Aug-09-04
 | | Chessical: Lasker makes a rare blunder <31...Rdd8> giving Showalter the game. Showalter had played the opening solidly, but after: <31...Qd8> 32.Re1 Nxf6 33.exf6 Rxe1; he would still, have a lot of work to do. <32.Rg7!> Ng5 (32...Rg8? 33.Rxh7+ Kxh7 34.Qh5#) 33.Qg3 wins outright. |
|
| Oct-19-09 | | dannygjk: The problem with some games is sometimes I wonder if the ID is correct. For example, hypothetically speaking, imagine if this game was played by the other Lasker. The person entering the game online might think, 'Hmmm, I forgot Lasker's first name but I know that's not it.' So then of course a quick lookup and 'discovery' that Emanuel should be entered. |
|
Oct-19-09
 | | keypusher: <dannygik>
Yes, that happens a lot, but not here. Emanuel Lasker and Showalter played a match in 1892 and this is one of the games from it. Emanuel's brother Berthold was a strong player, but this isn't him. Emanuel's (possibly) distant relative Edward was born in 1885 in Germany, so we can be pretty confident this isn't him either. Edward Lasker |
|
Jul-29-10
 | | GrahamClayton: The wager for this match was $100, with a time limit of 18 moves per hour. |
|
| Jan-12-12 | | AVRO38: It looks like these two played 2 separate matches, one in 1892 in Logansport IN and one in 1893 in Kokomo IN but I always see this listed as one match. Does anyone have any information that can clarify the conflicting info? |
|
Jan-12-12
 | | Phony Benoni: <AVRO38> Here are three excerpts from the 1893 British Chess Magazine (available at http://books.google.com/books?id=Yo... ) which almost make the situation clear. February, 1893, p. 89
<"On December 12th [1892] commenced the meeting of the Indiana Chess Association, at Logansport, and he [Lasker] was present at it. The great attraction of the gathering was his two games with Mr. Showalter, of which each won one, but the deciding game of the little match was not played, owing to Mr. Lasker's indisposition, and the prize of $100 was divided between the two masters.... From Logansport Mr. Lasker proceeded on to Philadelphia, to enter upon his engagement with the Franklin Club of that city."> May, 1893, p. 215:
<"After finishing his course of mathematical lectures at Tulane University, Mr. Lasker gave a final peripatetic performance at the New Orleans Chess Club. He then proceeded to Kokomo, Indiana, to play his long talked of match with Mr. Showalter, for $1000 a side, and with a time-limit of eighteen moves an hour. The match, which was to consist of ten games up, began on April 15th, and the score at the time of our going to press was: Lasker 3, Showalter 1, drawn 1."> June, 1893, p. 259:
<"Lasker won his match with Showalter at Kokomo, Ind., by scoring 6 to 2, and two draws. This reckoning includes the three games previously played between them at the Indiana Chess Association meeting, which it was agreed should count as part of the match. The original conditions were for ten games up and $2,000 a-side, but these were afterwards cut down to six games and $500 a-side. Neither master seems to have played his best, and the American champion was said to have been suffering from an influenza attack. It is stated that Herr Lasker will take up his residence at New Orleans as a regular professor of mathematics at Tulane University."> The question remains whether two or three games were played at Logansport, and I'd favor the more contemporary report that two games were played. |
|
Jan-12-12
| | Phony Benoni: A bit more information from the <New York Sun>, December 17, 1892. Available at http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... <"Showalter and Lasker agreed not to play the third game, but to divide the purse. A banquet was tendered by the Logansport players to their guests and members of the Indiana State Chess Association. The project of a set match, five games up, between Lasker and Showalter was discussed. It will probably take place some time next month at some Western city. It will be for $750 a side."> <Chess Archaeology> is recommended if you'd like to look into this era further. http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... |
|
