|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-23-03 | | pkramer: <Calli: "Note that he plays 23.Rd2. This would be mate if he didn't play Bb5 first."> This seems to be incorrect. If he hadn't played Bb5, the black Queen wouldn't have defended e8, so after 22. ..Rc7 White would give a check there, and not play 23. Rd2. The mayor point of move 21. Bb5! is indeed that d4 is in danger, after 21. Ka1 we expect 21. .. Bxd4+ 22. Rxd4 Qxd4+ which is bad for white. But this has nothing to do with 23. Rd2 ..# or so, that rook wouldn't be there anymore in this variation :-) |
|
| Oct-23-03 | | Calli: <pkramer> You are right. The variation would not actually arise in the game. I was trying to point out that a benefit of Bb5 was that the first rank was now protected by the Rook at h1 and white was free to move the other rook. |
|
| Dec-08-03 | | Sarimanok: 18...Ra3 is a great move. Is 7.Bxf6 sronger than 7.Qh4? |
|
| Dec-08-03 | | D.A. KALIM: <sarimanok>I think in this type of position it is better to keep the bishop than trade it for a knight. also 7.Bxf6 Nxd4 8.Bxd8 NxF3+. Is not a pretty pic. |
|
| Dec-10-03 | | Sarimanok: Salah Malaykum D.A.Kalim. You are right 7.Bxf6 Nxd4 8.Bxd8 Nxf3 is not a pretty pic. However I'm incline to believe that 9.exf3 will develop the light square bishop and give good counter chances for white's initiative. |
|
| Dec-10-03 | | Shadout Mapes: 7.Bxf6 was Pillsbury's improvement on the opening. He studied it in depth and used it to crush Lasker at Cambridge Springs 1904. |
|
| Dec-10-03 | | Sarimanok: Thank you Shadout Mapes. It was a very interesting game. Pillsbury exacting revenge to Lasker. |
|
| Dec-10-03 | | D.A. KALIM: <SHADOUT MAPLES> YEAH YOU'RE CORRECT IN THE RETURN GAME BETWEEN THIS TWO CHESS TITANS,PILLSBURY PLAYED 7.Bxf6! AND WENT ON TO WIN THE GAME. IT WAS ALSO SAID THAT PILLSBURY WAITED 8 YEARS! FOR THIS MOVE, WHICH HE PREPARED AFTER THE GAME AND DEFEATED THE WOLRD CHAMP. |
|
| Dec-10-03 | | ughaibu: I dont really understand the story about waiting eight years, unless it means that it took him eight years to find the move why did Pillsbury always open with e4 in all the games during the intervening period? |
|
| Dec-10-03 | | D.A. KALIM: <ughaibu> After the game he studied on the game extensively with his american friend William Napier.Probably it took him years to come up with the move 7.Bxf6.or may be it took 8 yrs to decide to play d4 after the loss to Lasker. :-D |
|
| Dec-10-03 | | Kenkaku: <ughaibu> Pillsbury and Napier worked on it for a long time it seems, making sure it was perfect. <why did Pillsbury always open with e4 in all the games during the intervening period?> They only played three games with Pillsbury having white between this game and Cambridge Springs (one win for Pillsbury and two draws). He probably simply felt like utilizing his very strong Ruy Lopez (although Lasker played the French against him in one of these, which Pillsbury won in brilliant fashion). The French game, however, should not be counted, as it was played in 1896 and Pillsbury had probably not analyzed the line too deeply at that point. Perhaps he did not have it ready yet in 1899 when their two draws were played. Then followed a five year period in which Pillsbury did not have the chance to play the opning agaist Lasker. Here is also one of the most famous of all stories in all the realm of chess.
