| Mar-21-03 | | ughaibu: I've been wondering about these 'grandmaster draws'. I dont know if there's an accepted maximum length for a draw to be 'grandmaster' so I've defined it as less than 20 moves. This is the only example of Lasker's in the database (except for a couple where the opponent forced a perpetual) until he was over fifty years old. I wonder how Botvinnik with his seriousness or Morphy with his brief career compare with this. |
|
| Mar-21-03 | | Bears092: I must say that although I'm not quite a grandmaster, I'm guilty of this a little too. In our HS area, we play team tournaments. In one match, our team had a slight lead, and all the other games got over quickly. My game was barely out of the opening, but I was a solid pawn ahead. I looked over at the score sheet, and I offered a draw in a position I could clearly win, but a draw would give us an automatic win, while a loss would mean that we lose. He quickly accepted. |
|
May-10-06
 | | offramp: Quite right, <ughaibu>! Here is the list of Lasker's 14 draws in under 20 moves, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches.... |
|
| Jan-10-09 | | brankat: I wonder how would this record of Dr.Lasker compare to those of the likes of Kramnik, Leko, Svidler...and many other "modern" players :-) |
|
May-28-10
 | | keypusher: Played in the last round, this game secured first prize for Burn and second prize for Lasker. |
|
Jan-16-13
 | | Black Vampire: Hey, guys, am I wrong or the order is just the opposite? I mean, Lasker (White) vs Burn is the right game. I request chessgames.com to change it. |
|
| Jan-16-13 | | TheFocus: It should be Lasker - Burn.
I put in a correction. |
|
| Jan-16-13 | | JimNorCal: Curious then that Lasker was so passive. He was only a half point behind the leader...a win would give him 1st place...he had the White pieces, yet he went for an exchange French. |
|
Jan-17-13
 | | paulalbert: Although I am just guessing, there may have been a couple reasons that Lasker did not show his usual fighting spirit as white ( and I think that it is correct that Lasker was white in this game ): it was his first international tournament and even though he had done well his confidence level of winning against an established master like Burn who was content to play solidly may not have been high, and , being still in 1889 probably quite poor, the second place money probably looked rather good, versus the risk of being knocked lower by a loss ( I don't know what the actual monetary consequences would have been, good research for someone who can afford the time ). Lasker was a fighter, but also pragmatic, but, as I say, just a guess. |
|
Jan-17-13
 | | Phony Benoni: I just checked the tournament book, and Lasker was indeed White in this game. The tournament situation coming into the last round:
Burn: 6.5
Lasker, Mason: 5.5
Van Vliet: 4.5
So Lasker was a full point behind Burn, and winning would only enable him to tie for first. Mason had a bye in this round, while Van Vliet had Black against Loman. (They would eventually agree to a short draw, probably after this game was over.) Lasker had started quickly with three wins in a row before losing to Van Vliet in round 4; he then picked up two more wins, his bye, and a draw. Burn had started slowly with a draw and bye, but was now on a six-game winning streak. The tournament had been played at a rapid pace, with seven games in six days. For those of you who prefer the sordid motive, here are the prizes: 1st 400 f(lorins?)
2nd 225
3rd 125
4th 75
5th 50
By winning, Lasker gets 312.5. A draw guarantees him 225. A loss means a maximum of 175, a minimum of 108.3. Somebody else can figure the exchange rates and mathematical odds. I would incline to <paulalbert>'s view that Lasker had not yet the developed the strength and self-confidence he showed in later years. That's apparent when you look at some of his games and results from this period. Fatigue (he was never a robust young man) and the fact that Burn had all the momentum may also have been factors. So I would attribute his decision to prudence, but if others want to call it cowardice there is nothing in the situation to contradict them. However, looking at Lasker's play later in life paints a much different picture. |
|
Jan-17-13
| | Phony Benoni: Oops. Sorry--Lasker's minimum, had he lost, would have been 141.7. Now you know why I didn't try to do the exchange rates. |
|
Jan-17-13
| | keypusher: <phony benoni>
<1st 400 f(lorins?)> Guilders. But the f abbreviation was derived from the florin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_... |
|
Jan-17-13
| | paulalbert: <Phony Benoni> and <Keypusher>.
As stated the F currency indicator was an abbreviation derived from the ancient coin Florins, but actually meant in the Nederlands in 1889 their currency Guilders. Although such calculations are problematic because of necessary assumptions and significantly changed economic conditions , the 225 Guilders that Lasker won are estimated to have an equivalent purchasing power today of about $3500, not a bad take for a young man still pursuing his academic studies in mathematics. |
|
| Apr-17-14 | | zanzibar: Edward Winter asserts that Burn never beat Lasker, implicitly citing this game. On the other hand, Hannak, in his book "Emanuel Lasker: The Life of a Chess Master" reports- <But [Lasker] lost the decisive game against the British master Burn [...] who went ahead to win the Amsterdam event with seven points out of eight games. Lasker scored only six points and had to be content with the second prize.> Were there any contemporaneous comments made about the game being such a short draw? By the way, if Black had wanted to encourage a quick draw then 14...Bxh3 might had been a little more stylish: 
click for larger viewPlay might continue: 15.gxh3 Nxe5 16.Rxe5 Rxe5 ( or 16...Ng4 17.Bxh7+ Kh8 ) 17.dxe5 Ng4 |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