| Jan-12-12 | | TheFocus: The first two (and the third unplayed draw) were rolled over into their 1893 match. <KOKOMO, April 9 – The long-expected chess match between Jackson W. Showalter and Emanuel Lasker, which has been three times postponed, will commence here tomorrow. The rules and conditions of the match have been agreed upon. The victor will be the winner of the first ten games, draws not counting. He will receive the purse of $2,000 and be considered champion of America. The match, however, is virtually only nine games up, as the games played between the contestants at Logansport last January will be included in the score. Each scored and lost one game. Charles O. Jackson of this city, President of the Indiana State Chess Association, will act as referee. H. Brown of Anderson, Ind. is the stakeholder. Games will be played every day, Saturday and Sunday excepted. The time limit is fixed at fifteen moves an hour. If after four and a half hours of play the game should not be finished a recess will be taken, and two more hours in the evening devoted to play. The rules of the fifth American Chess Congress will govern. Each player has the right to excuse himself three times from playing on notifying the referee and his opponent – The New York Sun, April 10, 1893.> <KOKOMO, April 27 – As reported in yesterday’s Sun, Lasker scored his sixth victory over Showalter and thus won the match. The American player, although outclassed by his opponent, made a good fight and achieved a better score against Lasker than the English matadors, Blackburne and Bird. In the last game the German master again clung to his favorite Queen’s Pawn, and pursued the same course as in his previous game at the same opening. Showalter, however, ventured a new departure on the seventh and eighth moves, which not only blocked his c-pawn, but gave Lasker an opportunity, by a splendid combination, to finally isolate the adverse d-pawn. The German then kept up the pressure against the weak spot in Showalter’s game, and the latter, anxious to prevent White from breaking through on the Kingside, posted his Pawns so unfortunately that he was soon confronted wuth the loss of either a Pawn or the Exchange. He chose the latter evil, but derived little help by doing so. Lasker cleared the road for his passed d-pawn, and while Showalter’s Rook had to guard against White Queening the Pawn, Lasker drove the King into a mating net. On the forty-fourth move Showalter gave a last desperate check and then resigned the game and the match after four hours of play – The New York Sun, April 28, 1893. > |
|
| Jan-12-12 | | AVRO38: Thanks <Phony Benoni><TheFocus> that was really helpful. So from what I gather there were 2 matches but the score of the first match carried over. But since the score of the first match was tie it's really irrelevant whether it carried over or not, it's kind of weird that they would even make a point of carrying over an even score. It's like a baseball game being rained out with the score 1-1 and they start a new game the following day with a 1-1 score, what's the point? Anyway, it's interesting that the winner was considered the "Champion of America." It reminds me of the Capablanca-Marshall match were Marshall said that Capa could not be U.S. champion because he was not a U.S. citizen so Capa said he was the champion of "America." |
|
| Feb-05-13 | | Llawdogg: Jackson Whips Lasker. |
|
| May-17-16 | | SeanAzarin: The Lion Roars.
(Showalter was known as the "Kentucky Lion".) |
|
Sep-03-19
 | | mifralu: According to the < Logansport Pharos-Tribune (Logansport, Indiana), 16 December 1892, > this game was played on 15 December 1892. The report gives additional moves < 32. ...Nxf6
33. exf6 Re6 34. Qh5 Lasker resigns. > https://www.newspapers.com/clip/352... _____________________________________
THE GREAT CHESS CONTEST. Special to the Indianapolis Journal. Logansport, Ind., Dec. 15.
The first of the Lasker-Showalter chess games was finished at 4 o'clock this morning after sixty-eight moves and ten and a half hours' play. Lasker won by an error of Showalter, who had a sure draw and a slight advantage. The second game began at 4 o'clock this afternoon, with Showalter attacking. He opened with a Ruy Lopez. Lasker answered with the Berlin defense. Showalter made a bold attack, winning on the <thirty-fourth move.> Time - Lasker, two hours; Showalter, one hour aud forty minutes. At Lasker's request the third game will be postponed until Saturday. <The Indianapolis Journal, 16 December 1892, p. 3> In The Sun
www.chessarch.com/excavations/item.php?a=1&sourc-
e=New_York_Sun&date=1892.12.17
(notes by Lasker) the game ends at move 32.
