< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|May-08-04|| ||iron maiden: When was Reshevsky "treated without respect by Lasker?" By all accounts that I've heard, Lasker was a well-mannered gentleman. |
|May-08-04|| ||paulalbert: When a high level competitor defeats another high level competitor, be it in chess, tennis, football, business,etc. that is competition, not disrespect. Naturally, competitors want to win the next head to head contest and prepare to do so.I doubt that either Lasker or Reshevsky viewed this as a matter of personal animosity. It was a matter of professional competition. Paul Albert |
|May-08-04|| ||iron maiden: Well, if "treated without respect" means "defeated in a chess game", then I'd like to see that game, if a record exists. I thought Reshevsky and Lasker played only this one game. |
|May-08-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: I read the thing and don't see any mention of Lasker insulting Reshevsky, I think Hans Ree just said that Reshevsky was "treated without respect" to make it sound like Lasker utterly demolished Reshevsky the first time around. I've never seen the other game before (there is only an Edward Lasker game besides this). |
|May-08-04|| ||tamar: I think Ree had the Laskers mixed up.
American Chess Journal 1921 has the first hand account of this game by Edward Lasker,Reshevsky vs Edward Lasker, 1920
"Edward Lasker is impressed with the play of prodigy Sammy Reshevsky, but points out the only thing the child has to learn is to lose gracefully. 306pp."
|Jul-07-05|| ||calman543: What would be the finish up if white did not resign?|
|Jul-08-05|| ||suenteus po 147: <calman543> 23.Kh1 Qh5 and now there is no way for white to prevent mate without losing his queen.|
|Jul-08-05|| ||sheaf: <suenteus po 147> u mean 23.Kh1 Qg4 |
|Jul-08-05|| ||PivotalAnorak: <sheaf> well if 23.♔h1 ♕h5 24.♔g2 ♕g4+ is .|
|Nov-11-05|| ||RookFile: This game is misunderstood. Lasker
should have emerged from this game
with an advantage. The Queen to d5
idea shouldn't have worked out so
well for black.
|May-23-06|| ||netlava: <RookFile> The queen to d5 idea forces white to lose a pawn.|
|Jun-28-06|| ||RookFile: It does no such thing. Lasker should have been able to force the queen to retreat, and emerge with an opening advantage. I'll set up a reminder to myself to analyze this.|
|Jul-07-06|| ||RookFile: Ok. In my hands is great book, called "American Chess Masters from Morphy to Fischer", by Bisguier and Soltis.
This game is analyzed, and some of the notes are given below:|
"In this semi-open position, it is very much in Black's interest to exchange off minor pieces. On 14. Bxe7 Qxe7 15. Ncxd5 Bxd5 16. Be4, White concedes Black equality. Lasker chooses a tricky attacking line but misses the essential follow up three moves later."
14. Bc1 (!?)
16. a4 (!) Qd5 !?
".... Here White has offeed a strong pawn sacrifice that would allow him to play c4 and Bb2. The lost queen rook pawn is meaningless - that is, meaningless in the middlegame. Reshevsky's reply (16... Qd5) complicates the game, and although it is not as powerful as was thought duing the game, it's practical effect was powerful. Lasker now fumbles."
17. Nf3 ?
"A sorry retreat, but the seemingly aggressive 17. f4 could be effectively answered by .....b4!", Reshevsky wrote in his notes. But then 18. c4! puts Black in real trouble because 18... Qxd4+ 19. Be3 Qc3 20. Bxh7+! and 21. Rd3 is too strong. If Black must retreat his queen, White stands very well."
19.... Ng5 !
".... White has been victimized by Black's bluff and his otherwise very astute counterplay...."
|Dec-17-06|| ||shr0pshire: Here is how Reshevsky recounts the game in his book, "Great Chess Upsets."|
"I played Lasker only once. He was sixty years old when the following game was played. I had no difficulty equalizing with the black pieces, and Lasker also misplayed the middle game, making several dubious moves. On his 21st turn, Lasker blundered by over-looking a three move combiation, which forced his resignation."
Reshevsky doesn't mention anything about Lasker' attitude toward Reshevsky in either way.
|Dec-17-06|| ||suenteus po 147: <sheaf> You're right, your way is faster and thus better.|
|Sep-02-09|| ||WhiteRook48: 34 Kh1 Qh5 24 Kg1 Bxf3 25 Qe5 Qg4+ 26 Qg3|
|Sep-05-09|| ||backrank: 34. Kh1 is not answered by Qh5, but by the much stronger Qg4!, mating or winning the White Queen.|
|Aug-26-12|| ||Ulhumbrus: On 17 f4 instead of 17 Nf3 an alternative to 17...b4 is 17...Ne4! as in the game starting an attack on the c3 pawn.|
Lasker's first mistake may have been the withdrawal 14 Bc1?
An alternative to this is 14 Bd2. On 14...Nxc3 15 bxc3 Nf6 16 f4 Qd5 17 Bb1 Ne4 18 Be1 Rfc8 19 Rf3 f5 Black may be able to defend but that is much better for White than passing the advantage to Black
|Nov-21-17|| ||plang: Nowadays Nc3 is it usually delayed; partially as it is a potential target for Black's queenside play. Lasker's 8 Bd3?! is inferior to 8 Bb3 which eyes the important d5 square. Avoiding exchanges with 14 Bc1? was over-optimistic; 14 Bxe7 was better. 21 Ne1 would have been slightly better but after 21..Nh3+ 22 Kh1..Nf4 23 Qg4..Bg5 24 Rc2..h5 25 Qg3..h4 26 Qg4..h3 Black is still winning.|
|Nov-21-17|| ||JimNorCal: So this is the only Reshevsky/Lasker game then.|
I recall reading about an Ed Lasker/Reshevsky exhibition game. It ended as being "abandoned". Lasker had crushed young Sammy, who was reduced to starting angrily at the chessboard.
|Jan-26-18|| ||TheFocus: This score is not complete.
Alekhine in <The Book of the Nottingham International Chess Tournament>, pg. 197-198, gives 23. Kh1 Qg4! 0-1.
Euwe in <Meet the Masters>, pg. 192-195, agrees, giving the following note by Euwe after 23...Qg4!: <With the threat of 24…Bxf3+, against which nothing can be done.>.
|Jan-26-18|| ||Gregor Samsa Mendel: <TheFocus>--I have a 1962 edition of Alekhine's book, and it says that white resigned after black's 22nd move.|
|Jan-26-18|| ||TheFocus: Yikes. Sorry, I was only looking at the notes by Euwe. |
The Reshevsky bio by Gordon also ends it after Black's 22nd move.
I wonder why Euwe thought different?
|Jan-31-19|| ||billy2182: I read somewhere that after one hour of play in this game, Lasker had used 2 minutes, and Sammy 58.|
Anyone else ever see that quoted?
|Jun-10-19|| ||SVarden: Yes, but not in connection with this games. Instead, it was Reshevsky-Smyslov from the USSR-USA Radio Match from 1945. Apparently Reshevsky ran into a variation of the Slav Defense that was well known to the Soviet players, and so Smyslov didn't have to spend much time during the opening.|
RookFile posted that "In his book, Kasparov praises Reshevsky's play in the late opening, early middle game, pointing out how, in an unfamiliar position, that had been deeply analyzed by the Russians before the game, he found good moves, although at the cost of time, in a position where some others before him had gone astray." Smyslov eventually won the game in 71 moves.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·