chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Emanuel Lasker vs Geza Maroczy
unknown cg (1902)
King's Gambit: Accepted. Kieseritsky Gambit Rice Gambit (C39)  ·  1-0

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

Click Here to play Guess-the-Move
Given 43 times; par: 24 [what's this?]

explore this opening
find similar games 6 more Lasker/Maroczy games
sac: 8.O-O PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: Olga is our default viewer, but we offer other choices as well. You can use a different viewer by selecting it from the pulldown menu below and pressing the "Set" button.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE OF THIS GAME IS AVAILABLE.  [CLICK HERE]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Aug-24-03  Shadout Mapes: I just ran it through Fritz and it says 23...Kd7 loses to 24.Rxg1 Qxg1 25.Rxe6! It recommends 23...Qxd4+ first, but it gives white a solid 9 points.
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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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 view

and 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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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.

search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, is totally anonymous, and 100% free—plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
  3. No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any member Iincludinfgall Admin and Owners or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. If you think someone is an idiot, then provide evidence that their reasoning is invalid and/or idiotic, instead of just calling them an idiot. It's a subtle but important distinction, even in political discussions.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
  6. NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
  7. Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
  8. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
  9. The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
  10. All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
  11. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a Moderator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All Moderator actions taken are at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
KGA. Kieseritsky G., Rice Gambit (C39) 1-0 UnusualUnstoppable Q
from yPawns Slashing, Dashing, or Snatching by fredthebear
rice
from KGA-Knight Gambit -.Older Style continuations by takchess
rice
from KGA-Knight Gambit -.Older Style continuations by takattack
KGA. Kieseritsky G., Rice Gambit (C39) 1-0 UnusualUnstoppable Q
from Minors on the Back Rank Watching Fredthebear by fredthebear
23 moves
from Chess Miniatures, Collection VII by wwall
Games of Beauty
by Xenon Oxide
Treasure's Ark
by Gottschalk
23 moves
from Game collection: 2 by PinkLedDoor
KGA. Kieseritsky G., Rice Gambit (C39) 1-0 UnusualUnstoppable Q
from Emanuel Lasker Collection by hrannar
new collection
by nadvil
Mitz Moshe's favorite games
by Mitz Moshe
King's Gambit: Accepted. Kieseritsky Gambit Rice Gambit
from seÁme partiler by deniznba
Game collection: KGA
by kafkafan


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us


Copyright 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC