|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-19-06 | | FHBradley: It certainly looks so: 13.Qa4 Nc5 14. Qxc6+ Bd7 15.Qd5; and it looks pretty drawish: 15...Be6 16. Qc6+ Bd7; but such continuations are not what Tchigorin was after when he settled for the Evans gambit. |
|
Nov-08-07
 | | playground player: And he didn't even bother to castle... |
|
| Jan-06-08 | | JimmyVermeer: According to Staunton's Chessplayers' Handbook, Lasker's 5th move was Ba5, not Bc5. Can anyone confirm which is correct? |
|
| Jan-06-08 | | paladin at large: According to the Weltgeschichte des Schachs, Lasker (Vol. 11) and GM Soltis "Why Lasker Matters", the move Bc5 is correct. (Petersburg, 3rd round, 17 Dec 1895) |
|
| Jan-06-08 | | JimmyVermeer: No wonder Staunton got it wrong - he died 21 years before this game was even played, so how could he have known what the moves were going to be?
He doesn't give the date, so maybe it was another Tchigorin vs. another Lasker, and every move was identical except that one.
A more plausible theory is that Staunton's book was edited some time afterwards and the new writer was careless in copying down the moves. |
|
May-28-08
 | | keypusher: This tournament was a clash of generations (23-year-old Pillsbury and 27-year-old Lasker against 45-year-old Chigorin and 59-year-old Steinitz) but also a clash of openings. Chigorin tried the Evans Gambit four times in this tournament, scoring a draw, two losses and a lone victory when Steinitz blundered in a winning position. Chigorin only dabbled in the Evans after this tournament, and after a famous loss to Pillsbury at London four years later he abandoned it altogether. Chigorin vs Pillsbury, 1899 |
|
| Jun-24-08 | | whiteshark: The position after <25.Qa2>
click for larger view
is on Madagascar miniature sheet no.1810 |
|
| Mar-13-10 | | Ulhumbrus: 23...c4 answers the threat of 24 Qe2 which will otherwise fork the B on e6 and the pawn on a6. |
|
Jun-16-13
 | | Gypsy: <keypusher: ... Chigorin tried the Evans Gambit four times in this tournament, scoring a draw, two losses and a lone victory when Steinitz blundered in a winning position.> I have not find the Chigorin-Steinitz you reference in the database; is it here? |
|
Jun-16-13
 | | Phony Benoni: <Gypsy> Chigorin vs Steinitz, 1896 Were you searching for it as an 1895 game?
St. Petersburg 1895-96 (1895) |
|
Jun-17-13
| | Gypsy: <Phony Benoni> Thx friend! <Were you searching for it as an 1895 game?> Yup, that was the problem. |
|
| Jul-11-13 | | master of defence: Why not 18.Qxg7? |
|
Jul-15-13
| | Gypsy: <master of defence: Why not 18.Qxg7?> If <18.Qxg7 Kd7>, then White is still a pawn down and soon will be on defensive.
(i) Immediately, White needs to deals with the pinned unprotected knight on c3. (ii) Black K is safe on d7, while White K is safe no more on the account of the open g-file. |
|
| Jul-15-13 | | RookFile: This is one reason why Lasker was stronger than Steinitz. Lasker had a defense to the Evans Gambit, while Steinitz routinely get slapped around. |
|
Jul-15-13
 | | chancho: <RookFile> Out of curiousity, I checked Steinitz's record in the Evans Gambit, (with White and Black) seeing as you say he got "slapped around."
Out of the 48 games in the database, Steinitz won 24 games, lost 14, and drew 10. With Black, he won 16 games while losing 13.
Maybe you need to revise your talking points?
:-) |
|
Jul-16-13
| | chancho: I had to delete my prior post.
Mea culpa.
There are two ECO codes for the Evans Gambit. (C51 C52) Lasker has <16> games in the database with the Evans. The overall totals are: 9 wins 6 losses 1 draw.
With White: 4 wins 3 losses 1 draw
With Black: 5 wins 3 losses 0 draws |
|
Jul-16-13
| | chancho: Steinitz overall record with the Evans Gambit (C51 C52): 52 wins 25 losses 17 draws.
With White: 19 wins 3 losses 1 draw.
With Black: 33 wins 22 losses 16 draws. |
|
| Jul-16-13 | | JoergWalter: Sreinitz considered the Evans as a real challenge. |
|
| Aug-27-13 | | jerseybob: I remember George Koltanowski showing this game on his late-60's TV show. Lasker's play seemed effortless and magic; of course it was neither, but Kolty made it seem so. |
|
| Nov-18-14 | | Ke2: this is the "bust to the evans gambit", or at least this particular move order (6.d4 is better than 6.O-O) |
|
Dec-18-15
| | keypusher: <CowardlyKnight: I imagine he was thinking of something in the lines of 26. Nxd5 Qxd5 27. Rxc4 Rg7 28. Rc1.> Unfortunately Black has 27....Qxg2#. :-) But of course you're right, Chigorin surely had something like that in mind. |
|
| Dec-18-15 | | thegoodanarchist: < playground player: And he didn't even bother to castle...> I am no chess master, but isn't 22...O-O-O considered castling? |
|
Dec-16-21
 | | kingscrusher: What a crushing game. And there is really crushing cute stuff behind the scenes here e.g. On 18 Qxg7 black has Kd7 !!
click for larger view 122: Mikhail Chigorin - Emanuel Lasker 0-1 3.0, St. Petersburg 1895/96
click for larger viewAnalysis by Stockfish 14:
1. -+ (-5.43): 19.Qg3 Qg8 20.Qf3 Qg4 21.Qxg4 Bxg4 22.Nxd5 Bxa1 23.Nf6+ Ke6 24.Nxg4 h5 25.Bg5 hxg4 26.Rxa1 Rhb8 27.Rc1 Rb5 28.f4 gxf3 29.h4 fxg2 30.Kxg2 Rg8 which is a King move that reminds me of a favourite game classic of mine Sowray vs Rogers because I witnessed a post-mortem analysis of them both and was amazed by the abstract comments of Rogers of deciding where to attack - Qside or Kside P J Sowray vs I Rogers, 1985 |
|
Jun-06-22
 | | Art2000F: Annotations from: "Chess Strategy and Tactics ~ Fifty Master Games Selected and Annotated" by Fred Reinfeld and Irving Chernev
♟
after move 7 P-Q4 B-Kt3❗️
The usual play at this point was 7 ... PxP, 8 PxP, B-Kt3 and White has several strong attacking lines at his disposal. The main difficulty of the variation, from Black's point of view, is not so much the direct attack he must endure, as the lack of development which he must contend with by reason of White's command of the center. Whenever Black's pieces are brought out, they can be chased away by the hostile Pawns. In Lasker's defense, however, we note that Black has a solid center, which secures him from attack and at the same time guarantees him a normal development. As a matter of fact, this profound idea of Black's holding the center originated, not with Lasker, but with his great forerunner Steinitz. But where Steinitz failed -- and where Lasker succeeded -- was in the satisfactory execution of the plan. |
|
Jun-06-22
 | | HeMateMe: why do you suppose they would include 1900 Fred Reinfield? |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
