|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-13-05 | | paul dorion: <Hoozits> 21 b4 and Qf5 are based on general considerations: Black is trying to stop White`s dangerous K side attack and needs his queen to be near the action (it is the only piece that can come to the help of the king). Qa5 pins the g5 bishop and threatens h6 winning it. the Re1 is also en prise. If 21...Qxb4 , 22 Bd2! repels the B queen and allows White to continue it's mating attack with Rg3. The black queen will need several more moves to get back to the K side. |
|
| Jul-13-05 | | Koster: WhoKeres: In Lasker's biography the author mentions that Lasker was handed a telegram from his wife during this game. She wrote to let him know that a play he had been working on for many years was finally going to be published. Lasker was so overjoyed that he literally couldn't think, and fell vitim to Torre's combination as a result. It's amazing the endless variety of excuses players can find for losing. That play thing is a new one to me. I know Lasker also considered himself to be a philosopher, but nobody reads his books today and hardly anyone did then either. Even as a chess writer I wouldn't put him in the same class as Steinitz, Alekhine, Capa, Nimzovich, Tarrasch or others from that era. |
|
| Sep-01-05 | | Chess Champ: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/cserica/s... STEINITZ WAS DA MAN! IF HE PLAYED 10 MATCHES AGAINST LASKER, COULD HAVE WON IT! BUT I SAY, THE FIRST REAL TOURNAMENT WAS IN 1851, EVEN THOUGH I SAY PHILIDOR COULD BE FIRST CHAMP, I SAY WE CAN START FROM ANDERSEN. |
|
| Sep-01-05 | | RookFile: I'm not 100% sure of this, but I think Lasker was better at one point in this game. So Torre's combination represents a grand swindle. |
|
Sep-01-05
 | | chancho: It was a verse drama that Lasker and his brother Berthold were working on for some years. Supposedly he was so overjoyed when he received the news that it would be played in a Theatre, that he could not concentrate, and made a bad move. |
|
| Oct-20-05 | | Chess Champ: Torre was like the passing Khan, moments of glory and gone with the wind... |
|
| Oct-21-05 | | Kean: He was very talented, but was emotionally unstable. |
|
| Feb-19-06 | | LluviaSean: doesnt this almost look like sicilian najdorf after a couple of moves? |
|
Feb-19-06
 | | WannaBe: Looks like some sort of Sicilian, but not sure about Najdorf, doesn't Najdorf usually have ...d6 and ...a6 ? |
|
| Jun-19-06 | | GeauxCool: This windmill win against Lasker was won on Carlos Torre's 21st Birthday. No time for good annotation.
Quickly: Lasker left poorly in the opening at 4...cxd4 (4...Qb6), this poor decision gives white's pieces freedom and a strong initiative after both sides castle (11.O-O O-O). 18.Qh5! (bold) (also possible is 18.Bb1).
21.b4! Lasker could have drawn with the right response at this move but decided to play for the win against this relatively unknown opponent. Then, 23...Qd5 was a mistake. 25.Bf6! (Surprise!) -Fine The windmill follows, which allows Torre to take pieces. In Spanish the term for taking a piece is 'comer' which means 'to eat'. Carlos Torre certainly celebrated his birthday by having his cake (win over Lasker) and eating it too (windmill)! |
|
| Jun-19-06 | | Jilted Rook: Putting the question to the bishop immediately with 3...h6 is the modern treatment of this opening. |
|
| Aug-15-06 | | syracrophy: Carlos Torre VS Emmanuel Lasker
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 c5 4.e3 cxd4 5.cxd4 Be7 6.Nbd2 d6!<An interesting idea. Lasker is fighting for the control of the e5-square that will give him a solid position> 7.c3 Nbd7 8.Bd3 b6 9.Nc4 <Unnecesary. Better was 9.Qc2> 9...Bb7 10.Qe2 Qc7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Rfe1 Rfe8 13.Rad1 Nf8 14.Bc1?! <A dubious move. More natural was 14.Bxf6> 14...Nd5! 15.Ng5? <Without a clear plan, ignoring Lasker's counterattack in the queen's flank. Better was 15.Na3> 15...b5! 16.Na3 <Not 16.Ne3? Bxg5 17.Nxd5 exd5!  > 16...b4 17.cxb4 Nxb4 18.Qh5?!<Better was 18.Bb5> 18...Bxg5 19.Bxg5 <Better was 19.Qxg5 to answer 19...Nxa2 with 20.Bd2> 19...Nxd3 20.Rxd3 Qa5!<A strong move attacking the rook and pinning the bishop> 21.b4! <A smart defense. If 21...Qxb4? 22.Bd2 Qb6 23.Rg3!> 21...Qf5? <Correct was 21...Qd5! 22.Qg4 Qxa2 and white is in difficulties> 22.Rg3? <White is ignoring the pin of the bishop. Correct was 22.Rh3> 22...h6? <Moving the wrong pawn to attack the bishop. Correct was 22...f6 and white loses his bishop> 23.Nc4! <This would have been impossible if black would have played 21...Qd5> 23...Qd5? <The decisive mistake. Drawing chances for black was playing 23...hxg5! 24.Nxd6 Qg6> 24.Ne3  Qb5 <If 24...Qxd4 25.Rd1! Qe4 26.Bxh6 Ng6 27.Bg5 with the threat Rh3 winning> 
click for larger view25.Bf6!! Qxh5 26.Rxg7+<Time to cry...> Kh8 27.Rxf7+ Kg8 28.Rg7+ Kh8 29.Rxb7+ Kg8 30.Rg7+ Kh8 31.Rg5+! <Obviously not 31.Rxa7+? Kg8 32.Rg7+ Kh8 33.Rg5+ Kh7 34.Rxh5 and white has left open the a-file for black, giving him drawing chances> 31...Kh7 32.Rxh5 Kg6 33.Rh3 Kxf6 34.Rxh6+ Kg5 35.Rh3 Reb8 36.Rg3+ Kf6 37.Rf3+ Kg6 38.a3 a5 39.bxa5 Rxa5 40.Nc4 Rd5 41.Rf4 Nd7 42.Rxe6+ Kg5 43.g3! <Protecting the rook and avoiding mate, so Lasker resigned in a lost endgame> Carlos Torre said in an interview, that he didn't liked this game, because he and Lasker commited too much mistakes.
Indeed, a brilliant game, but with too much imprecisions |
|
| Aug-15-06 | | Tommy Jensen: <syracrophy> Clearly some weak moves from Lasker leading up to the windmill. 22...f6 would have won for black, and 23...hxg5 would still have drawn. But could black have put up more of a fight after 24.Ne3 ? Indeed, 24...Qxd4 25.Rd1 Qe4 26.Bxh6 Ng6 27.Bg5 does threaten 28.Rh3, but black could still try 27...Nf4 28.Qg4 Ng6 or 28.Bxf4 Qxf4 29.Rh3 Kf8, in either case losing a pawn, but at least not the entire game quickly. An idea such as 24.Ne3 Qxd4 25.Rd1 Qc3!? 26.Bxh6 g6 27.Qh4 Nh7 28.Rh3 Qf6 suffers from a similar drawback, though perhaps a drawn endgame with differently colored bishops might arise. |
|
Aug-15-06
 | | Pawn and Two: In "The Life and Games of Carlos Torre" by Gabriel Velasco, Velasco asked Torre about this game. Torre replied sharply: <"That was rather one of my worst games and, therefore, one of Dr Lasker's worst"> |
|
