< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
|Mar-02-08|| ||Knight13: Look at how useful Black's bishop pair is compared to White's knight+bishop.|
|Mar-06-08|| ||keypusher: Part II
Black opens a pawn-offensive on the queen’s flank, even though the opponent has a pawn-majority there.
Guarding the square f4 against …Bf4, freeing the knight on d3, and also clearing g2 and f1 for the bishop.
18….b4 19. Ne2 Rbc8 20. Nd4
White has brought his knight to a strong square. …Bxg3 now would be weak because of Nxb4.
The pawn would like to gain a strong post at a3. …Rc4 came into consideration, but after Ne1 and eventually Be2 would accomplish nothing.
Now if the pawn advances to a4, the knight would go to a5 and b7 and exchange itself for the black KB.
21….Bc7 22. Bb7
If the knight went from b3 to c5, …Bb6 would be the response.
22….Rbc8 23. Bg2
Now Nb3-c5-a6 is threatened.
23….Bb6 24. Ne5
Ndc5 is an obvious mistake because of …a4; if the other knight goes to c5, the strong …Nd5 can be played. <Fritz, which has been evaluating the position at just above zero for the last dozen moves (in other words, very slightly in White’s favor), now begins to slide into negative territory. By move 26 it evaluates Black as about a half-pawn ahead. I don’t see any mistakes by Lasker here, so I think the machine is just evaluating the position more accurately. But if anyone has any improvements for White around this point, I would be interested to hear them.>
24….Rxd2 25. Rxd2 Rc8
The black formation has been strengthened.
click for larger view
To reinforce the threatened queenside.
26….Bb5+ 27. Kd1 a4 28. Nc1
The knight could not go to d4 because of 28….Bxd4 29. Rxd2 Rxc2 30. Rxb4? Re2+ and …Rxe5.
Here came the pretty continuation 28….b3 29. axb3 Ba5 30. c3 a3 into consideration. But it fails to Na2, when Black has nothing better than to exchange his beautiful bishop. Nevertheless it is interesting that the two black pawns can aggressively attack the three White pawns.
<It seems strange to a modern reader that Tarrasch would think the idea of a minority attack worth noting. But of course it is because of games like this that the minority attack became routine.>
With the textmove Black provokes the knight exchange for the same reason that he exchanged rooks—the two bishops become stronger, the more pieces leave the board.
<One of the things that makes this game strategically interesting is the fact that both players seem to welcome exchanges. Tarrasch thinks that, as pieces leave the board, the superiority of his bishops will become more evident. Lasker, on the other hand, evidently believes that if he avoids weaknesses, exchanging pieces will bring the draw nearer.>
|Mar-06-08|| ||keypusher: Part III
29. Nxd7 Bxd7 30. Bf1
To guard the weak c-pawn with Bd3.
30….Ba5 31. b3
This is absolutely necessary, because now 31….b3 32. c3 a3 33. Nxb3 axb2 34. Rxb2 Bxc3+ and wins is threatened. But now the c-pawn is backwards and the three white pawns are totally paralyzed by two black ones.
click for larger view
To prepare for the following moves. If …e5 at once, then Rxd7+ followed by Bh3+ could follow.
Here the game was adjourned for the first time.
32. Bc4 e5 33. Nd3 f6 34. Ke2 Be8 35. f3 Rd8
One can see, if it weren’t already obvious, that we were both uncertain whether it was good to advance or exchange the a-pawn, because we both had reservations and chances. But now to immediately taken the pawn would be weak, since White would recapture with the a-pawn, and occupy the a-file with his rook.
36. Nc5 Rxd2+ 37. Kxd2 axb3(?)
If the pawn advances instead, then it would later become weak, because White would play c3 and b4. <Fritz marginally prefers …a3, but is unable to come up with a way for Black to increase his advantage afterwards. On the other hand, White can now exchange off both Black queenside pawns, reducing Black’s winning chances nearly to zero.>
Best, because otherwise at least one pawn would remain backward.
|Mar-06-08|| ||keypusher: Part IV
38….Bb6 39. c3 bxc3+ 40. Kxc3
White has by fine play obtained a passed pawn, and threatens by Kb4 and a2-a4-a5 to bring it to effect. But Black prevents the entry of the king by the following bishop maneuver.
