|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-16-06 | | Bartleby: Addendum by Ed Lasker from his same autobiography, "Secrets I Learned from the Masters": "The game I lost against Alekhine proved an instructive lesson through a remark which Emanuel Lasker made and which I have kept in mind throughout my chess career. When I resigned and got up from my chair I noticed Emanuel Lasker, who had been watching, standing in back of me. He said: "Do you know why you lost this game? You copied your opponent's moves in a symmetrical position in which he was a move ahead." I protested that I had not imitated Alekhine's moves. But Lasker said: "Just play the game over again, and you will find I am right." He was, indeed. |
|
| Feb-12-07 | | Ulhumbrus: Instead of 16 Nd2, 16 exf5 isolates Black's e pawn.
32 Rf2 defends the f3 pawn twice but with 32...Nxf3 Alekhine takes it all the same. It turns out that the f3 pawn has prevented a third attack on f3, the attack ...Bg4, an attack made possible by the removal of the f3 pawn so that on 33 Rxf3 Bg4 attacks f3 again. One might say that 32 Rf2 would defend f3 adequately but for the move ...Bg4, a move which ...Nxf3 makes possible. One can look at this in two ways. One is to say that after White prevents a move, Black prevails by playing the move which White has prevented all the same. Another way is to say that a move which appears to be prevented, for a reason which seems sufficient, is not in fact prevented at all, as the reason is not in fact sufficient. |
|
| Aug-23-08 | | TheTamale: <Bartleby>, "Chess Secrets I Learned from the Masters" is an awesome book. I read it several decades ago at the library. I remember it dealt more with personalities than it did with chess. If I remember correctly, it states that Alekhine was attracted to fat chicks when he was drunk. |
|
| Dec-23-08 | | WhiteRook48: how was Ed Lasker copying Alekhine? was he drinking alekwine? |
|
| Jan-11-09 | | WhiteRook48: why the resignation? |
|
| Aug-07-09 | | WhiteRook48: what happens after RxN? |
|
| Dec-23-09 | | rustyrook: If 33 Rxf3 then Bxg4 wins easily. |
|
| Dec-23-09 | | rustyrook: I believe Ed Lasker was not related to Emmanuel but they were very good friends. |
|
Dec-23-09
 | | paulalbert: Edward Lasker in his books and correspondence originally said he was not related to Emanuel. Later ,he apparently cited some genealogical information provided by Emanuel that suggested they had some common ancestors and were very distantly related. Paul Albert |
|
| Dec-23-09 | | cannedpawn: paulalbert is correct. distantly related. |
|
| Dec-24-11 | | AVRO38: <The game I lost against Alekhine proved an instructive lesson through a remark which Emanuel Lasker made and which I have kept in mind throughout my chess career. When I resigned and got up from my chair I noticed Emanuel Lasker, who had been watching, standing in back of me...> Does anybody know what round this game was played in? The reason I ask is because Emanuel Lasker was playing a World Championship match with Tarrasch in Dusseldorf at the time of this tournament. It would be pretty interesting if he was kibitzing a game between Alekhine and his cousin during the WC match. Were the two events held at the same venue? |
|
| Dec-24-11 | | King Death: <AVRO38: Does anybody know what round this game was played in?...> In <Calli>'s collection, he states that the game was played in round 10 of Hauptturnier A (at the very end of the page). < The reason I ask is because Emanuel Lasker was playing a World Championship match with Tarrasch in Dusseldorf at the time of this tournament...Were the two events held at the same venue?> I don't know anything about that one way or another. |
|
| Dec-24-11 | | AVRO38: <<King Death>In <Calli>'s collection, he states that the game was played in round 10 of Hauptturnier A (at the very end of the page).> Wrong again! In Calli's collection it says Alekhine's game with Gajdos was played in round 10 not his game with Ed. Lasker. |
|
| Dec-24-11 | | King Death: The games are all listed under round 10. Excuse me for living, great peabrain! |
|
| Dec-24-11 | | AVRO38: <King Death:The games are all listed under round 10> So you just naturally assumed Alekhine played multiple games in one round. Pretty smart!! |
|
| Dec-24-11 | | King Death: Here's an assumption (with a lot of emphasis on your being an ass): you're an idiot troll. |
|
Dec-24-11
 | | Penguincw: The pressure keeps on amounting on white. |
|
| Sep-02-12 | | Tullius: This game was played in the 11th round on August 14.