< Whyld, game 186 > gives BCM 1893, p. 149, last move 32. Rg7. |
|
May-11-23
 | | Korora: <Lasker makes a rare blunder <31...Rdd8> giving Showalter the game.>
So I can honestly say I have played like Lasker. ;þ |
|
| May-11-23 | | Brenin: Instinct told me that 30 Nf6 was the right move, but after 30 ... gxf6 31 gxf6 Nxf6 32 exf6 Qd8 I wasn't sure that White was winning. It seems that 33 Re1 Rxe1 34 Qg3 Qf8 35 Qxe1 gives White some winning chances. |
|
| May-11-23 | | mel gibson: I saw the first ply straight away.
Stockfish 15 says:
30. Nf6
(30. Nf6 (Nh5-f6 Qb6-d8 Nf6xe8 Qd8xe8 c3-c4 a7-a5 Rf1-c1 Rd7-d8 c4xd5 c6xd5 Rc1-c7 Kh8-g8 Rg2-c2 b7-b6
Rc2-c6 Ne4-c5 Rc6-d6 Nc5-e4 Rd6xd8 ) +4.39/36 137) score for White +4.39 depth 36.
if I force SF to follow the game line:
30. Nf6 gxf6
31. gxf6
(31. gxf6 (g5xf6 Qb6-d8 Rf1-e1 Re8-f8 Qf3-h5 Ne4xf6 Qh5-h6 Nf6-h5 Re1-g1 f7-f5 Qh6xh5 Qd8-e7
Rg2-g6 Rd7-d8 Qh5-h6 Rf8-g8 Rg6-e6 ) +6.31/40 146) score for White +6.31 depth 40.
When Black resigns it's mate in 10:
32. Rg7 Ng5
(Ne4-g5 Qf3-g3 Re8xe5 f4xe5 Qb6-a6 Rf1-f2 h7-h6 Rg7xg5 Qa6-d3 Qg3xd3 h6xg5
Qd3-f3 Kh8-g8 Qf3-h5 g5-g4 Qh5-h6 g4-g3+ Kh2xg3 Rd8-d7 Qh6-g7+) -M10/88 68 White wins _ mate in 10. |
|
| May-11-23 | | stacase: Wednesday and I get it move for move (-: Fork Black's two Rooks and break open the castled King. If Black takes with the Knight: 30...Nxf6
31. gxf6 g6
32. f5
And White has a trio of Pawns for Black to deal with. |
|
| May-11-23 | | jrredfield: I quickly sized up the position as better for White with the Kingside alignment of major attack lines, and thought that White could commence with a pawn attack. So I went with 30 g6 which leads nowhere. Perhaps my major dental work today fogged my analysis capabilities. I should have seen 30 Nf6. One possible line is 30 Nf6 Qd8 31 Nxe8 Qxe8 32 c4 Kg8 33 cxd5 cxd5 34 Rc2. |
|
May-11-23
 | | al wazir: 31...Nxf6 32. exf6 Rdd8 33. Rfg1 Rg8 34. Rxg8+ Rxg8 35. Rxg8+ Kxg8 36. Qg4+ Kf8 37. Qc8+. |
|
| May-11-23 | | King.Arthur.Brazil: I figured the line 30. Nf6 gxf6 31. gxf6 Rg8 32. Rxg8+ Kxg8 33. Qg4+ Kf8 34. Qg7+ Ke8 35. Qg8# (or 33... Kh8 34. QG7#). Otherwise, 30. Nf6 Rdd8 31. Qh5 gxf6 32. gxf6 Nxf6 33. exf6 Rg8 34. Rfg1 Rxg2+ 35. Rxg2 Rg8 36. Qh6 Rxg2+ 37. Kxg2. So, the Black King cannot escape. |
|
| May-11-23 | | King.Arthur.Brazil: Dear <Brenin>, the solution in your line is: <30. Nf6 Qd8 31. Qh5 Nxf6 32. gxf6 gxf6 33. exf6 Rg8> then 34. Rfg1 Rxg2+ 35. Rxg2 Qf8 36. Rg7 and Black lose the ♕, which I love it, you know. For the game line: 32...Rg8 33. Qg4 Nxf6 34. exf6 Rde8 35. Rg1 Qd8 36. Qh4 Rxg7 37. Rxg7 Rg8 38. Qxh7# |
|
May-11-23
