| Aug-17-05 | | who: Oddly, Janowski closes the open d-file instead of doubling his rooks on it, throwing away the advantage gained by Lasker's 2nd move, and giving Lasker a chance to double on the c-file. |
|
| Jan-07-07 | | Maatalkko: I think 3.Nf3 is superior to 3. dxe5 |
|
| Mar-02-08 | | Knight13: <1 .d4 d6 2.e4 e5 3.dxe5 dxe5 4.Qxd8+ Kxd8> I bet no one ever does that these days. It's just weird... And I agree with <who>'s comment. |
|
Jun-12-09
 | | FSR: I agree with Maatalkko. I don't think that this ending gives White a meaningful advantage. And given that Janowski's strength was as a tactician, while Lasker was a great endgame player who liked to trade queens (remember St. Petersburg 1914, where he beat Capablanca with the Exchange Lopez with 5.d4, and played 5.Qe2 against Marshall's Petroff), 3.dxe5 is particularly poor choice for Janowski. |
|
Jun-12-09
 | | keypusher: <FSR> Lasker was better at everything than Janowski, except maybe mustaches, but certainly including tactics. He crushes Janowski in one middlegame after another in this match. |
|
Jun-12-09
 | | tamar: Janowski was better at drawing wealthy patrons though. |
|
Apr-07-12
 | | Honza Cervenka: <Knight13: <1 .d4 d6 2.e4 e5 3.dxe5 dxe5 4.Qxd8+ Kxd8> I bet no one ever does that these days. It's just weird...> Opening Explorer |
|
| Oct-24-13 | | Sem: According to Euwe Lasker played the opening quite carelessly and he was lost after Janowski's 10th move. But then his fighting instinct reared its head, the very quality that Euwe so admired in him. |
|
| Apr-17-14 | | mrbasso: That would be a stupid comment from Euwe. I don't see any problem for black. |
|
| Apr-18-14 | | Karpova: The game was adjourned after <31.Ra6>. Source: Dr. Emanuel Lasker, 'Pester Lloyd', 1910.12.09, p. 6 <Sem>
Did Euwe really mean this game and not, perhaps, game 5 Lasker vs Janowski, 1910? |
|
May-14-14
 | | Domdaniel: This particular opening sequence -- 1...d6 with the idea of transposing to the Philidor, Pirc, Old Indian, or Dutch -- has recently become quite popular. This, I presume, is what <Honza> meant by gently indicating Opening Explorer.
The earlier comment by <Knight13> -- "It's just weird" -- is, well, just weird. This opening has recently even been given a name -- The (British) Lion. |
|
| Dec-17-14 | | Ulhumbrus: In his book <Chess secrets I learned from the masters> Edward Lasker says something like this: <Emanuel Lasker had heard that Janowsky had been making derogatory remarks about him and wanted to show that he could play with Janowsky like a cat with a mouse...it did not take him very many moves to outplay Janowsky and win the game> Instead of 5 Nf3 5 Bc4 occupies the a2-g8 diagonal with tempo and Be3 may follow With 5 Nf3 and 6 Nc3 Janowsky brings his knights out before the bishops, as Chernev recommends in his book <Logical chess move by move>, perhaps one of the best books ever written. There is just one little problem with this, however: The reason for bringing out the knights first appears to happen to apply here to the bishops instead of the knights! According to Steinitz that reason is that < You know where you want to place your knights before you know where you want to place your bishops. Certainty is a better friend than doubt> In the present case the opposite seems the case: White knows where he wants his bishops ( ie to take possession of the diagonals a2-g8 and g1-a7) before he knows where he wants to place his knights. So the reverse holds and it is the bishops which White had better bring out first. |
|
| Apr-15-15 | | MindCtrol9: Lasker was comfortable playing anything. |
|
Apr-15-15
 | | offramp: I can hardly believe the first few opening moves. What was Janowsky thinking? I know what Lasker was thinking, "Here's a game I'm not going to lose"! |
|
Kibitzing