40….Bg1 41. h3 Bf2 42. g4 Be1+ 43. Kd3 Bc6 44. Ke3
click for larger view
Here Lasker offered a draw, which I refused, because Black has important advantages: the compact pawn-formation, and the inability of White’s a-pawn to advance. Nevertheless, the text move is a small, but significant mistake. Black must immediately with …g6 prepare the move …f5, when …Kf6 follows. The king and then the pawn penetrate and the White game is lost. By unjustified hesitation, I threw away the win even this up to this point I have played a good game.
<As with some of Tarrasch’s similar commentary in the sixth game, this sketch of a plan is so vague as to be difficult to analyze. But I don’t see any way for Black to come within a mile of winning via …g6 and …f5, and neither does Fritz, even after prolonged analysis. The engine suggests with 44…g6 45. Ke2 Bg3 46. Nd2 f5 47. Bd3 Ke6 48. gxf5+ gxf5 49. Nf1 and thereafter the dials stay stuck on 0.00. Can anyone suggest anything better?>
45. Bg8 h6?
A significant weakening of the pawn formation. Black can no longer make the winning move …f5, which cannot be corrected. Instead of this …g6 must be played, and if Bxh7: with …Be8 and ...Kd6-e7-f8-g7 the bishop is trapped.
<This is definitely wrong. After 45….g6 46. Bxh7 Be8 47. Nd2 Ke7 48. Ne4 g5, the bishop is free and White has an extra pawn, though no real winning chances. >
46. Bh7 Be8 47. Bd3 Bf7 48. Bb5 Bb4 49. Bd3 Ba3
The pawn on a2 and the knight are now quite immobilized, but without a greater advantage on the other flank no decision can be forced. …g6 can in fact be played, but …f5 is not possible.
50. Bb5 Kd5
With this move the game was adjourned for the second time.
|Mar-06-08|| ||keypusher: Part V
51. Bd3 h5
A clearance move. The king wishes to go to h6.
52. Ke2 h4 53. Ke3 Bg8
So that, if Bb5 is played, Black can bring about a decision with …Bh7, …g6 and …f5.
<After 54. Bb5 Bh7 55. Bd3 White is in no danger.>
54. Ke2 Kd6 55. Ke3 Bd5 56. Bg6 Ke7 57. Be4 Bc4 58. Bd3 Bf7 59. Ke2 Kf8 60. Be4 g6
Now the king threatens to go to g5 and enable the advance of the f-pawn. But the weakening of the g-pawn enables White to mobilize the a-pawn and the knight.
click for larger view
61. Na1! Kg7 62. Nc2 Bc5 63. a4 Kh6 64. a5 Kg5 65. Ne1!
With this and the following move White prevents the entry of the black king.
65….f5 66. gxf5 gxf5 67. Bb7 Bc4+ 68. Nd3
click for larger view
Black can no longer win, since the a-pawn is so far advanced. He sets a small trap, White avoids it, and the game is drawn.
69. a6 e4 70. fxe4 fxe4 71. Bxe4!
After 71. a7? Black wins with …exd3+. If the king goes to e3 or f2, then …Bc5+, winning the a-pawn; if Kf1 or Kd3, the d-pawn advances; and if Kd1, then follows …Bb3+, Kc1, d2+, Kb2 d1/Q and Black forces mate.
An interesting and beautiful ending!
Up to a certain moment I played a flawless game, but at the decisive point at the 45th move, I erred and threw the win into question. All my later efforts brought nothing; it was still an exciting and beautiful battle, but no longer a win.
<After an indifferent opening by Lasker, I agree that it was a well-played game by both men, but I couldn’t disagree more about the alleged missed win.
I do think the game is a useful example how to defend with B+N against the bishop pair. Lasker created whatever little tactical threats he could, used all of his pieces (including the king), kept his pawn moves to an absolute minimum, traded pieces freely, and, once the rooks were off the board, methodically exchanged off all of Black’s queenside pawns. Once he had done that, it was very hard for him to lose, since even if he somehow dropped the a-pawn he would still have 3 v. 4 pawns, all on one side of the board. And one of the best endgame rules of thumb I know is that, if you are one pawn behind, you can draw if all of the pawns are on one side of the board. It’s not true in every case, of course, but what is?
If trading off Black’s queenside pawns guaranteed the draw, does that mean Tarrasch’s minority attack was a strategic error? That’s way beyond my ability to say. Surely the pawns would have had to advance at some point. But some piece maneuvering, trying to force some sort of weakness, or just hope that White would create one, may have been a more promising course than the immediate advance of the b-pawn.>
|Mar-06-08|| ||keypusher: Part I (sorry these are out of order)
<Notes from Tarrasch’s match book, translated by me with the help of Google and Webster New World German Dictionary. Tarrasch's notes are in plain text; my/Fritz's comments are in brackets.
This game features (i) one of the earliest examples of the minority attack I know of and (ii) a long battle between a bishop pair (Tarrasch) against bishop and knight (Lasker)—an unfavorable matchup that Lasker nevertheless won with in a number of games (see, e.g., Mieses vs Lasker, 1909, F J Lee vs Lasker, 1899 and the games linked there, Tartakower vs Lasker, 1909). Here he is clearly a little worse but, defending patiently, he gradually extinguishes Black’s initiative and achieves a drawn position. Or does he? Tarrasch claims that Black missed a win at move 44. I don’t see it, but maybe you can show it to me.
All the endgame books teach you how to win with two bishops against bishop and knight. (Unfortunately for Tarrasch, many of these books use Tarrasch vs Rubinstein, 1912 as their pedagogical tool.) The books aren’t nearly as good about telling you how to defend the B+N side. If (as I think) Tarrasch never missed a win here, because Lasker never gave him one, then this is a good game for defenders to study.>
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. Bd3 dxe4 6. Bxe4 c5 7. dxc5 Nbd7
Up to this point the game is identical to the 7th game, in which Black made the mistaken exchange on c3. The knight move is much better and gives Black a good game.
<Fritz initially disagrees, giving White a clear advantage after 8. c6. But after a longer look, it concludes that the game is even after, say, 8. c6 bxc6 9. Bxc6 Rb8 10. Qf3 0-0 11. Bxd7 Bxd7 12. Bxf6 Qxf6 13. Qxf6 gxf6, despite White’s extra pawn.>
If Bf3 immediately is played, then …Bxc3+ and …Nc5 could follow, when White with his pawn structure, and facing the strong knight at c5, is already at a disadvantage. <Black certainly has no problems after 8. Bf3, but if I were White I would hesitate to cede the bishop pair so casually.>
8….Nxf6 9. Bf3 Qxd1+ 10. Rxd1 Bxc5
White is one tempo ahead in development, but Black has the pair of bishops and can catch up in development. I prefer the black game.
<Incidentally, after the more obvious 9. Qxd8+ Kxd8 10. Rd1+ Ke7 11. Bf3 Bd7 Black is a tempo up on the game. I feel very Tarraschian for pointing this out.>
11. Nge2 Ke7
The king naturally stands better here for the endgame than on g8.
12. 0-0 Bd7 13. Nc1
After Bxb7 Black reclaims the pawn with …Rb8 and …Rxb2. But now White threatens by Nd3 to attack the bishop on c5 and to protect the pawn on b2, so that he can freely take the pawn on b7.
13….Rb8 14. Nd3 Bd6
Not …Bb6 because of Ne5. Black seeks naturally to maintain his pair of bishops, that in this game are a great advantage over bishop and knight.
15. Rd2 Rhd8 16. Re1 Be8
White is reduced to passivity.
|Mar-06-08|| ||Gypsy: <keypusher> Thanks, this is great!|
As for the phantom win: Many a historian has noted that Tarrasch must have been profoundly affected by the loss of the match. They note (1) that from this point on, Tarrasch never again prevailed in a great tournament, and (2) that for the first time ever he commited objectivity sins in assesing the strategic merits of games in his writings.
As I am paraphrasing this a speculation comes to my mind that the world championship match likely ment so much to Tarrasch, that he lost his stride and objectivity already before the commencement of the match play and not only as the result of losing it. Tarrasch was a cool cat as long as the world title was not on the line. But he must have suffered from terible stage frights when it did.
|Mar-08-08|| ||Calli: Lasker in "Pester Loyd"
Die neunte Partie kam zum Abbruch, nachdem 50 Züge gemacht
waren. Obwohl frühe die Damen getauscht wurden, war sie von lebhaftem Charakter. Tarrasch, der wieder, wie in der siebenten Partie, die Mac Cutcheon-Variante gewählt hatte, stand zu Anfang etwas beengt, und ich erhielt infolgedessen eine starke Stellung in der Mitte. Tarrasch führte jedoch seine beiden Läufer sehr geschickt, ging mit den Damenbauern vor, um Beweglichkeit zu gewinnen, posirte eine Springerattacke, die ihm leicht sehr gefährlich hätte werden können und ging daraufhin zum Gegenangriff über.
The ninth game came to adjournment, after 50 moves were made. Although the Queens were exchanged early, the game was of lively character. Tarrasch, again, like in the seventh game chose the MacCutcheon variation, stood a little cramped after the opening, and I obtained a strong position in the middle game. Nevertheless, Tarrasch led his bishops very cleverly, pushed with the queenside pawns to win mobility. posirte? a Knight attack which could have easily become very dangerous to him and I went on the counterattack. [I think!]
Der führte dazu, daß meine Bauern auf der
Seite, wo ich an ihnen das Übergewicht hatte, verrammelt wurden; und da ich sie, um nicht den in ihnen liegenden Vorteil einzubüßen, wieder befreien mußte, zwang er mich zum Abtausch. Daher blieb mir nur ein einziger Bauer auf der Damenseite, der gegen die beiden Läufer wenig Aussicht hat, sich des Lebens zu erfreuen. Im 45. Zug bot ich Tarrasch remis an, doch er lehnte ab. Er spielt daher auf Gewinn. Dann wird der einzelne Bauer wohl noch sein Wort mitreden.
The Queenside where I had a pawn majority was verrammelt or blocked which forced me to exchange [abtausch] to free things up. There remained only a single pawn on the Q-side, against the two Bishops, its does not enjoy life. [ Heh. well maybe its life is not easy against the 2 Bishops]. On the 45th move, I offered Tarrasch a draw, however, he declined. He plays to win. Then the single pawn will still have his word in the conversation.
|Mar-09-08|| ||Calli: Lasker in "Pester Loyd" after the game resumed:
Tarrasch legte heute dar, daß die abgebrochene Stellung trotz
ihrer anscheinenden Starrheit noch Leben genug in sich barg, um einige feine Angriffe zu motiviren. Ich konnte offenbar nichts unternehmen, da mein Vorteil sich so lange in einer Art „latentem" Zustande befand, als es Tarrasch beliebte, mit dem Läufer auf a3 zu bleiben und auf den freien a-Bauer mit dem zweiten Läufer zu drücken. Allerdings, wenn Tarraschs noch unaufgebrauchter, plastischer Vorteil von vier Bauern
gegen drei auf der anderen Seite des Brettes treibende Kraft eines Angriffes werden wollte, dann mußte die Verrammelung meines a-Bauern aufhören, da eine Figur auf die Dauer nicht zweien Zwecken, Angriff und Verteidigung, zugleich dienen kann.
Today Tarrasch demonstrated that the adjourned position still had enough life in it to generate some fine attacks. I could apparently undertake nothing, because my advantage was in a kind of "latent" state for a long time. Tarrasch put one bishop on a3 and pressed (attacked?) the passed pawn with the second Bishop. Indeed, if Tarrasch's even greater advantage of four pawns against three on the other side of the board wanted to become an attack of driving force [treibende Kraft], then the blockade of my a-pawn had to stop, because a piece in the long run cannot serve two purposes, attack and defense, at the same time.
|Mar-09-08|| ||Calli: Part 2
Dann wurde die latente Kraft des Bauers also frei und der gewohnte Kampf zweier Vorteile gegeneinander — oder, wenn man will, von Vorteil kontra Kompensation des Gegners — konnte sich in gewohnter Weise zum Ausgleich oder zu Sieg oder Niederlage entspinnen. Was dem Endspiel für den Kenner Wert verleiht, ist die Klarheit seiner Strategie und die trotz der Kleinheit der benutzten Operationsmittel zwingende Gewalt der einzelnen strategischen Schritte.
Then the latent strength of the pawn was freed and there was the usual fight of two advantages mutually [gegeneinander]— or, if one wants, from advantage against compensation of your opponent — might develop in usual way to equality or to victory or defeat. What lends value to the endgame for the expert, is the clearness of his [Tarrasch's] strategy and in spite of the small number of pieces, [der Kleinheit der benutzten Operationsmittel], the strong force of the individual strategical steps.
Zuerst die Auswahl des Angriffsobjektes — mein Bauer h3, für Schutz wie Angriff gleich schwierig zu erreichen. Alsdann die Unbeweglichmachung des beabsichtigten Opfers — der Vorstoß h6-h5-h4, den ich nicht hindern durfte. Schließlich der Vorstoß g7-g6, womit endlich Tarrasch seine Truppen in das Feuer meines Läufers stellen mußte. In jenem Augenblicke
setzt die Freimachung des a-Bauers ein, der nun die Kraft des Feindes auf sich ablenkt und auf diese Weise meinen h-Bauer vor dem sonst unvermeidlichen Falle bewahrt. Damit ist die Lage geklärt, der Ausgleich geschaffen.
First the choice of the attack object — my pawn at h3, equally difficult to reach for protection and attack. Then the mobility of the target [beabsichtigten Opfers] — the thrust h6-h5-h4 which I could not stop. Finally with g7-g6, Tarrasch had to put his troops in line of fire of my Bishop. At that moment, the passed a-pawn deflects the forces of the enemy on himself and in this manner saves my h-pawn from the usually inevitable loss. With this the position is cleared and equality created.
|Mar-09-08|| ||Calli: Last part
Man wird finden, daß Tarrasch eine ganze Reihe zweckloser Züge machte. Mit ihnen wollte er seine Absichten verschleiern; denn wenn ich einem zwecklosen Zuge Bedeutung beimaß oder den Sinn eines zweckdienlichen Zuges mißverstand, oder ihn unbeachtet ließ, so wäre meine Verteidigung erschwert worden.
One will think that Tarrasch did a whole row of useless moves. With them he wanted to veil his intentions; since if I attached to a useless move meaning or misunderstood the sense of a useful move, or left him unnoticed, my defense would have been complicated.
|Mar-09-08|| ||keypusher: <Calli> Thanks, wonderful! I think Dr. Lasker, like his opponent, overrated the virtues of his position. But I love his description of the strategic struggle, with the a-pawn finally coming to the rescue of his counterpart on the other side of the board.|
|Apr-17-08|| ||whiteshark: <Calli> I would suggest 2-3 minor changes|
"The ninth game came to adjournment, after 50 moves were made. Although the Queens were exchanged early, the game was of lively character. Tarrasch, again, like in the seventh game chose the MacCutcheon variation, stood a little cramped after the opening, and I obtained a strong position in the <center (?)<<>>>. Nevertheless, Tarrasch led his bishops very cleverly, pushed with the queenside pawns to win mobility. <He parried <<>>> a Knight attack which could have easily become very dangerous to him and <he <<>>> went on the counterattack."
- - in der Mitte - I think he meant the center, but I am not sure...
- - posirte - a completely unknown word to me; maybe it's parieren (to parry) or ripostieren (to riposte (fencing)) that he meant...
- - Tarrasch is still meant (subject).
|Apr-17-08|| ||Calli: <whiteshark> Vielen Dank. I hoped that someone would look at the translation as it did not make perfect sense. Dr. Lasker wrote some very long sentences and with the German word order, I can easily lose track what is going on. <keypusher> has done another game or two in the match. I might try another Übersetzung of Lasker if the mood strikes.|
|Apr-17-08|| ||nescio: <- - posirte - a completely unknown word to me; maybe it's parieren (to parry) or ripostieren (to riposte (fencing)) that he meant...>|
I was thinking of "posieren" (to fake), but I'm no native German speaker.
|Apr-18-08|| ||whiteshark: <Calli> the 'Real loose' part:|
It [counterattack] resulted in a blocked Q-side where I had a pawn majority. For not losing this inherent advantage [of a pawn majority] he forced me to exchange them [pawns] to free things up. Therefore remained only a single pawn on the Q-side for me, which [generally] is not easy [is no easy life] to exploit against the two Bishops. On the 45th move, I offered Tarrasch a draw, however, he declined. Hence he plays to win. Then the single pawn will still have his word in the conversation [=his voice in the chapter].
|Apr-18-08|| ||whiteshark: <Calli>: 'Lasker in "Pester Loyd" after the game resumed:'|
Today Tarrasch demonstrated that the adjourned position <defiant of its apparent inelasticity <<>>> still had enough life in it to generate some fine attacks. I could apparently undertake nothing, because my advantage was in a kind of "latent" state <as long as <<>>> Tarrasch <at his convenience is letting <<>>> his one bishop on a3 and pressing against the passed pawn with the second Bishop. <However <<>>>, if Tarrasch's even greater [not depleted] advantage of four pawns against three on the other side of the board <should <<>>> become the driving force of an attack, then the blockade of my a-pawn had to stop, because a piece in the long run cannot serve two purposes, attack and defense, at the same time.
|Apr-18-08|| ||whiteshark: <Calli>: 'Part 2' /1|
Then the latent strength of the pawn was freed and there was the usual fight of two advantages <against each other <<>>> — or, if one wants, from advantage against [=versus] compensation of your opponent — might [=could] develop in usual way to equality or to victory or defeat. What lends value to the endgame for the expert, is the clearness of < its [endgame] <<>>> strategy and in spite of the small number of pieces, the strong force of the individual strategical steps.
|Apr-18-08|| ||whiteshark: <Calli>: 'Part 2' /2|
First the choice of the attack object — my pawn at h3, equally difficult to reach for protection and attack. Then making the <proposed target immobile <<>>> — the thrust [=advance, push] h6-h5-h4 which I <am not entitled to hinder <<>>>. Finally with g7-g6, <when <<>>> Tarrasch had to put his troops in line of fire of my Bishop. At that moment, <the exemption of the a-pawn begins <<>>> and (he) deflects the forces of the enemy on himself and in this manner saves my h-pawn from the usually inevitable loss. With this the position is cleared and equality created.
'Last part': There is nothing to chance :D
|Apr-18-08|| ||Calli: Thanks again! Lasker's descriptions of games are more difficult for me than game annotations.|
<'Last part': There is nothing to chance [change]>
Better English for <eine ganze Reihe...> is probably "a series of useless moves." And instead of "still have his word in the conversation.", better is "the pawn will still have a say" in the game or outcome of the game.
Translating can be difficult but fun sometimes.
|Apr-19-08|| ||whiteshark: <Calli> I've been derelicted towards the end [last part]. :(|
I enjoyed it and it was not that difficult for me, as you have done the spadework for the most part. :D
|Jan-27-11|| ||Llawdogg: Calli and keypusher, great work!|
|Apr-14-14|| ||Karpova: According to Dr. Emanuel Lasker ('Pester Lloyd', 1908.09.15, p. 7), the game ended drawn after <72.Kf3>.|
|Apr-14-14|| ||thomastonk: <Karpova: <72.Kf3>> Tarrasch's match book, also from 1908, page 77, gives Black's 71th as the final one. In such cases, with only one move difference, you surely think in the same direction as I do: was the game adjourned then?!|
There are several sources stating that the game has been adjourned after 50 moves (and one probably wrongly claims after 55).
Here 71 moves are mentioned: http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=d..., and here is a corresponding version: http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=d....
And to make the confusion complete, here is a version with the 72th move: http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=d....
Okay, it's only one move ... ;-)
|Apr-15-14|| ||Karpova: <thomastonk>
Dr. Emanuel Lasker writes that the game was adjourned after 50.Bb5 (September 11). It is one column with two reports from Dr. Lasker, the second one is from September 12 and ends with 72.Kf3 draw.
He doesn't mention another adjournment. Perhaps, the game was ready for adjournment, Lasker's 72.Kf3 the sealed move (so that he reported it but not Tarrasch) and, instead of actually adjourning it, they agreed to a draw on the very same day. But it doesn't seem too likely to me that Tarrasch needed that extra time to get convinced of the game being drawn (Lasker was sure of a draw coming up soon after 68.Nd3).
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·