|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-05-10 | | ZZer: And if White had played 28.Kb1? Would Lasker still win the game? |
|
Jan-05-10
 | | Sastre: <And if White had played 28.Kb1? Would Lasker still win the game?> Yes, Black is still winning after 28.Kb1 Bxd4. White can't play 29.Rxd4 because of 29...Qxa2 30.Kc1 Rc3#. One possible line is 29.Qf5+ Kg8 30.Re1 Qb4+ 31.Kc1 Qc3+ 32. Qc2 (not 32.Kd1 Qa1+ 33.Ke2 Re3+ 34.Kf2 Qxe1#) Qa1+ 33.Qb1 Rc3+ 34.Rc2 Be3+ 35.Rxe3 Qxb1+ 36.Kxb1 Rxe3 and Black has a two pawn advantage in the endgame. |
|
| Jul-31-10 | | SetNoEscapeOn: Genius has its rewards. |
|
| Jul-31-10 | | BobCrisp: This must surely take precedence as the greatest game in which the a3 square played a pivotal role. For anyone thinking of starting an a3 best games collection, I'll start you off with: Bird vs Morphy, 1858
Anderssen vs Morphy, 1858
Botvinnik vs Capablanca, 1938 |
|
Nov-06-10
 | | kingscrusher: I have video annotated this game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgWe... |
|
| Dec-08-11 | | IoftheHungarianTiger: Ughaibu wrote <Lasker said this was his best "combinational" game.> I had read in Schonberg's "Grandmasters of Chess," that Lasker called this the best game he ever played, and it cites Marshall's Chess Masterpieces as it's source. I don't have Marshall's book, and I've found Schonberg to be somewhat unreliable in his accounts at times. Can anyone confirm if Lasker truly considered this his finest game? Or was it simply what he considered his finest combinational game? Clarification would be appreciated! |
|
| Feb-24-12 | | IoftheHungarianTiger: Regarding my post on Dec-08-11, I found an article by Edward Winter quoting from Marshall's "Chess Masterpieces" which indicates that Lasker did indeed consider this the best game he had ever played (at least up until when that book was written). I found the article at Chessbase. Here is the link: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... and here is the quote from the book, quoting Lasker himself: <'I think the game I won against Pillsbury in the St Petersburg Tourney in 1896 to be the best I ever played. I was just able to ward off a furious attack and then succeed in carrying my own counter-attack through. It is true that I missed the logical continuation at one point, owing to fatigue and time pressure, and so had to win the game twice; but then the sacrificial termination has some merit.' (page 60)> |
|
| Feb-25-12 | | AlphaMale: <Of Lasker’s play beginning 17…Rxc3 against Pillsbury at St Petersburg, 1895-96]: ‘Pillsbury told me that the exquisite combination here initiated was the only startling and utterly diabolical surprise he suffered in all his career abroad.’> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... |
|
Feb-25-12
 | | Penguincw: 31.♔a5 ♗d8+ 32.♕b6 axb6# (or 32...♗xb6# 0-1) 0-1, I believe.
click for larger view |
|
May-12-13
 | | FSR: In the concluding sequence of this game Black sacs his rook, then a pawn, then forces mate with his queen and bishop. It reminds me a bit of S Bouaziz vs Miles, 1979, where Black sacs his rook, then a bishop, then mates with queen and pawns, and K Zambelly vs Maroczy, 1897, where Black sacs his rook, then mates with queen and pawns. In each game, Black ended up with a massive material disadvantage (White had a queen and two rooks, or more, at the end of each game), and had no other pieces left besides those that effected the mate other than his king and some pawns. |
|
| May-13-13 | | andrewjsacks: This too is an Evergreen Game. |
|
| May-27-14 | | NeoIndian: If instead of 17.f5, Pillsbury played 17.Qf3, What's the best way to proceed? I thought ...Qb6. And if 18.f5 then Bxf5+! 19.Qxf5 Rxc3!( the b-pawn is pinned.) 20.Qxd4(no reason not to grab a central pawn!) and after Rfc8 21.Qb5 Qxd4!? we arrive at ( 
click for larger view)
White to play. What should he do?
