| Sep-06-07 | | Petrosianic: Definitely an unusual game. David I-Hate-The-Endgame Janowski plays very well, to hold a very long, very difficult ending. And in a match where he got stomped in almost every other game. A good study for learning about Q+P endings. |
|
| Sep-06-07 | | paul1959: Where do those opening names come from? This variation was played way before Botvinnik was born. I tought that Botvinnik's variation was in the semi-slav or Meran . |
|
| Sep-06-07 | | syracrophy: <paul1959: Where do those opening names come from? This variation was played way before Botvinnik was born. I tought that Botvinnik's variation was in the semi-slav or Meran .> The openings take the name of the player that employs them on his games. Obviously, this opening was played before Botvinnik was born, but years later, he used it and maked it popular. Maybe it was used before by Lasker (as in this game's the case), but maybe Botvinnik played it more and worked strong on it |
|
Sep-06-07
 | | beatgiant: I don't see what's wrong with 63...Qxg2+. What am I missing? |
|
| Sep-07-07 | | paul1959: <beatgiant> Right. 63 Kg4 is probably a typo where Kf4 was meant. Then of course , 63...Qxg2 is met by 64 Qxf7+. |
|
| Mar-02-08 | | Knight13: It was already a dead draw on move 40. The rest is not so interesting. |
|
Feb-09-11
 | | Penguincw: What a long game. |
|
| Mar-20-14 | | Petrosianic: One thing I've never gotten here is why Janowski avoids the Queen exchange on Move 47, then goes for the Rook exchange on Move 50. The Rook and Pawn ending would have been easier to draw than the Queen and Pawn one. |
|
| Mar-20-14 | | Olavi: Good observation. Maybe that choice tells us something about the level of endgame knowledge at the time, unless of course it's just Janowski's personal thing. |
|
| Mar-20-14 | | Petrosianic: Janowski disliked endgame study. It was his opinion that a well played game should be decided before the ending. The problem is that when a game is well played on <both> sides, they often do go into endings. |
|
| Apr-18-14 | | Karpova: This game was adjourned after <31.Rxd5>, the <52nd> move,[1], <62.Qc7> [2] and <93.Qa3+>.[3] [1] Dr. Emanuel Lasker, 'Pester Lloyd', 1910.11.14, p. 4 [2] Dr. Emanuel Lasker, 'Pester Lloyd', 1910.11.16, p. 6 [3] Dr. Emanuel Lasker, 'Pester Lloyd', 1910.11.19, p. 7 |
|
Feb-05-15
 | | offramp: Did the second session really last only ten moves? |
|
Apr-15-15
| | Penguincw: The only game in the match that Lasker with white did not win; he was +5,-0,=1 with white. |
|
| Jun-07-17 | | RookFile: If you told somebody this was a Magnus Carlsen ending, he might believe you. Janovsky did well to hold this. |
|
| Jun-08-17 | | Straclonoor: After 77th white move Lomonosov TB7 gives - draw. |
|
| Feb-26-18 | | Serpentin: Lasker gagne un pion un pion dans un gambit dame avec le fou en b7. mais ce pion constitue du 4:3 sur l'aile roi ce qui fait que techniquement avec D+T de chaque coté la finale sera a la fois longue, ardue et ttres difficile a gagner si cela était possible! |
|
Nov-02-18
 | | Chessical: Lasker appears to have a win after Janowski's <90...Qe4+>, 90..Qd5 would have been better. After 91.Kg5 Qd4
click for larger viewLasker could have played:
<92. f6!> Kh7 (avoiding the discovered check) 93. Qh3+ Kg8 94. Qg4 Qc5+ (exchanging Queens loses mechanically in the pawn ending) 95. Kh6+ Kf8 96. Qg7+ Ke8 
click for larger view97. Qg8+ Kd7 98. Qxf7+ Kd8 99. Qe7+ Qxe7 100. fxe7+ Kxe7 101. g4 and wins as Black cannot stop the pawn from queening. Playing <90. f6> would have also been strong, but it is an idea that neither player favoured at the board. |
|
Kibitzing
