|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-27-02 | | pawntificator: 6. dxe5 dxe5 7. Qb3 Qd7 8. Ng5 Nc5 9. Bxf7+ Kd8 10. Qd1+ Bd7 11. Bc4 |
|
Oct-01-02
 | | Honza Cervenka: If 6.dxe5 then black has to play 6...Nxe4. In your line 6. dxe5 dxe5 7. Qb3 Qe7 (Qd7 is impossible) 8. Ng5 Nc5 9. Bxf7+ Kd8 10. Qd1+ Bd7 11. Bc4 white can play much better 7.Ng5 instead of 7.Qb3. After 7.Qb3 seems to be interesting 7...Nc5 and if 8.Bxf7+ then 8...Ke7 9.Qc4 Qd6 (threatening b5) 10.b4 Nd3+ 11.Ke2 Nxc1+ 12.Rxc1 b5 13.Qb3 Nxe4 etc. |
|
| Oct-01-02 | | drukenknight: if 6 dxe5 Nxe4 what about 7 e6? |
|
Oct-02-02
| | Honza Cervenka: If 6.dxe5 Nxe4 7.e6 then 7...fxe6 8.Bxe6 Qf6 and black position seems to be O.K. |
|
| Oct-04-02 | | pawntificator: 6...Nxe4 7.Nxe4 dxe4 8. Qxd8 Kxd8 9. Bxf7 leaves white looking pretty good...your right, I meant to say Qe7 not d7 which is impossible. Also your right again, Ng5 first is better. |
|
Oct-04-02
| | Honza Cervenka: After 6...Nxe4 white cannot play 7.Nxe4. It's impossible. You meant probably 6...Nxe5 7.Nxe5 etc. Of course, it is very bad for black. |
|
| Oct-04-02 | | pawntificator: yes, of course I meant Nxe5... I misread your message on 10/01. I assumed dxe5 Nxe5 instead of what you actually said, Nxe4. How silly of me. after dxe5 Nxe4 it gets much more complicated... |
|
| Oct-04-02 | | bishop: This game is analyzed by Ed Lasker in his book "Chess Secrets I Learned from the Masters."
Here's Lasker commenting on the position after Black's 20th move. "Black now almost leisurely transfers his pieces to posts on which they are likely to contribute most to the coming onslaught on my King. The Queen aims for the Knight's file. and the Knight for the square e5. After the advance of the King's Rook's and Knight's pawns the Black Rooks will find useful employment either in the Knight's or the Rook's file. My own pieces, on the other hand, are more or less condemned to inactivity. My white Pawn skeleton blocks my Queen and my King's Bishop; my Rooks have no open files; and my Queen's Bishop will soon have to retreat before the storming Black Pawns of the Kings wing. I did not as yet know enough about positional chess 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." |
|
| Aug-01-04 | | Knight13: Good game! |
|
| Jan-06-06 | | chessmaster pro: so ed lasker is emanuel lasker's brother? |
|
| 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!! |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 