|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-11-04 | | xiaolin: what is the double bishop sac suposed to do ? it only got white a pawn |
|
| Aug-11-04 | | tomh72000: <what is the double bishop sac suposed to do ? it only got white a pawn> What?! A strong attack and a material advantage, more like. |
|
| Aug-11-04 | | xiaolin: well ok then O.o but whats it supposed yo do apart from sacrafice the bishops -hence the name- |
|
| Aug-11-04 | | maoam: <xiaolin>
Read <tomh72000>'s post. It leaves Black's kingside utterly destroyed and forces Black to accept material loss in order to prevent mate. |
|
| Aug-12-04 | | tomh72000: See Game Collection: Double Bishop Sacrifices (dedicated to Anatoly K for some more examples. |
|
Sep-19-04
 | | LIFE Master AJ: This is the ORIGINAL two-Bishop sacrifice! All the others are just imitators. (I have also deeply annotated this game on my web site.) |
|
| Sep-20-04 | | clocked: <LIFE Master AJ> I don't know about the original, but Burn vs Owen, 1884 predates this game |
|
| Sep-21-04 | | InspiredByMorphy: Im not a huge fan of Lasker, but this is my favorite game of his. The double bishop sacrifice is great, but wouldnt 11. ...Bd6 prevented it? |
|
| Sep-21-04 | | acirce: Wouldn't 11..Bd6 INVITE it? 12.Nxd7 Nxd7 (12..Qxd7 13.Bxf6 gxf6 14.Qg4+ Kh8 15.Qh4 f5 16.Qf6+ Kg8 17.Nh5) 13.Bxh7+ Kxh7 14.Qh5+ Kg8 15.Bxg7 and if 15..Kg7 16.Qg5+ Kh8 17.Nf5 exf5 18.Rf3 |
|
| Sep-21-04 | | InspiredByMorphy: <acirce> Thanks. I overlooked the fianchettoed bishop which makes all the difference. |
|
Sep-21-04
 | | chessgames.com: Clocked, thank you for pointing that out. I have always been taught that this was the original 2-bishop sacrifice but your link to Burn vs Owen, 1884 seems to contradict this. Is our database incorrect about the year of the Burn-Owen game, or is commonly accepted knowledge about this Lasker sacrifice false? Anybody? |
|
| Sep-21-04 | | InspiredByMorphy: <acirce> What about black developing another piece with 11. ...Rae8, and leaving the bishop to defend the knight on f6? Would this have prevented the double sacrifice? |
|
| Sep-21-04 | | acirce: <InspiredByMorphy> I guess so, but why do you keep looking at move 11? For the record, here is Kasparov annotating the game at its key moment in <On My Great Predecessors> part I: <13.Qe2! A psychologically subtle move: both prophylactically defending g2, and threatening Bb5, which in fact is a sham - the bishop is looking in quite the opposite direction!> Kasparov then gives lines to show why the combination would not have worked with the queen left on d1 (13.Nh5), as some has suggested. I leave out the lines for now. <13..a6? Bauer falls into the trap set for him, although he had a reasonable choice between 13..Ne4 (13..Rfd8?! 14.f5) 14.Nxe4 dxe4 15.Bc4 (15.Bb5 Qc8 16.Qg4 f6 17.Bb2 Bd5 is level) 15..f6 16.Bc3 Qd7 17.f5 Bd5 18.fxe6 Qxe6 19.Bxd5 Qxd5 20.Qg4 Rf7 and 13..Nd7 14.Nh5 (14.Bb2 Bf6) 14..f6 (not 14..Nxe5? 15.fxe5) 15.Bb5 Qc8 16.Qg4 Rf7 17.Bb2 a6 18.Be2 Qc6 with equal chances in each instance.> |
|
| Sep-21-04 | | acirce: Note that I haven't checked the lines myself yet and considering Kasparov's lapse at Lasker vs Steinitz, 1894 you never know how accurate they are :-) |
|
| Sep-21-04 | | Minor Piece Activity: Probably this is the first _successful_ double bishop sacrifice. =) |
|
| Sep-21-04 | | InspiredByMorphy: <chessgames.com> According to
chesscafe.com the dating of this game is correct. They even
make a reference to how this game is commonly percieved as the
first double bishop sacrifice game. http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomf... - page 8. |
|
| Sep-21-04 | | InspiredByMorphy: <acirce> Thanks for printing Kasparovs annotation to the game. |
|
Nov-01-04
| | LIFE Master AJ: There were actually two or three games where a two-Bishop sack was played. (I also seem to remember one by Morphy as well.) However, it does not change the fact that this is the game that got all the attention and - served as THE MODEL ... for all future sacrifices of this type. (See my annotations to the classic Kasparov - Portisch game.) |
|
| Dec-25-04 | | Jafar219: What a beautiful woman..sorry GAME! |
|
| Jan-15-05 | | dac1990: Wait! Methinks the score is incomplete. Fritz's database has this game continue 33. ...Kxe6 34.Qxb7 Rd6 35.Qxa6 d4 36.exd4 cxd4 37.h4 d3 38.Qxd3 1-0 Any comments? Hopefully someone should be able to confirm this. |
|
| Feb-12-05 | | aw1988: Qe2!! is an absolutely brilliant move, preparing Nh5 Bxh7+ Qh5 and Bxg7. "But why?" ask the analysts. "Why does he play this? The combination would have worked just as well with the queen on d1... Not true. Black has a battery of bishop + queen threatening mate on g2, and Qe2!! blocks this. After Nh5 d4! there is no win. |
|
| Aug-17-05 | | Gbness: This is my all-time favorite game by Lasker. He wasn't my favorite player, but as Sneaky said, an aspiring chess player has to go over this game. |
|
| Aug-22-05 | | who: <chessgames.com> in the burn vs. owen game Burn doesn't accept the second bishop so it's not as instructive as regards the opening of two files and the trapping of the king on the g and h files with queen and rook. |
|
| Oct-26-05 | | fred lennox: after 6 moves the kn has not move leaving the f3 for the queen. This allows fro 0-0-0. It also encourages black to push the d pawn creating a tense situation for both sides. This game, though early, is lasker, the great stalker. A stalker creeps and waits. I believe this quality of lasker's play influenced alekhine the most. |
|
| Dec-22-05 | | Whitehat1963: I think Lasker plays brilliantly between moves 13 and 23, but I can't help wonder if he might have found better alternatives immediatly after that. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
