| Apr-21-09 | | whiteshark: I don't understand the moves at the end. |
|
| Feb-18-10 | | whiteshark: Nor me. |
|
Feb-25-10
 | | keypusher: It looks as thought the game did not end at move 42, but the BCM (apparently the original source) did not record the remaining moves. http://books.google.com/books?id=S3... |
|
| Oct-14-14 | | TheFocus: Game 1 of a two game match. Played on December 11.
Lasker drew the second game. |
|
Oct-20-20
 | | MissScarlett: Game appeared in the <Manchester Evening News> on December 12th, p.3, with notes by Lasker, their then columnist, ending after <42...K-Q4> with <And Black won the ending, as White could not regain the Pawn>. In other words, that's all, folks. As the second game was scheduled for the 12th, one can sympathise with Lasker for wishing to cut things short. |
|
Oct-20-20
 | | offramp: 
click for larger view
Here I would have played 40.a4, then later, when necessary, Ra3. |
|
Oct-20-20
 | | Check It Out: <offramp> It did seem odd to put the rook in front of the passer. <MissScarlett> Thanks. A won ending lost in the sands of time. |
|
Feb-26-21
| | MissScarlett: From Lasker's <MEN> column of the 11th, p.4: <The match between Dr. E. Lasker and M. Janowski of which an announcement has previously been made, will take place to-day and to-morrow (Thursday), at the rooms of the Manchester C.C., 6, Bank-street. [...] The cordial support of all leading Manchester chess amateurs has been given to the matter, and the Lord Mayor of Manchester has graciously consented to assist at the opening of the second game. Play will take place each day from 3-5 and 7-10 p.m. The two player have agreed to open with the Evans gambit or the Bishop's gambit, lots to be drawn to determine which of the two openings is to be chosen.> |
|
Feb-26-21
| | keypusher: < MissScarlett: Game appeared in the <Manchester Evening News> on December 12th, p.3, with notes by Lasker, their then columnist, ending after <42...K-Q4> with <And Black won the ending, as White could not regain the Pawn>.> This is the position.
click for larger view43.Rxh7 sure looks like regaining the pawn to me, after which the ending appears to be drawn to me and SF too: 43....Ra8 44.Rg7 Ra3+ 45.Kf2 Ke4 46.Rxg6 d5 47.h4 d4 48.h5 d3 49.h6 Rxa2+ 50.Kg3 d2 51.Rd6 Ra3+ 52.Kf2 Rd3 53.Rxd3 Kxd3 54.h7 and both sides queen. Stopping to take the f-pawn on move 47 doesn't change things: 47....Kxf4 48.h5 Rxa2+ 49.Kg1 d4 50.h6 Ra7 51.Rg7 Ra6 52.h7 Rh6 53.Kf2 Rh2+ 54.Kg1 Rh5 55.Kf2, etc. |
|
Feb-26-21
| | MissScarlett: Yes, one supposes Lasker's <...Kd5> spooked Janowski and he didn't take on h7. A couple other Lasker notes support the impression they were hastily conceived. On <9.Bg5>, <The usual move here is <e5>, when the game might be continued <9.e5 Qg6 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 b5 12.Nxb5 Rb8> whereupon Black is a pawn up and his pieces are well developed. In the tournament at Monte Carlo Janowski had won this [sic] variation (with Black) against Marshall, and he decided therefore upon a different line of attack.> But it was Marshall who varied there with the inferior <8.e5>: Marshall vs Janowski, 1901 <39...Rf6> <It is evident that the exchange of rooks would leave White with a winning end game.> Actually, Black holds that endgame, but it's close. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
sac: 34...Kg7