| Aug-15-06 | | syracrophy: <Tommy Jensen> I appreciate your idea of 24...Qxd4 25.Rd1 Qe4 26.Bxh6 Ng6 27.Bg5, to play 27...Nf4, but after 28.Bxf4 Qxf4 29.Rh3 f6 30.Qh7+ Kf7 <not 30...Kf8 31.Rh4 Qg5 32.f4 Qb5 33.Rg4 g5 34.fxg5 and black is in huge trouble> 31.Rh4 Qg5 32.Rg4 Qh6 33.Qxh6 gxh6 34.Nc4 Rad8 35.Nxd6+ Kf8 <Obviously not 35...Ke7 36.Rg7+> 36.Rg6 Re7 37.Rxh6 Kg7 38.Rh4 
click for larger viewWhite's much better, is winning |
|
| Aug-23-06 | | Tommy Jensen: <syracrophy> I agree that the line is very plausible up to 24.Ne3 Qxd4 25.Rd1 Qe4 26.Bxh6 Ng6 27.Bg5 Nf4 28.Bxf4 Qxf4 29.Rh3 f6 30.Qh7+ Kf7 31.Rh4 Qg5 32.Rg4 Qh6 33.Qxh6 gxh6 34.Nc4. But here instead of 34... Rad8 I would suggest 34... Red8 with the idea 35.Nxd6+ Kf8 36.Rg6? Bd5! 37.Nb5? Be4! 38.Rxf6+ Ke7 and all of a sudden it is black who is winning! White still has a large advantage after 34...Red8 35.Nxd6+ Kf8 36.Rgd4 Bc6 37.f4 (37.b5?! Bd5!) but the win is not yet completely obvious. |
|
| Nov-24-06 | | Total Blunder: I have a friend who was caught several times in a trap which leads into a windmill similar to this one. I call this kind of windmill after him "Renato's windmill/trap". lol |
|
| Feb-08-07 | | Ulhumbrus: Instead of 18...Bxg5, 18..g6 followed by ...Nxd4 gains the bishop pair. |
|
| Feb-09-07 | | Cyphelium: <Ulhumbrus> 18.- g6 19. ♕h6 ♘xd3? 20. ♖xd3 just aids white, getting the rook ready for kingside attack. The threat is 21. ♘xh7 followed by 22. ♖h3. Now 20.- f5 21. ♘xh7! obviously won't do.
The best defence (though still not very good) seems to be 20.- ♗xg5 21. ♗xg5 f5 (else 22. ♗f6) 22. ♘b5 ♕d7 (not 22.- ♕g7 23. ♕xg7+ ♔xg7 24. ♘c7) 23. ♗f6 d5 24. ♘d6 ♖eb8 25. ♗e5 when white is clearly better. |
|
| Jul-31-07 | | Themofro: Wonderful game, gotta love the windmill tactic.
The pun is of course referring to the spectatular classic "The Seventh Seal" by Ingmar Bergman who just died yesterday. He was one of the greatest directors of all time and one whose films will live with us forever. P.S. Thanks chessgames.com |
|
| Jul-31-07 | | tacite: <Chessgames> Thanks for the pun, for this simple hommage to one of the greatest, if not the greatest movie director of the post-war era. <Themofro> You are right about Bergman's film. And in this film, the Crusador performed by Max Von Sydow plays a game of chess against Death. And against Death, there is neither a win or a draw that is possible... |
|
| Jul-31-07 | | realbrob: This looks like a Scheveningen rather than a Najdorf.. Interesting way of drawing a sort of Sicilian defense out of 1.d4, even though I don't think White often plays the Torre Attack nowadays. I saw this game annotated in a book by Garry Kasparov, and it was the first time I met the idea of the repeated discovered check by rook and bishop, usually with heavy win of material. <About the Seventh Seal> So in this game who is supposed to be Death? Torre presumably, though I think it's unfair that Death who is unbeatable plays with White. lol Anyway I think that if one wants to make the metaphor more realistic one should say you don't play a single game of chess against Death, but an infinite match composed of a lot of games... So sometimes you can win or draw, but you eventually lose. |
|
| Jul-31-07 | | tacite: So it seems that Death was playing chess against both Bergman and Antonioni. |
|
| Jul-31-07 | | unixfanatic: This is not the Sicilian Najdorf, however, it is very similar to the Hedgehog system, which is characteristic of those openings. |
|
| Jul-31-07 | | Jim Bartle: A simul, then?
Then again, as realbrob suggests, maybe God's really playing an unending six-billion board simul. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 25.Bf6