|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-15-03 | | AgentRgent: Why 34. Kh2? why not Rc2 or Rf1? Both seem solid enough to draw at worst... 34. Rf1 (or Rc2) Qe3+ 35. Kh2 Qg3+ 36. Kh1 Nf2+ 37. Rxf2 Rxf2 38. Qxd5+ Kh7 39. Qe4+ Kh8 40. Qa8+ |
|
Apr-01-06
 | | WannaBe: Rg5 would follow... :-) what a wonderful game. |
|
| Apr-01-06 | | Knight13: Let's fool that fool that fooled the heck out of you who fooled the fools who couldn't fool the fooled people who tried to fool which was impossible to fool the old fooler who was fooled by many fools as he gained experience and that fooling the fools are nothing but killing of time by fooling no rewards. Happy April Fool's Day!!! :-D |
|
| Apr-01-06 | | Confuse: <Knight13> good call. the comment really makes the game seem more interesting, neato. gg by lasker |
|
Apr-01-06
 | | xenophon: couldn't help but think that this would have petered out to a draw about move 25 these days |
|
Apr-01-06
 | | cu8sfan: I would have expected the Schinkmann game for today... (-: |
|
| Apr-01-06 | | dakgootje: wonderful game, nice that chessgames doesnt just ignore this day ;-) |
|
| Apr-01-06 | | Calli: Marshall, the great tactician, kept making blunders in this match. 41.Qd8+?! A easy draw is 41.Qh5 Rh4+ 42.Qxh4 Qxh4+ 43.Kg2 (Tarrasch) but he still might save the game:
41.Qxd8+ Kh7 42.Rf1??
"42.Rc2 was a must. He makes an enormous oversight by failure to consider Black's simple reply." (Soltis) |
|
Apr-01-06
 | | keypusher: Nice choice, <chessgames.com>! |
|
| Apr-01-06 | | CapablancaFan: <Calli: Marshall, the great tactician, kept making blunders in this match.> Great tactician? Marshall was good I'll give him that. In fact he was the U.S. champion, but never in his career quite rose to the level of Lasker or Capablanca as his match records with them prove. |
|
| Apr-01-06 | | HannibalSchlecter: It seems to me Marshall had the talent to be a world champ but he didn't have the discipline. For example, since he detested draws he would purposely choose inferior variations in order to avoid them. Marshall could calculate deeply and was extremely creative, but he was not flexible, and I think that was his shortcoming. Against a solid player like Lasker, Marshall was a predictable one trick pony. |
|
| Apr-01-06 | | Calli: <CapablancaFan> Okay, you win, Marshall was not a great tactician, but a deep and original positional master. BTW- I have some land south of New Orleans you might be interested in. |
|
| Apr-01-06 | | kevin86: A nice conclusion! Black-having failed to mate the white king on the h-file with the rook instead chases him to the g-file and mates there! Nothing foolish about either of these players--but E Lasker was far better. |
|
| Apr-01-06 | | jamesmaskell: <CHESSSGAMES> Why are you imitating <chessgames>, which runs this website? |
|
Apr-01-06
 | | IMlday: I had the book of this match; went over every game thoroughly. Lasker was a master psychologist; Marshall must have felt defeated early on, whatever he played.
The blunders result from a state of mind. Parallels: Fischer-Taimanov, 1971 and Fischer-Larsen 1971. |
|
| Apr-01-06 | | s4life: <Calli: <CapablancaFan> Okay, you win, Marshall was not a great tactician, but a deep and original positional master.
>
Hahah, love the sarcasm. |
|
| Apr-01-06 | | Boomie: The game is well played up to 21.f4?
Here Uncle Fritz recommends:
21.Qh4 Rxe5 22.dxe5 Qxe5 23.Qa4 Re7 24.Bd3 Qxc3 25.Rb3 Qd2  (0.31/14) Lasker may not have found the exchange sac and played 21...f6 instead. 21. Qh4 f6 22. Nf3 Ba6 23. Rfe1 g6 24. Bc2 Qd6 25. Rbd1 c4 26. a4 (0.53/13) |
|
| Apr-01-06 | | Granite: It's wonderful to see the greatest player of all time (Lasker) featured in the game of the day. I hope it happens more often! |
|
| Apr-03-06 | | EmperorAtahualpa: <I would have expected the Schinkmann game for today... (-:> <cu8sfan> Which game is that? |
|
| Jul-08-06 | | notyetagm: <Calli: <CapablancaFan> Okay, you win, Marshall was not a great tactician, but a deep and original positional master.> I am with you, <Calli>. Marshall was one of the all-time greatest tacticians. Reuben Fine said that Marshall was THE strongest tactical player that he knew of, including Alekhine and Spielmann! The reason why Marshall did poorly in his matches with Lasker and Capablanca is because they were better chess players than Marshall, not better tacticians. Marshall's grades were like A+ for tactics and B for strategy, so when he played Capablanca/Lasker with their A for tactics and A for strategy, he was blown off the board. <Chess is not just tactics!> If chess was 100% tactics, then Marshall definitely would have been the World Champion. |
|
| Jul-08-06 | | notyetagm: What a great trap Marshall sets in this game. From the notes to the game after 29 exd4: <Marshall has set a devious trap: if Black now plays
29 ...♖xc3? White may respond 30. ♕xc8+! ♖xc8 31. ♖xc8+ ♔h7 32. ♖h8+! ♔xh8 33. ♘xf7+ and White is a rook to the better.> |
|
| Jul-08-06 | | notyetagm: What game of the match was this? It must have been an odd-numbered game because Marshall had White in those games. |
|
| Jul-09-07 | | sanyas: <notyetagm> Maybe chess is 100% tactics, and positional ideas are just a shortcut for working it out through calculation. So when strategy will do, a chessplayer can use that instead, and bypass a good percentage of those tactics. But this game was a slugfest. |
|
| Jul-16-08 | | chocobonbon: <notyetagm> Maybe someone can access the book for a direct quote but as I recall, Fine said he never knew anyone to have as good an eye as Marshall for the purely tactical in Chess. To me, if your tactics are not savored with a large dose of positional understanding they are greatly weakened. Wasn't it also Fine who said "I saw in Lasker the supreme tactical genuis"? |
|
Jul-16-08
| | keypusher: <<Chess is not just tactics!> If chess was 100% tactics, then Marshall definitely would have been the World Champion.> Chess could be 99% tactics (or 99% calculation), as I think it is, and Marshall still might not have been world champion if Lasker and Capablanca were better at tactics than he was. I think they were. His scores against both of them were just awful. In most of the Lasker wins I am familiar with, Lasker outcalculates Marshall. I am not so familiar with the Marshall-Capablanca games, but the famous Marshall Gambit game is certainly close to 100% tactics. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
sac: 30...Rxf7