| Dec-06-11 | | wordfunph: beautiful 23...Nxe3! |
|
| Oct-18-14 | | TheFocus: Lasker was once asked what he considered to be his deepest game. He indicated this one, which doesn't appear in either of the books by Fine or Hannak. The game did appear in <London Chess Gortnightly> with Lasker's notes. |
|
| Oct-18-14 | | TheFocus: TheFocus: Lasker was once asked what he considered to be his deepest game. He indicated this one, which doesn't appear in either of the books by Fine or Hannak. The game did appear in <The London Chess Fortnightly> with Lasker's notes. |
|
Feb-12-15
 | | chancho: Payback for this game:
L Van Vliet vs Lasker, 1889 |
|
| May-22-16 | | zanzibar: Winter talks about the game here:
http://en.chessbase.com/post/edward... There, the quote is attributed to Lasker, but not really directly, well, here's Winter's description: <C.N. 772 (see page 49 of Chess Explorations) gave a game from one of Walter Penn Shipley’s scrapbooks (whose cut-off point was the early years of the twentieth century). The item was published in an unidentified newspaper, introduced as follows:‘Some years ago Herr Lasker was asked which game he considered his deepest. In reply he instanced the following beautiful partie he won from van Vliet.’> |
|
Jan-27-19
 | | MissScarlett: The paper, it appears, unless given to parrot another, was the <Philadelphia Times> of December 1st 1895, p.9, where the lightly annotated game and above quote appear under the sub-heading: <LASKER'S DEEPEST GAME.> The chess editor isn't identified (I'll look into it), but he's evidently very familiar with the happenings of the Franklin and Mercantile Library clubs. I note that Lasker was present in Philadelphia in 1892 and 1893, so the editor may have heard it from the horse's mouth. |
|
| Jan-27-19 | | ughaibu: So, Lasker considered it his deepest game played up until, at latest, November 1895. Any idea what was meant by "deepest"? |
|
Jan-28-19
 | | Retireborn: <ughaibu> Most calculations, perhaps? Certainly the whole sequence from 18...a5 to 23...Nxe3 must have required plenty of thought. |
|
| Jan-28-19 | | ughaibu: Retireborn: Do you think it required more calculation than Bird vs Lasker, 1892 or more conceptual depth than Lasker vs Steinitz, 1894? It's an interesting choice, but I find it surprising. |
|
Jan-28-19
| | Retireborn: <ughaibu> I'm not at all qualified to make such judgements...one doesn't know how serious Lasker's answer to the query was, but I suppose that a player's favourite(s) amongst his own games are often not the most obvious ones. One recalls Nimzowitsch and his "Pride of the Family". |
|
| Jan-28-19 | | ughaibu: I've also seen it claimed that he said Pillsbury vs Lasker, 1896 was his best combinational game, but that was played after the above news article. Then again, he may well have played Euwe vs Lasker, 1934 late enough to invalidate both earlier claims. As you say, it's impossible to know how serious the comment was. |
|
Jan-28-19
| | MissScarlett: <The chess editor isn't identified (I'll look into it)> Looks like it was Gustavus Charles Reichhelm. He certainly had contact with Lasker in 1892/93 as suggested above: Lasker vs G Reichhelm, 1892 |
|
Dec-30-21
 | | kingscrusher: Wow - fascinating that Lasker describes this as one of his deepest games. Maybe he had the deepest technical calculations. But there was a "Simple chess" solution instead of 21...Ng4 which is the cozy looking Nd5 - which is more intuitive and Nimzovich style in my view, staying away from unnecessary complexity: Louis van Vliet - Emanuel Lasker 0-1 5.0, B.C.A. National 1892
click for larger viewAnalysis by Stockfish 14:
1. ∓ (-1.33): 22.Qb3 a4 23.Qa3 b6 24.Rc1 Qg6 25.Nc3 Nxe3 26.Nxe4 Nd5 27.Nc3 Rxc5 28.Nxd5 Rxc1+ 29.Qxc1 exd5 30.Re2 Bf8 31.Qc7 b5 32.Qb7 Qa6 33.Qxa6 Rxa6 34.Re8 Kg8 35.Rb8 b4 Black is clearly better
(Gavriel, 30.12.2021)
Overall this is also stronger than Ng4 and is another way to prove the instability of White's pawn chain - still targeting e3 but with greater centralisation benefits and more simple undermining to follow such as b6 |
|
| Aug-11-22 | | SymphonicKnight: When Lasker was asked relatively early in his career, in late 1895, which was the "deepest" game of his career thus far, he pointed out this gem with van Vliet from 1892. |
|
| Aug-11-22 | | Cassandro: The question is if Lasker referred to profound calculation as the reason for this assessment, or some deep strategical thought going into this game as opposed to other games. Some will say: strange choice by the 2nd World Champion. Fischer called him a weak player. Fischer was talking out of his a.. |
|
| Aug-12-22 | | 2071 S Milwaukee: ..adams apple?
Sometimes its the moves not played -- trouble avoided -- that make the game deep. We cannot always do as we please on the chess board. Tread lightly. |
|
Kibitzing
sac: 23...Nxe3