|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-06-06 | | Dres1: I feel like im watching a game on Yahoo! Chess. |
|
Jan-08-08
 | | keypusher: Cf. Burn vs Lasker, 1900 |
|
| Feb-29-08 | | Knight13: Who the heck castles queen side like this? |
|
| Feb-29-08 | | Petrosianic: Could you rephrase the question in the form of a question? |
|
| Feb-29-08 | | Knight13: <Petrosianic> Who the heck wouldn't think that we wouldn't add each other to the ignore list after all this stuff btwn you and me? |
|
| May-02-09 | | ScorpionInstinct: Poor Steinitz must've gotten tired it's 10th round for the old man.. 0-0-0!!!AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! |
|
| Jan-19-11 | | Llawdogg: It is kind of strange to see the world champion castle long into danger rather than castle short into safety. Also, Steinitz never moved a rook again for the rest of the game. It was definitely his worst effort of the entire match. |
|
Jan-19-11
 | | kingfu: Steinitz was 58 and Lasker 30. From the many discussions about Karpov, Korchnoi and others, we see that playing strength declines in old age. Sometimes castling on opposite wings signals a fierce battle. Sometimes it is a mistake. I have heard the phrase "Castling into it!" This happens a lot when French players castle Kingside! |
|
Jan-19-11
 | | chancho: <kingfu> Lasker was born in 1868.
So he was 26 years old when he played this match. |
|
Jan-19-11
| | keypusher: <chancho: <kingfu> Lasker was born in 1868. So he was 26 years old when he played this match.> Twenty-five, to push pedantry beyond its limits (he was born December 24). |
|
Jan-19-11
| | chancho: <keypusher> Yeah, you're right. The match ended on May 1894, so he was 25.
I was going by this link:
http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/z4l... |
|
Jan-20-11
| | kingfu: Playing Lasker at 25?
May I offer a draw, sire? |
|
| Jan-20-11 | | Llawdogg: Lasker was just hitting his stride here. |
|
Jan-22-11
| | kingfu: Llawdogg,
I guess that draw offer was DECLINED! |
|
| Jan-22-11 | | DieHard: I don't think 0-0-0 was Steinitz's big error. His extended knight tour of Nh3-f4-d3-f2-d3 hurt him. Launching the f3-f4-f5 aggression from an inferior position didn't help either. Steinitz's theory expected attacks to be based on an advantage, not a disadvantage. He really was not himself. |
|
| Apr-07-12 | | solskytz: 20. 0-0-0 doesn't look too bad - but should have followed most probably by 21. Kb2, holding it all quite nicely |
|
| Dec-23-18 | | sakredkow: Lasker castles manually. Er, Emanuelly. |
|
| Sep-06-19 | | Ulhumbrus: Steinitz plays the eccentric 4 f3 in the opening and suffers a beating. It may be however that Lasker has to employ masterly play in order to gain the victory. |
|
Dec-08-19
| | keypusher: You can see the final position in this contemporary picture, which is also included in Huebner's book: <http://www.chessarch.com/gallery/in...> Since there's no clock, and no spectators or officials visible, I wonder if it's posed. Not a position I would have cared to pose with if I were Steinitz. |
|
| Dec-08-19 | | WorstPlayerEver: <keypusher>
Posed.
https://en.chessbase.com/post/50-ga... |
|
| Jan-04-20 | | Jambow: <Nice piece coordianation by Lasker.> By all means I think of piece coordination as the defining element of Lasker's style.. May the 4th be with you. |
|
Jan-04-20
 | | Fusilli: <DieHard: I don't think 0-0-0 was Steinitz's big error. His extended knight tour of Nh3-f4-d3-f2-d3 hurt him. Launching the f3-f4-f5 aggression from an inferior position didn't help either. Steinitz's theory expected attacks to be based on an advantage, not a disadvantage. He really was not himself.> Not to mention delaying forever the development of the queen's bishop. |
|
| Jan-04-20 | | WorstPlayerEver: 7. e4 was bad. Especially after uh 4. f3
7. e4 Qh4+ 8. g3 Nxc3 9. bxc3 Qe7
click for larger viewSteinitz was psychologically traumatized at this point of the match. He just could not fathom what was happening to him. Lasker was that good in his time. |
|
| Mar-29-20 | | joddon: to get your king trapped by pawns is not a modern day Grandmaster thing to do...Lasker was playing a badly drunk opponent I think....once health withers so does the chess. |
|
Dec-10-21
 | | kingscrusher: Technically better it seems was 7...Qh4+ keeping the queen's on: Wilhelm Steinitz - Emanuel Lasker 0-1 10.0, Steinitz - Lasker World Championship Mat 1894
click for larger viewAnalysis by Stockfish 14:
1. -+ (-2.45): 7...Qh4+ 8.g3 Nxc3 9.bxc3 Qf6 10.Qc2 0-0 11.f4 e5 12.f5 Nd7 13.Bc4 Qc6 14.Bd5 Qc7 15.Nf3 Nf6 16.c4 Bd7 17.Kf1 Bb6 18.Qb3 Bc6 19.Ba3 Rfc8 20.Re1 Bxd5 21.cxd5
Black is clearly better
(Gavriel, 10.12.2021)
It indicates in the description of this match:
"Lasker had noticed signs of uncertainty in Steinitz' handling of "simplified" middlegames, without Queens. Recognizing the champion's superiority in managing a full army of pieces, Lasker deliberately sought early Queen exchanges. This strategy certainly worked in Philadelphia." I wonder here - is it more than Steinitz was much older, and Lasker basically did what Carlsen did to Vishy Anand - try and make the games long, and grinding to mentally and physically wear out the opponent? So not so much "uncertainty" as "wearing the opponent out" which is not an entirely nice thing to do but Chess is a form of war in a way. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