 | | eternaloptimist: I calculated the same line as in the game & the move 32.♖g7 took me the longest to find of all the moves but this puzzle still didn’t take me too long to solve. I wanted to make sure that 32…♖g8 didn’t foil 32.♖g7. <K.A.B> I analyzed 32…♖g8 33.♕g4 also! Except I looked at 33…♕c5 w/ the idea of 34…♕f8 to try to get the ♖ on g7 off of the board. Although once I saw 35.♖xh7+ ♔xh7 34.♕h5# I knew that line wouldn’t hv saved lasker |
|
| May-11-23 | | Mayankk: I considered 30 Nf6 and 30 Nxg7 as two potential candidate solutions. 30 Nxg7 Kxg7 31 Qh5 Kh8 32 Rg4 with ideas of 33 Rh4 and 34 Qxh7+ seemed rather slow since Black had lots of defensive options. The other alternative was 30 Nf6, threatening a Rook fork if not captured. Now if 30 ... gxf6 31 gxf6 Rg8 32 Rxg8+ Kxg8 33 Qg4+ Kf8 34 Rg1 with immediate mate, as the f6 pawn prevents Black King's escape. Else if 30 ... Nxf6 31 gxf6 gxf6 32 Qg4 is winning. Even otherwise 30 ... Nxf6 line keeps material equal and opens the g file for White to attack. So should be good. So yes, 30 Nf6 since 30 ... gxf6 loses by force and 30 ... Nxf6 should yield a better position for White in all sub-lines. |
|
| May-11-23 | | Brenin: <King.Arthur.Brazil>: Dear <K.A.B>, thanks for your comment. However, my line wasn't 30 Nf6 Qd8, which simply loses the exchange to 31 Nxe8 (or Nxd7), but 30 ... gxf6 31 gxf6 Nxf6 32 exf6 Qd8. Now the natural-looking 33 Qg4 Rg8 34 Qxg8+ Qxg8 35 Rxg8+ Kxg8 36 Re1 Kf8 looks like a dead draw, but 33 Re1! looks good for a win, e.g. 33 ... Rg8 34 Rxg8+ Qxg8 35 Rg1, followed by 36 Rg7 and 37 Qh5, or 33 ... Rf8 34 Qg4 winning the R on d7, or (best for Black) 33 ... Rxe1 34 Qg3 Qf8 35 Qxe1 with equal material but strong control of the board for White. |
|
| May-11-23 | | agb2002: The first idea that comes to mind is 30.Nf6:
A) 30... gxf6 31.gxf6
A.1) 31... Rg8 32.Rxg8+ Kxg8 33.Qg4+ Kf8 (33... Kh8 34.Qg7#) 34.Qg7+ Ke8 35.Qg8#. A.2) 31... Rdd8 32.Rg7
A.2.a) 32... Rg8 33.Rxh7+ Kxh7 34.Qh5#.
A.2.b) 32... Nxf6 33.exf6 c5 34.Qh5 wins.
A.3) 31... Nxf6 32.exf6 c5 34.Qg4 Qxf6 35.Qxd7 Qxf4+ 36.Kh1 wins decisive material. B) 30... Nxf6 31.gxf6 g6 (31... gxf6 32.Qg4 wins) 32.Qg4 Qd8, unclear (33.Qg5 Re6 34.Qh6 Qf8). |
|
May-11-23
| | eternaloptimist: Lol apparently I must’ve been tired when I typed my previous kibitz. I put 35 before 34 in a line. Also I meant to type 36 instead of 34.😩🙄 I saw the Rxh7+ tactic but it could’ve been played 1 move earlier in my line. <agb> I c that u used my Rxh7+ line for ur A.2.a) line. Thx for posting several lines for us! |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
sac: 30.Nf6