.54)

<Engine preference>: 37.Nd4 ( 0.51): <Ne5 38.Rf8+ Ka7 39.Nf5 Rc7 40.Ke3>

GAME MOVE 37:

<37…Kc8> ( 0.41)

<Engine preference>: <37...Ka7> ( 0.54): <38.Ke2 Kb6 39.Kd3>>

<Capablanca: “Black has skillfully improved his position.”>

GAME MOVES 38-39:

<38. Ke2> ( 0.41) <38…Nd8> ( 0.41)

<39. Nd4> ( 0.53)

<Main engine preference>: <39.Nc5> ( 0.41) <39…Rf7 40.Ne6 Kd7 41.Nxd8 Kxd8 42.Rg3 g5 43.Rh3 Rf6 44.Kd3 Kc7 45.Kd4 >

GAME MOVE 39:

<39…Rf7> (=-0.05)

<Main engine preference>: <39...Kd7> ( 0.53):

Lasker dissipates his advantage at this point. After <39…Kd7> maintains the endgame pressure.

GAME MOVE 40:

<40. Rf3> ( 0.53)

Schlechter misses the move that draws easily, namely the engine’s main preference: <40. Rg3> (-0.05): eg: <40…Kc7 41.Rg6 Nc6 42.Ne6+ Kd7 43.Nxg7 Ne5 44.Rg3 Kd6 45.Nh5 Kd5 46.Rg7 Rxg7 47.Nxg7 Ke4 48.Nh5 b6 49.Nf6+ Kf4 50.Nd5+>. The point seems to be that Black’s Knight cannot get back into action. If <40…Nc6>, then White exchanges, and the c-file is closed. If the King moves forward to support the Knight, the lost tempo enable White to play <41. Rg6> and Black can make no headway.

GAME MOVES 40 and 41:

<40…Kd7> ( 0.53) <41. Rd3> ( 0.67)

<Main engine preference>: <41.Re3> ( 0.53): <41…Kd6>

GAME MOVE 41:

<41…Ke7> ( 0.33)

<Main engine preference>: <41...Nc6> ( 0.67): <42.Nf3+ Kc7 43.Nd4 Rf6 44. Rg3 g6 45. Re3 Kd6 46. Nxc6 Kc6 47. Re7 b6> preserves the initiative and some advantage.

Feb-25-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  Bridgeburner: PART 8:

GAME MOVE 42:

<42. Re3+> ( 0.51)

<Main engine preference>: <42.Rg3> ( 0.33): <42…Ne6 43.Kd3 Nf4+ 44.Ke4 Nh5 45.Rg6>

GAME MOVES 42-43:

<42…Kd6> ( 0.51)

<43. Rd3> ( 0.72)

<Main engine preferences>: <43.Kd3> ( 0.51): <43…Rf6 44.g3 Nc6 45.Ke4 g6 46.Rd3>

GAME MOVE 43-44:

<43…Ne6> ( 0.72)

<44. Nf3+> ( 0.79)

<Main engine preference>: <44.Nxe6+> ( 0.72): <44…Kxe6 45.c4>

GAME MOVE 44:

<44…Kc5> ( 0.76)

<Engine preference>: <44...Kc7> ( 0.79) <45.Ke3 Rf5 46.c4 Ra5 47.a3 Nc5 48.Rc3 Kd6 49.Kf4>

GAME MOVES 45-46:

<45. g3> ( 0.76) <45…Nc7> ( 0.76)

<46. Nd2> ( 0.80)

<Engine preference>: <46.Nd4>: ( 0.76): <46…Re7+>

GAME MOVE 46:

<46…Kc6> ( 0.63)

<Engine preference>: <46...Re7+> ( 0.80): <47.Kf3 Ne6 48.Nb3+ Kc6 49.Nd4+ Kc7 50.Nxe6+ Rxe6>

GAME MOVE 47:

<47. Nf3> ( 0.73)

<Main engine preference>: <47.Ne4> ( 0.63) <47…Nd5 48.Rd4 Nf6 49.Rc4+ Kd5 50.Rd4+ Ke5 51.Kd3 Nxe4 52.Rxe4+ Kf5 53.Rf4+ Ke6 54.Re4+ Kd5>

GAME MOVE 47:

<47…Kb5> ( 0.37);

<Main engine preference>: <47...Kc5> ( 0.73): <48.Nd2 Re7+ 49.Kf3 Ne6 50.Nb3+ Kc4 51.a4 Ng5+ 52.Kf2 b6 53.Nd2+ Kc5 54.Rd8 Ne4+ 55.Kf3 Nxd2+ 56.Rxd2>

