|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-02-03 | | ughaibu: This is the other decisive game from the 1910 match. It's said Lasker was winning and Schlechter's sacrifice with a4 was more or less desperation. When I looked at this game before I thought Lasker could still win until quite late, I dont remember at the moment what my exact thoughts were. After Ra8 it looks difficult, I think there was a point when Lasker could have given up his queen for the rook and kept his threatening pawns. |
|
| Dec-05-03 | | PizzatheHut: Could someone help here? The note after move 49 reads "Drawish position". I don't understand this. Black is 2 pawns up. I'm not too good at endgames, so I don't get this. It doesn't seem to be a draw. It looks like either white will win because of his attacking queen and rook, or black because of his 2 extra pawns, but I don't understand how it is a "drawish position". Could someone shed some light on this? |
|
| Dec-05-03 | | Spitecheck: Maybe cause black's king is exposed in a heavy piece ending, makes it difficult for the extra material to count when it moves slow as two pawns do. The odds are great that white will mate or force perpetual check, win back the material. I didn't look at the position that hard that's just some of the reasons why material might not count for much. Possibly the comment is an error also. Scores are often wrong in PGN why wouldn't the comments be. Actually looks as though white ends up winning here.
Spitecheck |
|
| Dec-05-03 | | AdrianP: The comments look to me to be pretty ropey. B looks winning but there are chances for both sides. "drawish position" is probably about as far from the truth as saying white is winning. B will not remain up two pawns for long and W has better K safety (still important in a heavy-piece endgame). 50 Qa2 is awarded a double-exclamation mark in Great Predecessors (Kasparov) and it otherwise looks as if W is going to struggle to draw (let alone win from this position). Incidentally, I would think that this is the sort of position in which most decent computers would crush even a Super-GM. There is absolutely no margin whatsoever for even slight miscalculations. |
|
| Dec-05-03 | | technical draw: At move 49 it might have been a "technical draw" however that is all academic since black blundered: 58..Kc8? 59.Qf8 Qd8 60.Qc5+ and its over. |
|
| Dec-05-03 | | Calli: <Tech> Its already lost, so 58...Kc8 is not a "?". For instance, 58...Qb4 59.Qa7 wins. The losing move is usually given as 54...Qc5? 54...Rb8 is better, although its not clear that Black is actually winning. Tarrasch pointed out that 36.a4! opens the Q-side without the pawn sacrifices Schlechter later made. All in all, a terrific game played "on the edge" by both players. |
|
| Jul-13-04 | | iron maiden: Hannak's biography, which annotates this game, claims that Lasker allowed it to finish in mate: 59. Qf8+ Qd8 60. Qc5+ Qc7 61. Qxc7#. |
|
| Mar-04-05 | | aw1988: Of course, instead of Rb8 Lasker had to give up the queen. |
|
| Jun-27-05 | | dickweed: Just a basic question: can someone provide the line reffered to after 8) .. dxe which leaves white with a pawn up? Since I'm not J.R.C I don't find as obvious :-) Seems to me as if white will loose his own e-pawn after the bishop ends up on c6, lots of tactics involved though. Thnx! |
|
| Jun-28-05 | | vonKrolock: <dickweed> Schlechter himself was dissatisfied with <8.de>, he recommended following: <"8.♗c6 ♗c6 9.de ♘e4 <or 9...de 10.♘e5 ♗e4 11.♕e2! > 10.♘e4 ♗e4 11.♗e7 ♕e7 12.ed ♕d6 13.♕d6 cd 14.♘d4 with a good endgame for white"> <8...♘e5 <"If 8...de, then 9.♖e1 threatening ♗c6"> Carl Schlechter> |
|
| Dec-15-05 | | Isolani: Curiously 31. b4 has a "?" in Pachman's Modern Chess Strategy instead of the "!" as listed above. Pachman recommends 31. a4 instead although he also mentions it should have been played a move earlier. |
|
| Dec-15-05 | | Calli: <Isolani> Its not really curious. Some *idiot* submitted this game with computer comments mixed with Capa's annotations. The 31.b4 "!" and the weird "forced move (all others lose quickly)" and 49... "drawish position" are all stupid computer comments. Pachman and Capablanca are not in disagreement here. <Chessgames> Can the junk annotations be removed? |
|
| Aug-14-06 | | Bufon: Interesting how a great player like Lasker missed the draw here. |
|
| Nov-27-06 | | sfm: Ignore all comments starting with a "-". These are the computer comments mentioned by <Calli> and they make no sense. |
|
| May-13-07 | | problemist: 55. .. c3 was claimed to hold the draw
after 56. ♖c8+ ♔d7 57. ♖xc5 ♖xc5.
Fritz suggests instead 56. ♖a7+ ♔b8 57. ♖xg7, but fails to win after 57. .. d4 58. ♖g8+ ♔c7 59. ♖c8+ ♔d7 60. ♖xc5 ♖xc5 61. ♕a4+ ♔c8 62. ♕xd4 ♖c7 63. ♕e3 c2 64. ♕c1 ♖c4 though he thinks to have an advantage of 3.84. So, is the claim of a draw after 55. .. c3 still valid? |
|
| Mar-02-08 | | Knight13: <10...Nxf3+: If 10...Qxe7 probably 11.Nxd4> Huh? Mistake on Lasker's part or not, it's great that Schletcher cracked open a 10-feet thick concrete wall and smacked on Dr.'s head. |
|
| Mar-02-08 | | sneaky pete: He was known as Schletcher der Gletscher. |
|
| Aug-16-08 | | visayanbraindoctor: This is one of the most crucial games in the history of the Chess World Championship. In a ten game match, this gave Schlecter a one point lead with only 5 games to go, thus changing the whole complexion of the match.
The game is remarkably double-edged. Lasker overcame a slight disadvantage from the opening, slowly outplaying Schlecter. Schlecter, being the outstanding player that he was, fully realized this; and rather than getting squeezed to death, he started a Queenside advance and made a pawn sacrifice in a desperate bid to expose the Black king to checks by his Queen and Rook. (How many super GMs today would not have 'risked' an unclear pawn sacrifice and kept on trying to hold the position with even material, when the pawn sacrifice actually offers the best practical chances for drawing? Schlecter showed remarkable judgment in choosing this plan.) Lasker, seeing the win slipping away, seemed to have lost his equanimity (a very rare occasion for him), also started slipping, and fell into a mating net. Lasker may have been overly criticized for losing this game. He missed this, he missed that. Yet if one plays over double-edged games in recent super GM tournaments, one can very often see much worse errors than Lasker made. Moreover, before he started slipping, the way he slowly outmaneuvered Schlecter to get the advantage is a work of positional genius. |
|
| Sep-11-08 | | The Bycote: Is there any chance that an admin could delete the nonsense computer annotations from this game? |
|
| Oct-16-08 | | Alphastar: I agree with <The Bycote> |
|
| Nov-03-08 | | datachess4: 58...Kc8?? 59.Qf8+ Qd8 60.Qc5+ Qc7 61.Qxc7# |
|
| Dec-08-08 | | hedgeh0g: I heard there was a discussion regarding whether or not Black could hold the draw by sacrificing his Queen for a Rook on move 57. Apparently, White can still win with computer-like precision, but Black has practical drawing chances. Anyone know anything about this? |
|
| Dec-17-08 | | thebribri8: I hate Capablanca's annotations. |
|
| Jan-02-09 | | kevin86: What's with the annotation? It is inconsistant-and at times,stupid. Is this really Capa or a very poor fake? I would suggest Tina Fay or Sarah Palin is doing the commentary-not a chess genius. |
|
Jan-02-09
 | | Phony Benoni: <kevin86> Don't blame Capablanca. See Calli's kibitz from Dec-15-05 and later comments. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 