|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-13-03 | | bishop: Gary Kasparov said the following about this game in a recent interview given to promote his new book "My Great Predecessors, Part 1"-"For example, In Volume One, Game 7 of Lasker-Steinitz, first match. I argued that this game was decisive in destroying Steinitz's confidence. The richness of the game and the complications can only be compared to the games of Tal and Shirov! The game was decades ahead of its time. Neither Chigorin nor Tarrasch could understand the game. They blamed the loss on Steinitz's blunders, which wasn't a fair description." |
|
| Aug-13-03 | | ksadler: This game is annotated at http://www.chesscafe.com/dvoretsky/... for those who are interested. |
|
| Sep-19-04 | | acirce: <Ray Keene> asks for <really serious errors in annotations by prominent writers>. Probably Kasparov sets something of a record by the comment to 31.Qf2 in OMGP I: <31.c3? c4 32.Bc2 Re2!> thereby overlooking 33.Qh6 mate! Detailed analysis by Dvoretsky (where this and other errors are, btw, pointed out) is on http://www.chesscafe.com/text/dvore... which is the review mentioned on http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_re... - <Dvoretsky in Chess Café finds various errors in a game he chooses to analyze, including the fact that Kasparov missed a one-move mate at the end of a two-move analysis! One commentator on the book bravely turns this into a virtue: “[The one-move mate] certainly establishes that the MY GREAT PREDECESSORS analysis is not completely based on computers or stolen from other sources, as some critics have implied, and it also shows that Kasparov can make mistakes.” But International Master Richard Forster points out that “it is the clearest proof yet of blind copying by the Kasparov book, for the simple reason that the missed mate-in-one line is also to be found in the Chess Stars book on Lasker.” Ouch.> |
|
Sep-19-04
 | | Gypsy: In his notes to Bronstein vs I Nowak, 1976, Bronstein (Bronstein on KID) states: <...the sacrifice of piece invokes memories of the 7th game of the Laskes-Steinitz World Championship Match, New York 1894. Lasker won when a knight down, and everyone was amazed at how he had achieved this. But Steinitz's knight stood in a corner square and was worse than a pawn. In an issue of the newspaper Izvestia, for which I wrote a regular column, I published an analysis of the critical position, and showed that Lasker had deservedly won this game.> It would bee nifty if we could dig out that analysis. |
|
| Sep-21-04 | | Giancarlo: Missed easy mate? not like these guys.
After Lasker had won the WCC, Steinitz had started to get really sick and was already poor. He eventually died. Lasker saw this and eliminated any more chance of this by convincing the idea of prize money into tourney's. It was very trageic what happened to Steinitz. |
|
| Sep-22-04 | | InspiredByMorphy: Why not 39. ...Kc7 ? It seems like 39. ...Kc5 helps white. |
|
Sep-23-04
| | Gypsy: <InspiredByMorphy: Why not 39. ...Kc7 ? It seems like 39. ...Kc5 helps white.> The pawn on d5 extends to Black king at least some protection. After <39...Kc7 40.Qxd5> White pawn at h7 proves stronger than Black knight at h8. White has two game ending threats: (i) 41.Qd6+ 42.Rf8 and (ii) 41.Qg8 42.Rf8. They can not both be stoped, just delayed a move. |
|
| Sep-23-04 | | acirce: <Only 40..Re2! would have saved Black, for example: 41.Qg7 Re7 42.Qg1+ Re3 (42..d4?! 43.Qg5+ Re5 44.Qg8 d3?! 45.cxd3 cxd3 46.Qb3!) 43.Qg8 Re7 44.Rf8 Qg6 45.Rc8+ Kd6 with a shaky equlibrium.> -- Kasparov's analysis. |
|
Sep-24-04
| | Gypsy: < 40...Re2! 41.Qg7 Re7 42.Qg1+ Re3 (42..d4?! 43.Qg5+ Re5 44.Qg8 d3?! 45.cxd3 cxd3 46.Qb3!) ...> The parenthetical line leads to mate threats of interesting net designs: eg, if 46...d2? then 47.Qc3+ Kd5 48.Qd3+ Kc5 49.b4#. |
|
Sep-27-04
 | | offramp: Playing through this game makes me wonder about the value - or even the point - of holding an open file. For a lot of the game black has tripled major pieces on the e-file, but what benifiteth it him?
Nimzowitch said that the point of having pieces doubled on a file was to later have them douubled on the 2nd rank - 'the refreshment stall' as Soviet GMs used to call it. But if you can't get through to the 2nd rank, and there are no threats of back-rank mates, is the advantage purely optical? It seems to be in this case. What use was the e-file to Steinitz? |
|
| Sep-27-04 | | aw1988: If black accepts the bishop, 33...gxf5?! 34.Rhg1+ Kf7 35.Qh5+ Ke7 36.Rxf5. |
|
Mar-11-05
| | offramp: 29.Kb1 and 30.a3 - two of the best moves of Lasker's career. |
|
| Jul-05-05 | | THE pawn: At move ten, it exactly looks like the najdorf, except that black has a different setup. |
|
| Dec-20-05 | | ughaibu: but the Najdorf is a black strategy? |
|
| Dec-30-05 | | THE pawn: I meant sicilian, I was in my najdorf mood at that time so everything related to the sicilian meant in my head najdorf. ( repeat it in your head 150X you'll see what I mean! najdorfnajdorfnajdorfnajdorfnajdorfnajdorf...) |
|
| Sep-12-06 | | percyblakeney: Instead of 21. ... Nh8 it seems as if Rf8 would avoid all immediate problems for black after something like 22. h4 b5 23. Bb3 Re2:
click for larger viewAfter 23. ... hxg6 for example 24. h5 gxh5 25. Rxh5 Re8 doesn't look too bleak for black: 
click for larger view |
|
| Dec-05-06 | | Gouki: given the complications on the board, indeed 21....Nh8?? immediately removes the knight out of play and gives white a piece up advantage in the position. surely, the worst place a knight could be is at the edge of the board. and the fact that for a strong master like Steinitz to play this horrible move, shows that his positional understanding is poor compared to Lasker's! |
|
| Feb-02-08 | | Bodia: Amazing blunders of Steinitz! |
|
| Feb-29-08 | | Knight13: <14. g4!> Very good move. |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | apexin: outstanding game by lasker. |
|
| Oct-15-08 | | brankat: A vintage Lasker. The game is a masterpiece. |
|
| Oct-15-08 | | JG27Pyth: Lasker looks to me to be playing about 200 rating points higher than Steinitz... WS looks completely out-classed. But reading Bishop's post (first post in thread) makes me think there's more going on here than I see -- if Kasparov thinks "neither Chigorin nor Tarrasch could understand the game" surely I haven't either! |
|
| Oct-15-08 | | Samagonka: I would love to see the very end of this game. |
|
Oct-15-08
 | | Honza Cervenka: I don't believe that 16.Qxd5 and 18.f4 were not Lasker's mistake. It is true that black Knight is placed badly in the corner but after 23...hxg6 black is three Pawns up and black position looks defendable, for example 24.h5 gxh5 25.Rxh5 Re5 26.Rxe5 (in case of retreat of Rook black can play Qg5) 26...Qxe5 27.Re1 Qg3 28.Bd3 Rf8 etc. |
|
| Oct-15-08 | | Superbull: Can someone tell me what is wrong with 15...Be7 16.Nxe7 Rxe7 17.h4 Qd7. It looks like Bxd5 was the first blunder that led to all sorts of complication for black. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 34.Rhg1