Source: Jan Kalendovsky, Vlastimil Fiala :
Complete Games of Alekhine, Vol.1: 1892-1921, p.44 |
|
Sep-02-12
 | | jessicafischerqueen: <Tullius> yes, the admins have indeed corrected the game round to <11>, which is accurate, as you say. Donaldson and Minev give the same information, which they cite from "The Unknown Alekhine," p.34-37. |
|
| Sep-02-12 | | Calli: You will find all of Alekhine's surviving games from the Hauptturnier A in Game Collection: Düsseldorf 1908 - DSB Kongress XVI Go to the bottom of the collection. |
|
Sep-03-12
| | jessicafischerqueen: <Calli> that's a fabulous playlist, thanks for posting it. Do you think it's possible that any of the missing <Alekhine> games might still come to light? |
|
| Sep-03-12 | | PhilFeeley: <Jessica!> I've been wondering where you've been. Have you looked at any of the Olympiad games yet? |
|
Sep-03-12
| | jessicafischerqueen: Hello <Phil>! I'll answer you at my forum since I don't want to put off topic stuff on a games page. Come to my forum. |
|
Aug-31-23
 | | keypusher: <Were the two events held at the same venue?> According to Edward Lasker and Tarrasch's book of the match, the first four games of Lasker-Tarrasch were played at the Congress. Perceptive comments from the very early days of this website by Honza Cervenka about some interesting tricks in the opening. Honza's annotations around move six are a lot more accurate than Edward Lasker's! |
|
Sep-05-23
| | keypusher: I looked at this game in Edward Lasker's <Chess Secrets I Learned From the Masters>. I checked Lasker's notes, writing down my own variations, and then had StockFish take a look. I had the pleasure of seeing the engine sometimes agree with me over Edward Lasker. As I said, you can go back to 2002 and find some good annotations by Honza Cervenka on the very beginning of the game. Here's an example: (Ed. Lasker vs Alekhine, 1908 (kibitz #2)). On move 8, instead of the routine ....dxe5, SF points out that Black has ....Qxe5! (with the idea ...d5, among others) and if 9.Bxf7+ Ke7 10.Bc4 Qxe4+ 11.Kf1 Kd8 and Black is a little better. Skipping over some of Lasker's notes, in this more or less even position: 
click for larger viewAlekhine tries ...f5, and Lasker inexplicably doesn't take the pawn, instead landing himself in a world of trouble with 16.Nd2 f4, and now his stranded bishop is in danger of getting trapped. So he pushes forward with 17.c4, threatening his own fork. The engine's preferred solution is 17....Nf7 18.c5 Ba5 19.Nf3 h6 20.a3 hxg5 21.b4 Qe7 22.bxa5 g4 with a big advantage, but Alekhine's 17....Bd4 18.Nb3 c5 isn't bad either (Lasker notes that Black could have won a piece for some pawns and a messy position with 18...h6). But after 19.Nxd4 he goes wrong, recapturing with the e-pawn instead of the c-pawn. Obviously he hopes to use the e5-square, but his pieces aren't properly placed to do that. After the obvious 20.e5, ...Nf7? allows the bishop to capture the f-pawn, while ...Ne8 is met by 21.Qe4 and either 21....Bf5 22.Qd5+ Kh8 23.Bf3 ±, or 21....Qf7 22.g4!, to be followed by f3 and Bd3. Lasker doesn't mention the possibility of e4-e5 here. After 20.f3(?) Qf7(?), he writes <Black now almost leisurely transfers his pieces to posts on which they are most likely to contribute most to the coming onslaught on the king.> Here I had the satisfaction of getting the better of both Lasker and Alekhine -- obviously the knight should go to f7 now, not the queen. On his next move Lasker writes at length about his failure to play 21.e5 and seek counterplay: <I did not yet know enough about positional play to realize how desperate my position really was. Today my only thought would be to gain mobility for my men even at the cost of sacrificing a pawn, rather than stand by and hope that I might mobilize enough defensive forces within the cramped space in which I find myself confined.> Wise words, but if Alekhine had played 20....Nf7, e4-e5 wouldn't have been a possibility. Even after 21.Bd3 h6, 22.e5 would have been close to even. But after 22.Bh4 Be6 23.Rc1 g5 24.Be1 Qg7, Black had a dominating position, and was finally able to put his knight on e5. One more note. After 28....h5! this is the position: 
click for larger viewEdward Lasker writes: <The end is near. 29.gxh5 would be answered with 29....Nxf3! 30.Kxf3 Qh6!, whereupon the check ...Qxh5 is fatal.> My thoughts were: 1) in Lasker's line, can't White's king just skedaddle to (relative) safety with 31.Kg2 and 32.Kh1? 2) isn't 29....g4 crushing?
Right on both counts.
This was sort of a cadet tournament, and Alekhine was just 16 years old (though already good enough to give Marshall pawn and move in quick games, according to Edward Lasker). But a pretty ragged performance by both players, and a good lesson for amateurs: always check a master's notes. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