You see, Pillsbury had lost to Lasker in St. Petersburg, 1895/96 in this line. (A fantastic encounter that is considered by some to be Lasker's finest and also his most brilliant game.) Despite the fact that Pillsbury had literally DOZENS of opportunities to play a possible improvement - which he had burned untold hours of ... 'midnight oil' on - he saved the big surprise for his next encounter with Lasker. (And Lasker alone!) No one else was deemed worthy of Pillsbury's great idea. And though he played the great Lasker many times, it seemed he would never get the opportunity to use his new idea. (Either the color was wrong, or Lasker played another line.) But finally ... in their very LAST game together ... Pillsbury got to spring
the trap!! (All of Pillsbury's hard work paid off - Lasker was rarely beaten in such a one-sided contest.) http://www.angelfire.com/games3/AJs... The two 1899 games were apparently missed by the author, who states that Pillsbury had no chance to play it earlier. |
|
| Dec-10-03 | | ughaibu: Thanks for the replies. It's very interesting. |
|
| Jun-12-04 | | acirce: Kasparov annotations: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... |
|
| Jun-13-04 | | jrmortz: If I remember correctly, when Pillsbury played 7.BxN, Napier came over to see what move Lasker played. He had played all variations with Pillsbury to test the soundness of the move. He was surprised to find out that Lasker played 7...PxB. It was the only move that Napier never played in all the analysis he did with Pillsbury. Lasker's move was a total surprise ! |
|
| Jun-13-04 | | ughaibu: I dont understand why 19.e7 doesn't gain a move? White holds the possibility of a promotion sacrifice to bring the rook back to e8. |
|
| Jun-13-04 | | Benzol: <ughaibu> 19.e7 ♖e8, 20.bxa3 ♕b6+, 21.♔c2 (if 21.♔a1 ♗xd4+, 22.♖xd4 ♕xd4+, 23.♔b1 ♖xe7, 24.♗b5 ♕e4+, 25.♔a1 a6  ); 21...♖c8+, 22.♔d2 ♗xd4, 23.e8=♕+ ♖xe8, 24.♗d3 ♕a5, 25.♔c1 ♕xa3+ 26.♔c2 ♕b2#
Btw if 23.♔e2 (in the above line instead of 23.e8=♕+) then 23...♕e6+, 24.♔f3 ♕e3+, 25.♔g4 g6 Analysis from volume 1 of Lasker's games in the Chess Stars series. |
|
| Jun-13-04 | | ughaibu: Okay, but why doesn't white play Bb5 in this variation? |
|
| Jun-13-04 | | Benzol: 19.e7 ♖e8, 20.♗b5 ♕xb5 |
|
| Jun-13-04 | | ughaibu: I meant in answer to the check. Calli (and Gerald Abrahams) both say play would proceed pretty much as in the game, but in such a case white maintains the pawn on e7 or black has to lose a move to capture it. |
|
| Jun-14-04 | | Benzol: <ughaibu> 19.e7 ♖e8, 20.bxa3 ♕b6+, 21.♗b5 ♕xb5+, 22.♔a1 ♕c4, 23.♕g4 ♖c8 Btw Gerald Abrahams in "The Chess Mind" says that 19.e7 ♖e8 also makes no vital difference to the attack. (See page 260 of the illustrative games section.) |
|
| Jun-14-04 | | ughaibu: The end of that line is exactly the kind of position I had in mind, white can now play e8Q bringing back the rook, also, in this line why does black play Qc4 if Lasker didn't do so in the game, would it've been an improvement? |
|
| Jun-14-04 | | Benzol: <ughaibu> My idea behind 22...♕c4 was to keep the Rook at d1 tied down to the defence of the d4 pawn. If now 24.e8=♕+ ♖xe8 and I'm not sure that white can play 25.♖he1 because of ♕c3+. How is white going to prevent 25...♖e2? |
|
| Jun-14-04 | | ughaibu: Okay, I'll look at it later. |
|
| Sep-15-04 | | Sergey Sorokhtin: Look new important Kasparov's corrections!!!
http://www.chesschamps.com/pgn.shtml |
|
| Sep-15-04 | | Sergey Sorokhtin: LOOK TOO "Kasparov revisits Pillsbury-Lasker 1896"
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 18...Ra3