< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Mar-02-14|| ||perfidious: <Everett> No such collection would be complete without this scrap.|
|Mar-02-14|| ||Phony Benoni: Wolfgang Heidenfeld did complile such a book, translated into English with the imagainative title, <Draw>. However, one of his standards was to exclude games where either player was clearly winning at some point, which eliminated this game.|
He did include Schlechter vs Lasker, 1910, and with a sense of awe. At the end, his comment was something like, <"And yet there are people who claim that Karpov and Korchnoi are stronger than Lasker and Schlechter. They must be joking.">
A very interesting book, if you can find it.
|Mar-02-14|| ||Everett: Thank you <PH>
Yeah, that Schlecter-Lasker game is ridiculous. Combine that with this game, and we see great play, original play, accurate and imaginative play, by past masters who had no had Steinitz, Morphy and Andersson, but few other shoulders upon which to stand. Makes me think they (especially Lasker and Capablanca) would understand modern chess the second they saw it.
|Feb-15-15|| ||mikealando: WOw. Beautiful chess. All out attack and defense.|
|Feb-15-15|| ||JimNorCal: My local library had the "Draw" book but it never seemed to be on the shelves. Eventually I found it misfiled in the Art section.|
|Apr-30-15|| ||Howard: Yes, I'm fairly familiar with that Draw! book. The author died before he could finish it, so John Nunn completed the book and had it published.|
|Apr-30-15|| ||offramp: <Howard: Yes, I'm fairly familiar with that Draw! book. The author died before he could finish it, so John Nunn completed the book and had it published.>|
So it was Nunn who had it published! Good old Nunn! The book would never have seen the light of day without him! Well done Dr Nunn!
|Jun-02-15|| ||Phony Benoni: I'm glad to see this game finally get its due. You can make a strong case for it being the most interesting 100+ move game ever.|
If you've never seen it, please stick with it. It's a unbelievable fight, and you will not believe the ending.
<offramp> <Howard> "Draw!" was originally published as "Grosse Remispartien" in 1968. Nunn's edited and expanded a translation, making some changes in the game selection in line with Heidernfeld's own criteria.
|Jun-02-15|| ||JimNorCal: Game of the day!
|Jun-02-15|| ||paramount: Finally, after almost 2 years since the last post here that I hope this game to be GOTD, the panel finally realize that this game DESERVES.|
|Jun-02-15|| ||SeanAzarin: I'm glad this game is finally GOTD. They didn't use my pun (The Drawing Laskers), but who cares? This game has deserved to be recognized for a long time. I have a copy of Edward Lasker's book where he spends 30 pages analyzing the game. |
The game, complete with Edward Lasker's annotations, is here:
|Jun-02-15|| ||SeanAzarin: Edward Lasker on his 77th move:
"Had I realized that White had a chance to draw, I would have looked much more into the variations arising from 77... P-N6. I only figured ahead as far as 78 N-B4 K-N4 79 N-N2 KxP 80 K-K3 K-N4 81 P-N5 K-N5 82 P-N6 K-B6 83 N-R4 K-B7 84 P-B5. I analyzed it again after the game and concluded Black could win if he attacks the Knight [which keeps his Pawn from advancing] with R-QR sq. after first getting White's King to the 4th rank so the Knight is captured with check. This led me to claim that after 84 P-B5, 84 R-K sq ch 85 K-B3 R-KB sq would seal White's fate. If after 86 K-B4 R-QR sq White plays 87 N-N6 he does not get a Queen at all. But White need not play 86 K-B4: he can draw with 86 P-N7! RxP ch 87 K-N4 R-B8 89 K-N5, winning the Rook in the end."
And on his 92th move:
"It would take White 3 more moves, I had calculated, to capture the Pawn: K-R3, N-B5 and NxP. But at that moment my King would reach the square QB5 and the Knight would be lost because the Rook pins it! It never occurred to me that White need not capture the Pawn at all and could still draw the game. Emanuel Lasker actually discovered a new end-game position in which a R and P cannot win against a Knight, and this position has since become a classic."
|Jun-02-15|| ||morfishine: Lasker was beside himself|
|Jun-02-15|| ||An Englishman: Good Evening: It always seemed to me that Em. Lasker was the great explorer of chess, who kept venturing into bizarre and impenetrable wildernesses. Games like Lasker vs W Napier, 1904, as well as the Schlechter game mentioned earlier in the thread, look like no games played before and very few ever since.|
|Jun-02-15|| ||Richard Taylor: < Phony Benoni: Wolfgang Heidenfeld did complile such a book, translated into English with the imagainative title, <Draw>. However, one of his standards was to exclude games where either player was clearly winning at some point, which eliminated this game.
He did include Schlechter vs Lasker, 1910, and with a sense of awe. At the end, his comment was something like, <"And yet there are people who claim that Karpov and Korchnoi are stronger than Lasker and Schlechter. They must be joking.">|
A very interesting book, if you can find it.>
I've seen that book it's in the library of my club, might look at it, some of the great games have been a draw. When was anyone winning in this game?!
It seemed a great struggle to me. Albeit between nephew and uncle I think the relationship was. Both wrote good chess books which I studied when I started chess in the early 60s. In fact I sometimes study Lasker's Manual of chess, it is still worth a good look...
|Jun-02-15|| ||mruknowwho: Battle of the Laskers.|
|Jun-02-15|| ||kevin86: White was able to draw because black cannot penetrate and separate the knight from the pawn or force the pawn through. Therefore, a draw.One of my favorite games- ever!|
|Jun-02-15|| ||belgradegambit: I had just submitted "Five Easy Pieces" as a title for this GOTD. Good pun here though.|
|Jun-03-15|| ||offramp: I've often found that in any game of >100 moves there is a period or two when nothing happens. Often it's a load of manoeuvering before a pawn break, of near-repetitions in a queen or rook ending. But this game is action all the way, a real Sergio Leone.|
|Jun-03-15|| ||moronovich: < But this game is action all the way, a real Sergio Leone.>|
"Once upon a time in New York"
|Jun-04-15|| ||Moszkowski012273: 30...Nxe4 looks like a much better line for black.|
|Jun-18-15|| ||Cheapo by the Dozen: I like the part where the player with inferior material pushes hard to simplify (because the two knights clustered on the kingside couldn't get to the queenside as quickly as one rook could).|
|Nov-22-15|| ||Howard: Where can one find engine analysis on this fascinating ending ?|
Exactly where did Edward Lasker miss a forced win ?
|Dec-03-19|| ||Check It Out: Great game. Lots of thrust and parry right from the get go, and the action never let's up.|
|Dec-05-19|| ||talfan: Edward Lasker analysis this in great detail in his Chess for Fun and Chess for Blood book. I started reading it today, and it seems excellent.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·