|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Nov-15-04 | | drukenknight: A brilliant game by Lasker no doubt. You know I looked at this game months ago and couldnt understant it at all, then last night I looked at it for less than a minute and something really struck me.... No the game was not lost on move 13 or 16 contrary to what Capa. may have said. If he had really lost the game on move 13, he would have resigned by move 14 or move 15 at the latest, that is just how it goes with masters... No, forget all that stuff, the game seems just about even, then Capablanca wins the e pawn, of course this is Laskers brilliant move. Okay, black is up in material and so what is he supposed to do? try to exchange. Okay that is pretty basic, what else? Well it seems in chess that you can never get both material and attack the K at the same time, you either do one or the other and the other guy does the opposite. Of course, just because black won a pawn doesnt mean he has to exchange, the other guy could win even more material (like that R), then black would have to attack, or black gives back material, etc. So I'm not saying what black has to do, only that I started to really look at this position after black wins the pawn. So I'm looking at Capa.'s position and I'm also looking at Lasker's and what he will do. Will he mate the K or just take the Rook? White really cant do both can he? I mean that is what Lasker himself teaches us, this balance between material/attack, space/time etc. So I'm thinking what is Lasker going to do Capa. and that's when it hit me. What do YOU think? |
|
| Dec-02-04 | | Everett: <drukenknight> I think you're verbose. Black doesn't win a pawn, he's forced to take it, as white decided to sacrifice it. It was white's will to sacrifice a pawn that black felt obligated, due to position, to take. The resulting position is better, in fact winning, for white. |
|
Dec-03-04
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: Here's one example of how psychology can affect a game, coming from a guy who said he didn't believe in psychology: Fischer vs Petrosian, 1961. In My 60 Memorable Games, Fischer said he was about to agree to the draw at one point, except that Tal was hovering too close to the board. A draw would have just about clinched the tournament for Tal, so Fischer kept playing, just to deprive Mikhail of the satisfaction. Part of the problem is this: how do you define psychological as it relates to playing styles in chess? Would you consider Fischer's conduct in the 1972 World Championship psy-war? If yes, which conduct? His choice of openings (1.d4)? His behavior before the match? |
|
Dec-03-04
| | An Englishman: Good Evening: As for this game itself, I'm surprised no one has written a book on must-win games, including the games which were in fact won and the games which were in fact not. Pillsbury vs Gunsberg, 1895 is another classic example. But the losses would probably be more instructive. Too many players say, I need a win, so I'll play the Marshall Gambit in the Ruy, the King's Indian Defense, or some other aggressive opening--even if they have never played it before. Krogius, in Chess Psychology, wrote that the best way to approach a must-win situation was to play exactly as you always do, only a little bit better! An elegant witticism, indeed, but not exactly concrete advice. |
|
| Dec-03-04 | | iron maiden: <An Englishman> Certainly any move or opening chosen primarily for surprise value can be called "psy-war". As for Fischer's conduct before and during the 1972 match, I'm not sure whether that could be traced to attempts to unglue Spassky. Maybe it was just his own psychological problems. |
|
| Dec-03-04 | | kostich in time: Somebody HAS written a book on must win games. Its by Pachman, and its called "Decisive games of Chess History". it goes through most of the great tournaments and matches from from Vienna 1873 to the Fischer-Spassky match. |
|
Dec-04-04
| | An Englishman: Good Evening: kostich in time, thanks for pointing this out to me (good pun, incidentally). Pachman was a pretty good writer. Does this collection include games where one player was in a must-win situation and didn't? Did he go into detail as to why some players succeeded and why other didn't? |
|
| Dec-07-04 | | Everett: <kostich in time>
Certainly, all WC games are important, but must-win does not describe any of the games in the Fischer-Spassky match, except for the last one, a draw, ensuring Fischer the title. It was a must win for Spassky, and he failed to win. I think there is a difference between must-win and "Decisive" as Pachman uses in his book. |
|
| Dec-21-04 | | fred lennox: 12.f5 may of taken Capablanca by surprise- to create a central backward pawn was not his habit. The move allows control of e6, greater mobility for the dark bishop and deep strategy. |
|
| Dec-21-04 | | drukenknight: it seems there are mistakes made later than that when Capa messes up the K side pawn play. 28...g5+ seems to make more sense rather than move that pawn twice; and 30...gxh4 might have been the last good chance. |
|
Dec-22-04
 | | beatgiant: <drukenknight>:
<28...g5+ seems to make more sense rather than move that pawn twice;>
True, but after 29. Kf3 it's not clear Black can do anything important with the extra tempo.<and 30...gxh4 might have been the last good chance.>
The move 30...gxh4 31. Rh3 opens new weak points (White would have the option to attack the h6 pawn with his rooks and Nf4-Ng6). |
|
| Jan-01-05 | | aw1988: Hasn't this been used already as game of the day under the same pun? |
|
Jan-01-05
 | | chessgames.com: Like several other truly classic games, we use this one about once a year. We decided to get it out the way early for 2005. Happy New Year to everybody from Chessgames.com. |
|
| Jan-01-05 | | poktirity: Happy New Year! Nice to have a pun involving one of my favorite bands on New Years Day. |
|
| Jan-01-05 | | Shams: I haven`t had my coffee yet, but...where the heck is the pun??? |
|
| Jan-01-05 | | square dance: <shams> capablanca was known as the chess machine, and rage against the machine was a politically active heavy rock band from the 90's. |
|
| Jan-01-05 | | Shams: well I know the band of course...
but I have never, ever heard of Capa`s being called "the chess machine". interesting. thanks square dance. |
|
| Jan-01-05 | | kevin86: One of the better games from the old master.Even the great Capablanca can fall under the clutches of Lasker's great combinational play. A great start for a great New Year!!
Happy New Year-everyone! |
|
| Jan-01-05 | | square dance: <shams> <well I know the band of course...> just covering all of the bases. ;-) as for capa's nickname, well if you read up on him you will see that he is referred to as "the chess machine" quite a bit. |
|
| Jan-01-05 | | jkiipli: I found this entertaining historical story that this particular game started off:
http://www.btinternet.com/~Neil.Cow...
don't know if its true though... |
|
| Jan-01-05 | | skipwallace555: Happy New Year |
|
| Jan-01-05 | | hintza: <I found this entertaining historical story that this particular game started off: http://www.btinternet.com/~Neil.Cow...
don't know if its true though...>
The story is completely falsified. Its author certainly doesn't do his own credibility any favours with such mistakes as <Siegberg> Tarrasch and <Rubenstein>. If one wishes to make a mockery of chess legends with such fictitious nonsense, then one should at least have enough respect to implement correct spelling. Having said that, it is clear through such an article that no respect ever existed anyway. |
|
| Jan-01-05 | | drukenknight: Lighten up. THe story is of course, tongue in cheek because the article itself drops hints that it is not to be taken seriously. For example Lasker is telling the story and mentioning his own demise! There are other hints as well.. |
|
| Jan-01-05 | | hintza: <drunkenknight> Of course the story is littered with hints. However, it seems a number of people are genuinely fooled by it. Nowhere on the three pages does the writer categorically state that the story is fictitious. <Lighten up.> Don't worry, I am not some kind of serious, justice-obsessed maniac :) |
|
| Jan-01-05 | | fgh: Rage Against the Machine is a great band!
The game: <7. ... Bd6?!> is too slow. <7. ... Bc5> is preferable.
<11. ... f6> creates a hole on e6, even thought white doesn't have a light squared bishop.
<13. Bf4!> forces the exchange of bishops, followed by the <Nb3-Nd4-Ne6> maneuver.
<20. b4!> avoids any possible counterplay on the queenside.
<23. g4.> Now white begins a expansion on the king side.
<31. hxg5, 32. Rh3 and 34. Rdh1> begin the penetration on the king-side. The rest of the game doesn't require any commentary. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 