GAME MOVE 48:

<48. Rd4> ( 0.58)

<Engine preference>: (-0.37): <48.c4+>: ( 0.37): <48…Kc5 (<48…Kxc4 49. Ne5+> )49.Kd2 Ne8 50.Kc3 Nf6 51.Nd2 Re7 52.Nb3+ Kb6 53.a4 Ng4 54.Rd5 Re3+ 55.Rd3 Kc7 56.Kd4 Re1 57.c5 Ne5 58.Re3>

GAME MOVES 48-50:

<48…Kc5> ( 0.58)

<49. Nd2> ( 0.58) <49…Nb5> ( 0.58)

Feb-25-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  Bridgeburner: PART 9:

The play has been somewhat uneven with inaccuracies on both sides. At this point, the game is defensible however over the next 5 moves, Schlechter makes a series of inaccurate moves that land him in a losing position.

GAME MOVE 50:

<50. Nb3+> ( 0.84)

<Engine preference>: (-0.58): <50.Ne4+>: ( 0.58): <50…Kc6 51.Rc4+ Kd5 52.Rb4 Ke5 53.a4 Nc7 54.Nf2 Nd5 55.Re4+ Kd6 56.Rd4 Ke6 57.Re4+ Kf5>

GAME MOVES 50-51:

<50…Kb6> ( 0.84)

<51. Rd3> ( 1.03)

<Main engine preference>: <51.Rc4> ( 0.84): <51…Nd6 52.Rd4 Kc6 53.Na5+ Kc7 54.g4 (prevents <54…h5>)>

GAME MOVES 51-53:

<51…Rc7> ( 1.03)

<52. Kd2> ( 1.03) <52…Rc4> ( 1.03)

<53. Rd7> ( 1.11)

<Main engine preference>: <53.Re3> ( 1.03): <53…Rg4 54.Ke2 Nd6 55.Kf3 Rc4 56.Nd4>

GAME MOVE 53-54:

<53…Rg4> ( 1.11)

<54. c4> ( 1.18)

<Engine preference>: <54. Rd3>: ( 1.11)

GAME MOVES 54-55:

<54…Kc6> ( 1.18)

<55. Rd3> ( 1.47)

<Engine preference>: <55.Re7> ( 1.18): <55…Nd6 56.c5 Nf5 57.Re6+ Kc7 58. c3>>

<<Too defensive: a blunder than should have cost the game. The move adds <2.0> to the error weighting of the game.>>

GAME MOVES 55-56:

<55…Nd6> ( 1.47)

<56. Nd4+> ( 1.47) <56…Kc7> ( 0.32)

<Capablanca>: “Lasker says, “A regrettable oversight; 56…Kb6 would have won the game.” It is indeed unfortunate that he did not play 56…Kb6. Lasker had very skillfully brought his advantage to a point where it would tell and at the moment he is going to reap the fruit of his fine play, makes a slip and fails to win the game that was almost a necessity for him.”

<<The engine agrees with Capablanca’s assessment. The move blunders a win and thereby adds a weight of <2.0> to the error weighting of the game, for a total error weighting of 8.0 for this game.>>

Feb-25-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  Bridgeburner: PART 10:

GAME MOVES 57-60:

<57. Ne6+> ( 0.32) <57…Kc6> ( 0.32)

<58. Nd8+> ( 0.32) <58…Kc7> ( 0.32)

<59. Ne6+> ( 0.32) <59…Kd7> ( 0.32)

<60. Nxg7> ( 0.32) <60…Ke7> ( 0.20)

<Engine preference>: <60. Kc6> ( 0.32

GAME MOVES 61-65:

<61. Nh5> ( 0.20) <61…Rxc4> (=-0.08)

<62. Re3+> (=-0.08) <62…Kf7> (=-0.08)

<63. Rf3+> (=-0.08) <63…Kg6> (=-0.08

<64. Rf6+> (=-0.08) <64…Kxh5> (=-0.08)

<65. Rxd6> (=-0.08)

Draw agreed. Final position:


click for larger view

<SUMMARY>

The game contained two blunders each by Schlechter (at moves 16 and 55) and Lasker (at moves 16 and 56). As each blunder adds <2.0> to the error weighting of the game, the error weighting for this game totals <<<<8.0>>>>.

Jump directly to page #   (enter number from 1 to 10)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·  Later Kibitzing >

4 DVD Set
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 login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
Blow the Whistle See something which 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 user and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.

You are not logged in to chessgames.com.
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:
  


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | new kibitzing | chessforums | new games | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Little ChessPartner | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2009, Chessgames.com
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies