|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-24-03 | | ughaibu: Shadout Mapes and Jonber I love very much from my heart, Fritz can go to the Fischer thread and die for all I care. |
|
| Apr-12-13 | | ughaibu: I wonder if 15.Qa3 would've been the choice of many players? Or is it a move that typifies Lasker? |
|
| Apr-12-13 | | RookFile: The idea of Qa3 probably wouldn't even occur to most. Surely most folks look at the position and list out candidate moves like: A) 15. dxc6
B) 15. Rxe5+
C) 15. dxe5
D) 15. Kf1
E) 15. Bxf4
What kind of a mind, indeed, looks at the position and goes for 15. Qa3? |
|
| Apr-12-13 | | RookFile: He also played your favorite move in this game:
Lasker vs Euwe, 1923 |
|
| Apr-12-13 | | ughaibu: In that game Qa3 is a natural move, I reckon. On the other hand, that's a particularly difficult game in which to choose a favourite move. Maybe 50.Kg6 would be my choice. |
|
Apr-12-13
 | | beatgiant: <ughaibu>
Lasker may have reasoned that 15...b5 is a threat, so White has to consider moving queen or bishop, or 15. dxc6. Bishop moves would be mere retreat, while 15. dxc6 Nxc6 aids Black's development.In this position, I would probably have opted for 15. dxc6 Nxc6 16. dxe5, to avoid spending a move on defense. But 15. Qa3 would also come up for consideration. After 15. Qa3, how about <15...Ne3> 16. Bxe3 fxe3 17. dxe5 Bg4. I'm not sure how White should handle that. |
|
| Apr-12-13 | | ughaibu: How about 18.Rxe3 Bxf3, 19.Rxf3 Qh2, 20.Kf1 Qh1, 21.Ke2 Qxa1, 22.dxc6? |
|
Apr-12-13
| | beatgiant: <ughaibu>
15. Qa3 Ne3 16. Bxe3 fxe3 17. dxe5 Bg4 <18. Rxe3> and then why not simply 18...Qxe3+? |
|
| Apr-12-13 | | ughaibu: Ooops! If you've got a collection for daft kibitzes that you didn't post, I recommend the above. |
|
| Apr-12-13 | | ughaibu: How about 18.Qd6? |
|
Apr-12-13
| | beatgiant: 15. Qa3 Ne3 16. Bxe3 fxe3 17. dxe5 Bg4 18. Qd6 Qh5 |
|
| Apr-12-13 | | ughaibu: Then white can bring the queen to f6 protecting f3 with tempo. Does that help? |
|
Apr-13-13
| | beatgiant: <ughaibu>
Thanks for posting this very interesting question.
After 15. Qa3 Ne3 16. Bxe3 fxe3 17. dxe5 Bg4 18. Qd6 Qh5 19. Qf6, Black can try <19...Bxf3> 
click for larger viewand then 20. Qxh8+ Kd7 21. e6+ Kc7 22. d6+ Kb6 23. Qd8+ Kc5, after which I can't find any good follow-up for White. |
|
Apr-13-13
| | beatgiant: If the above line is right, I think it has to go (from diagram above) 20. Qxf3 Qxf3 21. gxf3 h5 22. Kg2 h4 23. Rxe3 cxd5 24. Bxd5 Nc6 25. f4. It seems White can stop the passers and is probably fine.
click for larger view |
|
| Apr-13-13 | | ughaibu: Those look fine to me, so maybe black should answer 19.Qf6 with Rf8. Accordingly, instead of Qf6, how about reverting to the Rxe3 line proposed earlier? |
|
Apr-14-13
| | beatgiant: <ughaibu>
At first glance, in the line above after 19. Qf6 Rf8 <20. d6> looks like a killer. |
|
| Apr-14-13 | | ughaibu: This is a thoroughly embarrassing thread. Thank you. |
|
Jan-17-18
 | | Domdaniel: <ughaibu> There is nothing for you - or anyone else - to be embarrassed about. You contributed many ideas, some of which proved, on examination, to be flawed. That's about as much as one can hope for in a highly tactical game like this. |
|
| Jan-17-18 | | ughaibu: Domdaniel: Thanks, that's very kind of you. Unfortunately, the self deprecation was somewhat exaggerated in homage to Beatgiant's collection of games to which he contributed wonky analysis. But rest assured, as this admission entails that I'm now thoroughly embarrassed by your unnecessary reassurances, your reassurances have become necessary after all. So again, thank you. |
|
| Jan-17-18 | | jinkinson: Make this GOD with title "Are Two Heads Really Better than One?" |
|
Jun-14-18
 | | MissScarlett: Is this game genuine? Apparently, it's a continuation of the discussion begun with Lasker / Rice vs Hoffer / Maroczy, 1900 (where 15...b5 was played). However, the game's unknown to Whyld (1998), and the players' paths don't appear to have crossed in 1902. What's going on? |
|
| Jun-14-18 | | Retireborn: <MissS> The Chessbase Lasker collection has this and calls it a casual game played in Paris 1902. No other details given. Quite likely it was actually played in 1900 and didn't get (mis)published until later. On the other hand they do show Lasker in Paris for Christmas 1901, so it's just possible this game was played in January 02, perhaps. |
|
| Jun-14-18 | | Retireborn: Anyway, it's a Rice gambit. Possibly good old Ricey flashed the cash, but I would not regard this as a genuine game in the competitive sense. |
|
May-09-19
 | | sachistu: Instead of 23.Be2, much stronger seems 23.Re2! Apart from attacking both Black Queens, White threatens 24.Qe7#, which looks impossible to meet without heavy material loss. Analysis aside, there are two problems with the game given here. As mentioned by <MissScarlett>, there is no record of this game in Whyld's book on Lasker. It is also not found in Barcza's Magyar Sakktortenet Vol 2, which has Maroczy's games up to 1908. Actually, the score given here is a variant on the game Rice-Hanham, which is given in Lasker's 5th edition of the Rice Gambit (p.42-43). In the actual game, instead of 22...fxg1/Q (given here), Hanham actually played 22...f1/N+ and was mated in a few moves e.g. 23.Kd3 Kd7 24.dxe6 Kc7 25.Qe7+ Kb6 26.Qd8 Rxd8 27.Bxd8#. Lasker makes the comment "22...fxg1/Q is not better". Lasker does not give the venue or year. However, the game can be found in Urcan's book on Julius Finn (p.207). Urcan cites the Philadelphia Inquirer, November 11th, 1915. (<PhonyBenoni> sent me a copy of the Inquirer clipping, pointing out the actual date was Sunday, November 14th.) The location was the Manhattan Chess Club in New York. The Inquirer says it was played "many years ago". Urcan assigned the year of 1895, but acknowledges the exact date is unclear. Nevertheless, 1895 certainly seems plausible. It would be nice to find another source confirmation (esp. regarding the exact date) before submitting a correction slip, but it's pretty clear this was NOT Lasker-Maroczy,1902. This also means the score (22...fxg1/Q etc) is incorrect. |
|
| Mar-04-21 | | Whitehat1963: Wow! This is my first time seeing this game! You don’t often see someone lose with two queens on the board! Remarkable! |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 8.O-O