|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-07-02 | | pawntificator: 35. e5 was inspired! Such an unthreatening looking situation, and Lasker gives up a pawn which normally would cost the game against a Capa. After 35...dxe5 there is little hope for black. Maybe he could have held on with 35...fxe5 Rage Against the Machine? HA! Who in the world are these guys at chessgames.com? They are unusually cool. Keep up the good work boys! |
|
| Dec-07-02 | | OttawaChessFan: "Rage Against the Machine" is a real jem! |
|
| Oct-18-03 | | mkdir: Lasker must be really confident of his endgame technique.The queens are exchanged on move 7 and everybody knows the legendary end game skills of Capa. great stuff by Lasker |
|
| Oct-18-03 | | Shadout Mapes: Well good as Capa was, Lasker was certainly no fish at the endgame, and white is known to have a nice slight advantage in this opening. And I'm not sure there's enough material off the board to call it and endgame. He was very familier with this opening, too, and Capa said it was unsound (IIRC) in a chess article, so it was quite an opening to play, I guess. You have to admit Capa made some bad mistakes, Soltis considers this an exremely overrated game. |
|
| Oct-18-03 | | drukenknight: Looking at this game, I was wondering if Capa. was ever going to play ...d5. The often talk about this as the "liberating move." If you try it on move 34, it comes up just a little short. But on move 30 maybe; 30..d5 31. hxg5 hxg5 32. Rh3 Nd6 33. Rh6 Rd7 34. exd5 cxd5 35. Nd4 Does anyone notice that in games where the Ks are on the same side, that one side often gets an advantage when he pushes those pawns in front of the King? |
|
| Oct-18-03 | | drukenknight: Here is what I am talking about. These are two very famous games (a French/Sicilian), in both games it is very hard to figure out where the loser went wrong. You play the moves out but at a certain pt. it becomes just about impossible to save him, hard to figure. But in both games, the K are on the same side and one guy is pushing more of his pawns in front of the K: Steinitz vs Lasker, 1896
Spassky vs Geller, 1968 |
|
| Feb-03-04 | | m0rphy: Being a great psychologist at chess, Lasker reasoned that as he had to beat Capa to win 1st prize he would choose the complete opposite of what Capa expected.He would go into a line of the Spanish which was known to be drawish at the time.This would make Capa relax and play in a rather mechanical fashion not thinking out the best moves for Black.Meanwhile Lasker had analysed White's best line.It is this game which to me typifies Lasker's style best. |
|
| Feb-05-04 | | iron maiden: Lasker really was a psychologist at the board. Here he needed a win, but rather than hurl himself into a winner-takes-all assault from the start, he did just the opposite: left Black with the bishop pair and the attacking chances. Capa, still in a defensive frame of mind, never gets the attack going. |
|
| Feb-05-04 | | ughaibu: I think the psychology business is exaggerated. Lasker excelled at complicating apparently simple positions so this is quite a natural choice against a less experienced opponent when playing for a win. Lasker had a very long career, can anyone show me ten clear examples of "psychology" demonstrated in his 45 years of active play? |
|
| Feb-05-04 | | iron maiden: What I meant by "psychologist" was that he played the player, not the board, and tried to find the move that would give his opponent the most trouble mentally. Like you said, ughaibu, he might haul out the complications against a less-experienced player (but in this game Capa is definitely not a rank newbie who'd always lose his way in a complicated position). You'll never find examples of this psychology by looking at the games alone, of course. You have to look at circumstances: individual player scores before the games, opponents' playing style, and so forth. |
|
| Feb-05-04 | | Benjamin Lau: 13....Bb7? is generally acknowledged to be Capablanca's great positioanl error here, giving the e6 square to the fatal knight. I enjoy Lasker's 14. Bxd6!? Although it undoubles Capablanca's pawns, it also closes the open file the dynamic doubled pawns produced, an interesting tradeoff that allowed Lasker to obtain a closed game in his favor. |
|
| Feb-06-04 | | ughaibu: Iron Maiden: Okay, I'd still be interested in ten examples of clear "psychological" decisions. |
|
| Feb-06-04 | | Calli: Lasker played the exchange variation quite often. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... It could not have been a surprise to Capablanca. He had already challenged Lasker to a match and was quite familar with his games. For instance, he published a analysis of the Schlecter-Lasker match. Additionally, Lasker and Capablanca had played many offhand, mostly fast, games. Undoubtly, Lasker realized that even he could not out-combine Capa directly and decided to go positional. It worked! Capablanca never does follow through on a plan and seems confused the whole game. |