A beautiful game.Once again, the harmony and coordination of Lasker's pieces amaze me... |
|
| May-27-14 | | NeoIndian: According to my (poor) analysis, White definitely seems to hold after 19.e7!... 19...Re8!(...Rc8?? 20.Qf5!(G.K)) 20.bxa3 Qb6+ 21.Bb5!(Sacrificing this useless bishop...)...Qxb5+ 22.Ka1 Rxe7 23.Qh3!! Re2 (...Rc7 24.Rd2! Rc4 25.Rhd1 ∞)
24.Qc8+ Kh7 25.Qc3 And now Black has nothing better than 25....Qc4 26.Qd3+ g6 27.Rd2 Rxd2 28.Qxd2 Bxd4+ 29. Kb1 Bc3
30.Qc2 d4 (Anchoring the bishop) 31.Rd1.
leading us to...
click for larger viewWhite is almost paralyzed, but I can't find a way forward for Black. |
|
Sep-14-14
 | | hoodrobin: Hi <NeoIndian>.
After: <19.e7 Re8 20.bxa3 Qb6+ 21.Bb5 Qxb5+ 22.Ka1 Rxe7 23.Qh3...> You could try: <23...Qc6>. |
|
| Oct-23-15 | | zanzibar: A Pillsbury quote of note about this game, from W.E. Napier: <230. [Of Lasker’s play beginning 17…Rxc3 against Pillsbury at St Petersburg, 1895-96]: ‘Pillsbury told me that the exquisite combination here initiated was the only startling and utterly diabolical surprise he suffered in all his career abroad.’> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... |
|
| Sep-06-16 | | Howard: As noted earlier, Kasparov's MGP had initially stated that 28.Qf5+ would have drawn for Pillsbury, but he turned out to be incorrect. Just for the record, Nunn's excellent book on Lasker (which I just looked at last night) confirms that 28.Qf5+ would not have drawn after all. |
|
| Oct-03-17 | | dannygjk: Some of these comments have to be tempered by the technology available at the time. |
|
| Dec-25-17 | | Albion 1959: A game that has made the anthologies with much analysis devoted to it. When compared with today's top players, it is worth mentioning just how good and tough these masters of the 19th century were. In the age of thick set dark moustaches and bushy grey beards we see a remarkable game from two of the younger, up and coming generation of masters. How would they have fared against today's chess elite? In a 21st century world of computers, databases and powerful far-reaching search engines,could they have held their own today? A comparison may be pointless, since they, like today's top players were still only human and far from infallible. But the earlier generations did much of the pioneering work on opening theory and understanding of the game as they took the game forward to the next generation for their successors to take it to the next level. As for the game itself, much analysis has been devoted from move 18 after Rxc3. Mistakes were made by both sides, but the key position was on move 28 when Pillsbury played Kxa3?? and walked straight into a mating net. His best move was 28.Qf5+, this has got to be played, everything else loses! The analysis is tricky and white must walk through a tactical minefield to reach safety. |
|
Dec-25-17
 | | perfidious: <andy: This too is an Evergreen Game.> A truly stupendous, marvellous conception by Lasker. |
|
| Dec-25-17 | | WorstPlayerEver: Yeah, those 1800-1900 players were not bad. However, by overlooking a simple 9... h6,
click for larger viewBlack missed a great opportunity to show their tactical strength. So to speak. |
|
| Aug-04-18 | | paladintanks: I had a game also like this in 20 minute tourney typical mating queen and pawns problem with this situation is theres only one variation that wins once sequence starts theres no turning back having sacrificed knight i didnt foresee sacirificing further rook losing my gamewhite king burying himself in pawns |
|
| Aug-10-18 | | cadavieco: One of the most beatiful games ever played, in spite the several mistakes |
|
| Aug-10-18 | | cadavieco: One of the most impressive moves ever seen. I love it. |
|
| Dec-23-21 | | Mathematicar: One of the most important games in chess history. |
|
| Nov-15-22 | | Ulhumbrus: In his book <The golden treasury of chess> I A Horowitz says of this game < There are many attractive settings for a brilliant game; but what is more impressive than an immortal game between two titans? The man who was able to beat the great Pillsbury in this wonderful game was truly worthy of his title. It is no exaggeration to say that Lasker's combination is one of the greatest feats of the human imagination.> |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 18...Ra3