|
| Feb-06-04 | | ughaibu: In the database Lasker has an 87% success rate with the exchange variation, it really doesn't sound like a "drawish" line to me. |
|
| Feb-06-04 | | tud: Capablanca has also repeated this variation. It's simple, get a clear majority, block the position to hold black's bishops. Bobby Fischer has reused it, year after. |
|
| Feb-06-04 | | Calli: <ughaibu> Exactly. Many of these chess stories that are repeated from book to book and copied from web page to web page have little basis in reality. Capablanca annotated this game extensively and doesn't register any surprise at the opening at all. He criticizes Lasker's f4, f5 as weakening the e-pawn. These moves could be called Lasker's psychological part of the game if you wish. At first, Capa reacts correctly with Re8 but then he gets mixed up and admits that somehow he never considered Nd4-Ne6 for white. I think the tension simply caused a case of chess blindness. Capablanca after 15.Nd4
"It is a curious but true fact that I did not see this move when I played 13...Bb7, otherwise I would have played the right move 13...Bxf4." |
|
| Feb-15-04 | | WMD: This was the only serious game in the Ruy Lopez, with black or white, that Capablanca lost in his entire 30+ year career. Of the 61 games with this opening in the Chessgames database, Capa's record was an outstanding +42 =18 -1. |
|
| Feb-24-04 | | ruylopez900: In the hands of an experienced player, the Ruy Lopez is an amazing weapon! |
|
| Feb-24-04 | | panigma: Why does Capa choose to sac the rook rather than the bishop on move 37? |
|
| Feb-24-04 | | Calli: He must give up some material. If he moves the rook, then Nd6+ loses the bishop. Bc8 loses only the exchange. |
|
| Jun-02-04 | | Calli: In our kibitzing we discussed how often Laaker employed the exchange variation. Steve Wrinn gives the subject a formal traetment at the Chess Cafe: http://www.chesscafe.com/skittles/s...
Nice job |
|
| Aug-31-04 | | lao tzu: Lasker was called a psychological player (as i understand it anyway) because he was able to force great attacking players to defend, and great defenders to attack.Explaning how it is that Lasker is lost so many times but somehow manages to win anyway Reti says (chapter on Lasker in his book Masters Of The Chessboard) : " There is only one reason which may sound paradoxical at first: Lasker often plays badly on purpose....a game is always won through a mistake...Lasker manages to manuever the game to
the brink of an abyss by a series of theoretically unsound moves. And while he himself is hardly able to hold on, he finally manages thanks to his greater staying power, to merge victorious while his opponent, who seemed safe enough, falls in to the gulf. 10 examples?...laziness prevents..
btw- in analyzing this game afterward, capa says that he contemplated taking the Ne6 after move 26 and felt in retropspect that it offered him much better chances |
|
| Sep-25-04 | | WMD: 'Capablanca was dejected. Normally dignified, calm and smiling, on this occasion, for two or three minutes after resigning, he sat at the board with his head in his hands.' (Romanovsky, quoted in MGP1) |
|
| Nov-12-04 | | Bobak Zahmat: Lasker takes at a great way the victory after exchanging the queen so fast. The white knight's are very powerfull. Especially after 16. Ne6! I don't think Capablanca could save the game afer this move. Maybe somehow it is possible to draw the game by exchanging the rook to the knight some earlier. |
|
| Nov-14-04 | | kostich in time: " The audience had been watching the final moves breathlessly.That Capablancas position was in ruins was evident to all but the veriest tyro.And then the Cuban turned over his king. From the assembled audience there emerged such an roar of applause as I havenever heared in my whole career as a chess player. It was like the applause one hears in a theater, which erupts spontaneously and of which the audience is totally unconscious."
Emmanuel Lasker.
Capablanca was so demoralized by this defeat that he made the worst blunder of his chess career the next day against Tarrasch and lost. Laskers play in the finals of Saint Petersburg 1914 was simply transcendent. Against Capablanca, Alekhine, Tarrasch and Marshall, he won 6 and drew 2! I personally think that this surpasses Alekhines sperformance in the first half of Bled 1931,and is only comparable to Botvinniks Hague Moscow victory( which was helped by Euwes miserable form and Keres "suspicious" behavior. Maybe Fischers reign of terror against Taimanov, Larsen and Petrosian, or Karpov's Linares win can equal it. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 